Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, April 4, 2022 (part 17 of 24)

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
15: Douglas Road & Americano Boulevard AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 143 430 50 70 420 140 110 310 80 40 80 180 Future Volume (veh/h) 143 430 50 70 420 140 110 310 80 40 80 180 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 155 467 54 76 457 152 120 337 87 43 87 196 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 165 795 355 117 634 283 188 419 355 114 344 291 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 155 467 54 76 457 152 120 337 87 43 87 196 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.3 5.8 1.4 2.1 6.0 4.3 3.2 8.5 2.2 1.1 2.0 5.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.3 5.8 1.4 2.1 6.0 4.3 3.2 8.5 2.2 1.1 2.0 5.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 165 795 355 117 634 283 188 419 355 114 344 291 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 0.59 0.15 0.65 0.72 0.54 0.64 0.81 0.25 0.38 0.25 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 165 1798 802 180 1769 789 826 867 735 934 980 831 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.4 17.2 15.5 22.6 19.2 18.5 21.3 18.2 15.8 22.3 17.3 18.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 51.5 0.3 0.1 6.0 0.6 0.6 1.3 1.4 0.1 0.8 0.1 1.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.8 1.8 0.4 0.9 2.0 1.5 1.3 3.4 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 73.9 17.5 15.5 28.7 19.8 19.1 22.6 19.6 15.9 23.1 17.5 19.9 LnGrp LOS E B B C B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 676 685 544 326
Approach Delay, s/veh 30.2 20.6 19.7 19.6
Approach LOS C C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.0 14.3 10.6 14.6 7.7 16.6 8.7 16.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 5.4 * 5.5 5.4 * 5.5 4.5 * 5.5 5.5 * 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 4.6 * 25 23.0 * 26 5.0 * 25 26.0 * 23 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.3 8.0 5.2 7.7 4.1 7.8 3.1 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2629 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
16: Sunrise Blvd & Jackson Rd/SR-16 AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 16
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 240 321 20 145 765 330 10 1620 212 100 1180 520 Future Volume (veh/h) 240 321 20 145 765 330 10 1620 212 100 1180 520 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 349 22 158 832 359 11 1761 230 109 1283 565 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 164 591 501 182 609 516 39 1220 544 134 1409 774 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.33 0.33 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 349 22 158 832 359 11 1761 230 109 1283 565 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 21.3 1.3 11.9 44.2 26.8 0.8 46.6 15.1 8.2 46.3 38.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 21.3 1.3 11.9 44.2 26.8 0.8 46.6 15.1 8.2 46.3 38.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 591 501 182 609 516 39 1220 544 134 1409 774 V/C Ratio(X) 1.59 0.59 0.04 0.87 1.37 0.70 0.28 1.44 0.42 0.81 0.91 0.73 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 164 591 501 221 609 516 249 1220 544 322 1409 774 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.6 39.0 32.2 60.0 45.8 39.9 65.3 44.6 34.2 61.8 38.7 27.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 292.7 1.1 0.0 22.8 175.0 3.4 1.4 204.1 0.2 4.5 8.9 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln18.8 9.5 0.5 6.3 49.0 10.4 0.4 53.9 5.6 3.7 20.5 14.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 354.3 40.1 32.2 82.8 220.7 43.3 66.7 248.6 34.4 66.3 47.6 30.6 LnGrp LOS F D C F F D E F C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 632 1349 2002 1957
Approach Delay, s/veh 169.6 157.4 223.0 43.7
Approach LOS F F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s17.0 51.0 7.5 60.2 18.3 49.7 14.7 53.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.8 4.5 * 6.4 4.5 6.8 4.5 6.4 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s12.5 44.2 19.0 * 53 16.8 39.9 24.5 46.6 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s14.5 46.2 2.8 48.3 13.9 23.3 10.2 48.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 143.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2630 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
17: Grant Line Rd & Jackson Rd/SR-16 AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 283 370 10 80 920 221 10 943 50 132 729 350 Future Volume (veh/h) 283 370 10 80 920 221 10 943 50 132 729 350 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 308 402 11 87 1000 240 11 1025 54 143 792 380 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 184 914 25 107 672 161 13 778 41 101 643 308 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.06 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1812 50 1781 1458 350 1781 3434 181 1781 2332 1115 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 308 0 413 87 0 1240 11 530 549 143 603 569 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1861 1781 0 1807 1781 1777 1838 1781 1777 1670 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.5 0.0 21.2 7.2 0.0 69.2 0.9 34.0 34.0 8.5 41.4 41.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 0.0 21.2 7.2 0.0 69.2 0.9 34.0 34.0 8.5 41.4 41.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.67
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 0 939 107 0 834 13 403 417 101 490 461 V/C Ratio(X) 1.67 0.00 0.44 0.81 0.00 1.49 0.84 1.32 1.32 1.42 1.23 1.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 184 0 939 177 0 834 59 403 417 101 490 461 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.3 0.0 23.7 69.7 0.0 40.4 74.4 58.0 58.0 70.7 54.3 54.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 325.6 0.0 0.1 5.5 0.0 225.6 37.8 159.2 158.8 235.7 120.2 123.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln23.5 0.0 8.9 3.4 0.0 80.8 0.6 32.5 33.6 10.4 34.1 32.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 392.9 0.0 23.8 75.2 0.0 266.0 112.2 217.2 216.8 306.5 174.5 177.7 LnGrp LOS F A C E A F F F F F F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 721 1327 1090 1315
Approach Delay, s/veh 181.4 253.5 215.9 190.2
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.0 76.0 5.6 48.4 13.5 82.5 13.0 41.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.8 4.5 * 7 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.5 69.2 5.0 * 38 14.9 * 70 8.5 34.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s17.5 71.2 2.9 43.4 9.2 23.2 10.5 36.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 214.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2631 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
18: Grant Line Rd & Kiefer Blvd AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 192 10 190 20 20 170 180 1057 20 50 921 125 Future Volume (veh/h) 192 10 190 20 20 170 180 1057 20 50 921 125 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 209 11 207 22 22 185 196 1149 22 54 1001 136 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 276 384 325 45 282 239 276 1430 638 142 1430 638 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.08 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 209 11 207 22 22 185 196 1149 22 54 1001 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.7 0.3 7.5 0.8 0.6 7.0 3.5 17.9 0.5 1.8 14.7 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.7 0.3 7.5 0.8 0.6 7.0 3.5 17.9 0.5 1.8 14.7 3.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 276 384 325 45 282 239 276 1430 638 142 1430 638 V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.03 0.64 0.49 0.08 0.77 0.71 0.80 0.03 0.38 0.70 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 276 537 455 142 537 455 276 1758 784 512 2495 1113 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.2 19.9 22.8 30.1 22.9 25.6 28.1 16.5 11.3 27.4 15.6 12.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.5 0.0 2.1 7.9 0.1 5.3 8.3 2.3 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.9 0.1 2.6 0.4 0.3 2.7 1.6 5.9 0.2 0.7 4.6 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.7 19.9 24.8 38.0 23.0 30.9 36.4 18.8 11.4 29.0 16.2 12.4 LnGrp LOS D B C D C C D B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 427 229 1367 1191
Approach Delay, s/veh 32.0 30.8 21.2 16.4
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.5 29.7 6.1 17.4 9.5 29.7 9.5 14.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.0 44.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 31.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.5 16.7 2.8 9.5 3.8 19.9 5.7 9.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 5.3 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5
HCM 6th LOS C
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2632 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
19: Grant Line Rd & Douglas Road AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 400 120 110 60 250 58 240 1412 80 56 1055 200 Future Volume (veh/h) 400 120 110 60 250 58 240 1412 80 56 1055 200 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 435 130 120 65 272 63 261 1535 87 61 1147 217 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 456 237 219 84 264 61 327 1607 717 78 1424 635 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 895 826 1781 1469 340 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 435 0 250 65 0 335 261 1535 87 61 1147 217 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1722 1781 0 1809 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.9 0.0 12.9 3.7 0.0 18.5 7.6 42.9 3.3 3.5 29.4 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.9 0.0 12.9 3.7 0.0 18.5 7.6 42.9 3.3 3.5 29.4 9.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.48 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 456 0 456 84 0 325 327 1607 717 78 1424 635 V/C Ratio(X) 0.95 0.00 0.55 0.78 0.00 1.03 0.80 0.96 0.12 0.78 0.81 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 456 0 456 116 0 325 671 1677 748 86 1424 635 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.4 0.0 32.6 48.5 0.0 42.2 45.7 27.2 16.4 48.7 27.3 21.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 30.5 0.0 0.8 19.6 0.0 58.1 1.7 12.5 0.0 32.7 3.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.1 0.0 5.1 2.1 0.0 13.4 3.2 18.6 1.1 2.2 11.8 3.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.8 0.0 33.4 68.1 0.0 100.4 47.4 39.7 16.4 81.4 30.6 21.6 LnGrp LOS E A C E A F D D B F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 685 400 1883 1425
Approach Delay, s/veh 59.7 95.1 39.7 31.4
Approach LOS E F D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.3 47.4 18.1 23.2 9.0 52.7 9.3 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.6 * 6.1 4.5 * 4.7 4.5 * 6.1 4.5 * 4.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 20 * 33 13.6 * 19 5.0 * 49 6.7 * 25 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s9.6 31.4 14.9 20.5 5.5 44.9 5.7 14.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 45.2
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2633 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
20: Grant Line Rd & Raymer Way AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 494 30 201 80 20 290 140 1840 90 240 1090 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 494 30 201 80 20 290 140 1840 90 240 1090 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 537 33 218 87 22 315 152 2000 98 261 1185 234 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 286 18 116 172 44 190 174 1469 655 184 1490 664 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 1176 72 477 1436 363 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 788 0 0 109 0 315 152 2000 98 261 1185 234 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1726 0 0 1799 0 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 36.5 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 18.0 12.6 62.0 5.8 15.5 43.6 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 36.5 0.0 0.0 8.5 0.0 18.0 12.6 62.0 5.8 15.5 43.6 15.1 Prop In Lane 0.68 0.28 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 420 0 0 216 0 190 174 1469 655 184 1490 664 V/C Ratio(X) 1.88 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 1.66 0.88 1.36 0.15 1.42 0.80 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 420 0 0 216 0 190 178 1469 655 184 1490 664 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.8 0.0 0.0 61.8 0.0 66.0 66.8 44.0 27.5 67.3 38.0 29.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 403.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 317.5 34.7 167.2 0.1 216.9 3.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln62.9 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 24.1 7.3 59.7 2.2 17.9 18.6 5.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 460.2 0.0 0.0 63.7 0.0 383.5 101.5 211.2 27.6 284.1 41.0 30.0 LnGrp LOS F A A E A F F F C F D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 788 424 2250 1680
Approach Delay, s/veh 460.2 301.3 195.8 77.3
Approach LOS F F F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.0 66.5 41.0 19.1 67.4 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.5 62.0 36.5 15.0 62.5 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s17.5 64.0 38.5 14.6 45.6 20.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 206.3
HCM 6th LOS F
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2634 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
21: Grant Line Rd/White Rock Rd & White Rock Road AM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 21
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 480 277 510 2184 1278 1280
Future Volume (veh/h) 480 277 510 2184 1278 1280
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 522 301 554 2374 1389 1391
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 593 655 430 2526 1484 934
Arrive On Green 0.17 0.17 0.24 0.71 0.42 0.42
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1585 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 522 301 554 2374 1389 1391
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1585 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 15.6 14.5 25.5 61.4 39.5 44.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.6 14.5 25.5 61.4 39.5 44.1
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 593 655 430 2526 1484 934
V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.46 1.29 0.94 0.94 1.49
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1390 1020 430 2537 1484 934
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.7 22.5 40.1 13.3 29.4 18.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.2 146.4 7.6 11.3 226.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.7 0.0 27.8 18.7 17.2 82.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.4 22.6 186.4 20.9 40.7 244.0
LnGrp LOS D C F C D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 823 2928 2780
Approach Delay, s/veh 36.5 52.2 142.4
Approach LOS D D F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s31.0 51.0 23.6 82.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 6.9 5.5 * 6.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s25.5 * 44 42.5 * 75
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s27.5 46.1 17.6 63.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 5.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 88.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2635 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
22: White Rock Rd & Prairie City Rd AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 22
Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1021 1633 0 1871 360 80 637
Future Volume (veh/h) 1021 1633 0 1871 360 80 637
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1110 1775 2034 391 87 692
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 917 2684 1618 722 291 259
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.76 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 3647 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1110 1775 2034 391 87 692
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1777 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 39.8 36.6 68.3 26.8 6.4 24.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 39.8 36.6 68.3 26.8 6.4 24.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 917 2684 1618 722 291 259
V/C Ratio(X) 1.21 0.66 1.26 0.54 0.30 2.67
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 917 2684 1618 722 291 259
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 55.1 9.0 40.9 29.5 55.2 62.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 105.0 0.5 120.9 0.5 0.2 763.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln30.0 11.2 54.9 9.8 2.8 64.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 160.1 9.5 161.7 30.0 55.4 826.5
LnGrp LOS F A F C E F
Approach Vol, veh/h 2885 2425 779
Approach Delay, s/veh 67.4 140.5 740.4
Approach LOS E F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s45.0 75.0 120.0 30.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 5.2 * 6.7 * 6.7 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 40 * 68 * 1E2 24.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s41.8 70.3 38.6 26.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 182.6
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2636 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
1: Mather Field Rd & US-50 WB Ramps PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 590 0 490 0 1300 1670 0 960 620 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 590 0 490 0 1300 1670 0 960 620 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 587 76 533 0 1413 0 0 1043 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 727 81 570 0 1848 0 1848
Arrive On Green 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 199 1397 0 5274 1585 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 587 0 609 0 1413 0 0 1043 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1596 0 1702 1585 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 0.0 15.7 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 0.0 15.7 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.88 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 727 0 652 0 1848 0 1848
V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.56
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 727 0 652 0 2666 0 2749
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.2 0.0 12.2 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 6.2 0.0 20.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 0.0 7.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 17.5 0.0 32.7 0.0 12.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A C A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1196 1413 A 1043 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.2 12.6 11.1
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.6 20.6 22.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 5.0 4.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 23 22.5 17.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.1 12.5 17.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.3 3.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2637 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
2: Mather Field Rd & US-50 EB Ramps PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 580 0 820 0 0 0 0 2320 890 0 1050 300 Future Volume (veh/h) 580 0 820 0 0 0 0 2320 890 0 1050 300 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 948 0 550 0 2522 0 0 1141 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1255 0 557 0 2810 0 2810
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1581 0 5443 0 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 948 0 550 0 2522 0 0 1141 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1581 0 1702 0 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 25.1 0.0 36.9 0.0 46.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 0.0 36.9 0.0 46.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1255 0 557 0 2810 0 2810
V/C Ratio(X) 0.76 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1255 0 557 0 3922 0 3946
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.5 0.0 34.3 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.0 34.8 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln11.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.9 0.0 69.1 0.0 23.2 0.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A E A C A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1498 2522 A 1141 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 46.2 23.2 13.9
Approach LOS D C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 63.7 43.0 63.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 * 5.4 5.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 83 * 38 82.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.8 38.9 48.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 0.0 9.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.8
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2638 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
3: Mather Field Rd & International Dr PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 3
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1840 250 210 2410 690 290
Future Volume (veh/h) 1840 250 210 2410 690 290
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 2000 0 228 2620 750 315
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 2382 261 3413 826 379
Arrive On Green 0.47 0.00 0.15 0.67 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 5443 0 1781 5274 3456 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 2000 0 228 2620 750 315
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1702 0 1781 1702 1728 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 31.6 0.0 11.5 32.1 19.4 17.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.6 0.0 11.5 32.1 19.4 17.4
Prop In Lane 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2382 261 3413 826 379
V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.87 0.77 0.91 0.83
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2420 265 3463 1093 501
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.5 0.0 38.4 10.4 34.0 33.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.0 24.6 1.3 7.6 6.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln11.7 0.0 6.6 9.2 8.5 7.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.6 0.0 63.0 11.6 41.7 40.0
LnGrp LOS C E B D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2000 A 2848 1065
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.6 15.7 41.2
Approach LOS C B D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 66.5 18.6 47.9 25.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 * 5.1 5.0 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.4 * 14 43.6 29.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 34.1 13.5 33.6 21.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 27.1 0.0 9.3 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2639 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
4: Zinfandel Dr & US-50 WB Ramps PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 790 0 450 0 1862 1762 0 1133 620 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 790 0 450 0 1862 1762 0 1133 620 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 859 0 489 0 2024 0 0 1232 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1200 0 550 0 2275 0 2275
Arrive On Green 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 0 1585 0 5274 2790 0 5274 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 859 0 489 0 2024 0 0 1232 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1585 0 1702 1395 0 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1200 0 550 0 2275 0 2275
V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1220 0 560 0 2373 0 2373
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.5 0.0 13.5 0.0 11.2 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 0.0 6.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.4 0.0 29.4 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A C A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1348 2024 A 1232 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 19.9 15.5 9.0
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.2 24.2 19.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.4 20.4 15.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 18.0 9.7 14.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 2.6 0.5
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2640 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
5: Zinfandel Dr & US-50 EB Ramps & Gold Center Dr PM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Page 1
Movement EBL2 EBL EBT EBR WBR WBR2 NBT NBR NBR2 SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 900 10 160 981 740 130 2034 460 10 1353 140 Future Volume (vph) 900 10 160 981 740 130 2034 460 10 1353 140 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.0
Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.86 0.91 0.88 0.86 0.91 1.00
Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97
Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.97 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1610 2797 1409 2787 6202 5085 1540
Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 1610 2797 1409 2787 6202 5085 1540
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 978 11 174 1066 804 141 2211 500 11 1471 152 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 26 38 59 0 1 0 0 0 0
Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 979 691 495 886 0 2721 0 0 1471 152 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 11 11 3 3 11
Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 8 5
Turn Type Split Split NA Perm Prot NA NA Free
Protected Phases 4 4 4 5 6 2
Permitted Phases 4 Free
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.2 37.2 37.2 26.5 40.4 71.4 120.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.2 37.2 37.2 26.5 40.4 71.4 120.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.34 0.60 1.00
Clearance Time (s) 6.8 6.8 6.8 4.5 4.6 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 499 867 436 615 2088 3025 1540
v/s Ratio Prot c0.61 0.25 c0.32 c0.44 0.29
v/s Ratio Perm 0.35 0.10
v/c Ratio 1.96 1.15dr 1.14 1.44 1.30 0.49 0.10
Uniform Delay, d1 41.4 37.9 41.4 46.8 39.8 13.8 0.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 440.1 4.8 85.6 207.3 140.1 0.0 0.1 Delay (s) 481.5 42.8 127.0 254.0 179.9 13.9 0.1
Level of Service F D F F F B A
Approach Delay (s) 255.6 179.9 12.6
Approach LOS F F B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 175.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.57
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 15.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 113.8% ICU Level of Service H Analysis Period (min) 15
dr Defacto Right Lane. Recode with 1 though lane as a right lane. c Critical Lane Group
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2641 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
6: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 690 300 40 170 190 714 70 1270 20 534 1660 310 Future Volume (veh/h) 690 300 40 170 190 714 70 1270 20 534 1660 310 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 750 326 43 185 207 776 76 1380 22 580 1804 337 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 531 1382 178 235 401 1230 118 1497 24 623 2224 685 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 4572 588 3563 1870 3070 3456 5175 83 3456 5106 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 750 241 128 185 207 776 76 908 494 580 1804 337 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1702 1756 1781 1870 1535 1728 1702 1854 1728 1702 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 21.5 7.4 7.7 7.2 13.7 28.6 3.0 36.2 36.2 23.1 43.1 21.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 21.5 7.4 7.7 7.2 13.7 28.6 3.0 36.2 36.2 23.1 43.1 21.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 531 1029 531 235 401 1230 118 985 536 623 2224 685 V/C Ratio(X) 1.41 0.23 0.24 0.79 0.52 0.63 0.64 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.81 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 531 1029 531 430 401 1230 128 1105 601 654 2412 743 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.2 36.7 36.8 64.4 48.5 34.3 66.7 48.2 48.2 56.5 34.5 28.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 196.6 0.0 0.1 2.2 0.5 0.8 6.6 11.0 17.7 19.0 1.8 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln23.7 3.1 3.3 3.3 6.3 10.5 1.4 16.5 19.0 11.5 17.4 7.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 255.8 36.7 36.8 66.6 49.1 35.1 73.3 59.2 65.8 75.5 36.3 28.6 LnGrp LOS F D D E D D E E E E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1119 1168 1478 2721
Approach Delay, s/veh 183.5 42.6 62.1 43.7
Approach LOS F D E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.3 66.6 27.0 36.0 30.7 46.2 14.7 48.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.7 5.5 * 6 5.5 * 5.7 5.5 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.2 * 66 21.5 * 30 26.5 * 45 16.9 * 34 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.0 45.1 23.5 30.6 25.1 38.2 9.2 9.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 71.8
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2642 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
7: Zinfandel Dr & International Dr PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 590 1430 760 970 970 210 1220 950 440 180 1520 420 Future Volume (veh/h) 590 1430 760 970 970 210 1220 950 440 180 1520 420 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 641 1554 826 1054 1054 228 1326 1033 478 196 1652 457 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 541 920 416 369 1127 336 679 2034 616 241 1078 292 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3404 1539 3456 5106 1522 3456 5106 1547 3456 3966 1074 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 641 1554 826 1054 1054 228 1326 1033 478 196 1413 696 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1702 1539 1728 1702 1522 1728 1702 1547 1728 1702 1636 Q Serve(g_s), s 22.7 39.2 39.2 15.5 29.4 19.9 28.5 22.1 39.0 8.1 39.4 39.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.7 39.2 39.2 15.5 29.4 19.9 28.5 22.1 39.0 8.1 39.4 39.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 541 920 416 369 1127 336 679 2034 616 241 925 445 V/C Ratio(X) 1.18 1.69 1.99 2.85 0.94 0.68 1.95 0.51 0.78 0.81 1.53 1.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 541 920 416 369 1127 336 679 2034 616 274 925 445 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.2 52.9 52.9 64.8 55.5 51.8 58.3 32.9 38.0 66.5 52.8 52.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 100.8 314.6 452.0 841.4 13.8 4.5 433.9 0.1 5.6 13.3 242.8 265.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln17.3 56.5 67.0 49.9 13.7 7.9 53.1 8.9 15.3 4.0 47.6 48.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 161.9 367.5 504.9 906.1 69.3 56.3 492.1 33.0 43.6 79.8 295.6 318.3 LnGrp LOS F F F F E E F C D E F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 3021 2336 2837 2305
Approach Delay, s/veh 361.5 445.6 249.4 284.1
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s34.0 45.0 28.2 37.8 15.6 63.4 21.0 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.5 * 5.6 5.5 5.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s28.5 * 39 22.7 32.0 11.5 * 56 15.5 39.2 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s30.5 41.4 24.7 31.4 10.1 41.0 17.5 41.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 332.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2643 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
8: Sunrise Blvd & Zinfandel Dr PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 190 30 180 60 20 60 360 3226 20 70 2870 120 Future Volume (veh/h) 190 30 180 60 20 60 360 3226 20 70 2870 120 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 207 33 196 65 22 65 391 3507 22 76 3120 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 255 41 258 173 39 116 280 2631 16 84 2380 732 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 1546 247 1568 1781 404 1195 3456 5235 33 1781 5106 1571 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 0 196 65 0 87 391 2278 1251 76 3120 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1793 0 1568 1781 0 1599 1728 1702 1864 1781 1702 1571 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.2 0.0 13.1 3.8 0.0 5.7 8.9 55.2 55.2 4.7 51.2 5.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 0.0 13.1 3.8 0.0 5.7 8.9 55.2 55.2 4.7 51.2 5.3 Prop In Lane 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 0 258 173 0 155 280 1710 937 84 2380 732 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.76 0.38 0.00 0.56 1.40 1.33 1.34 0.90 1.31 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 522 0 457 519 0 466 280 1710 937 84 2380 732 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.2 0.0 43.8 46.5 0.0 47.4 50.5 27.3 27.3 52.1 29.3 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 1.2 198.8 153.3 158.6 64.9 143.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.4 0.0 5.2 1.7 0.0 2.3 11.5 56.4 63.1 3.5 50.4 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.3 0.0 45.5 47.0 0.0 48.5 249.3 180.6 185.9 116.9 172.4 17.1 LnGrp LOS D A D D A D F F F F F B
Approach Vol, veh/h 436 152 3920 3326
Approach Delay, s/veh 45.9 47.9 189.2 165.1
Approach LOS D D F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s14.0 56.1 23.6 10.0 60.1 16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 5.1 * 4.9 5.5 * 4.8 * 4.9 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 8.9 * 51 32.0 * 5.2 * 55 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s10.9 53.2 16.2 6.7 57.2 7.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 168.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2644 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
9: Sunrise Blvd & US-50 WB Ramps PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 0 450 0 2996 530 0 1810 1270 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 320 0 450 0 2996 530 0 1810 1270 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 0 489 0 3257 0 0 1967 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 781 0 631 0 3594 0 3271
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 0 2790 0 5611 1585 0 5274 2790
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 0 489 0 3257 0 0 1967 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 0 1395 0 1870 1585 0 1702 1395 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.2 0.0 11.7 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.2 0.0 11.7 0.0 35.4 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 781 0 631 0 3594 0 3271
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.60
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1091 0 881 0 3803 0 3440
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.7 0.0 25.9 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.0 3.9 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.1 0.0 28.8 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A C A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 837 3257 A 1967 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.8 14.3 7.7
Approach LOS C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 50.6 50.6 20.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 5 5.0 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 48 48.0 22.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 37.4 18.0 13.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 8.2 6.2 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2645 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
10: Sunrise Blvd & US-50 EB Ramps PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 10
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1160 0 330 0 0 0 0 2866 520 0 1270 380 Future Volume (veh/h) 1160 0 330 0 0 0 0 2866 520 0 1270 380 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 0 1870 0 1870 1870 0 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1261 0 359 0 3115 0 0 1380 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1698 0 943 0 3616 0 2712
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 5023 0 2790 0 7481 1585 0 5611 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1261 0 359 0 3115 0 0 1380 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1674 0 1395 0 1870 1585 0 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.4 0.0 5.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.4 0.0 5.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1698 0 943 0 3616 0 2712
V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2000 0 1111 0 3735 0 2758
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.1 0.0 12.9 0.0 11.8 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln3.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.3 0.0 13.2 0.0 13.9 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A B A B A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 1620 3115 A 1380 A
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.6 13.9 9.2
Approach LOS B B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.6 21.9 29.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.7 4.5 4.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 20.5 25.3
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.0 13.4 10.7
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.9 4.0 3.3
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, SBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2646 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
11: Sunrise Blvd & Folsom Blvd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 11
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 550 540 130 210 380 250 140 1826 270 250 1370 250 Future Volume (veh/h) 550 540 130 210 380 250 140 1826 270 250 1370 250 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 598 587 141 228 478 228 152 1985 293 272 1489 272 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 386 925 405 300 871 361 162 2020 491 342 1870 578 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1556 3563 3741 1552 3456 6434 1563 3456 5106 1579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 598 587 141 228 478 228 152 1985 293 272 1489 272 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1556 1781 1870 1552 1728 1609 1563 1728 1702 1579 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 13.8 6.9 5.9 10.6 12.4 4.1 28.8 14.9 7.2 24.5 12.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 13.8 6.9 5.9 10.6 12.4 4.1 28.8 14.9 7.2 24.5 12.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 386 925 405 300 871 361 162 2020 491 342 1870 578 V/C Ratio(X) 1.55 0.63 0.35 0.76 0.55 0.63 0.94 0.98 0.60 0.79 0.80 0.47 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 386 1214 531 398 1274 528 162 2020 491 496 1929 596 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.7 30.8 28.3 42.1 31.7 32.4 44.7 32.0 27.2 41.4 26.7 22.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 259.6 1.1 0.8 3.9 0.9 3.1 52.7 16.1 1.6 3.3 2.7 1.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln18.3 5.9 2.6 2.7 4.8 4.9 2.9 12.6 5.6 3.1 9.6 4.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 301.3 31.9 29.0 46.0 32.6 35.5 97.4 48.1 28.8 44.7 29.4 24.0 LnGrp LOS F C C D C D F D C D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1326 934 2430 2033
Approach Delay, s/veh 153.1 36.6 48.8 30.7
Approach LOS F D D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.9 40.2 16.0 27.9 14.8 35.3 13.4 30.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s4.4 * 36 10.5 32.0 13.5 * 26 10.5 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s6.1 26.5 12.5 14.4 9.2 30.8 7.9 15.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 7.9 0.0 6.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 5.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.2
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2647 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
12: Sunrise Blvd & White Rock Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 12
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 410 1296 300 500 685 496 300 1000 200 470 1540 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 410 1296 300 500 685 496 300 1000 200 470 1540 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 1683 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 446 1409 326 543 745 539 326 1087 217 511 1674 141 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 474 1081 480 375 1407 436 247 1242 383 354 1401 432 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 3110 3198 1419 3110 4595 1424 3110 4595 1417 3110 4595 1418 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 446 1409 326 543 745 539 326 1087 217 511 1674 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1555 1599 1419 1555 1532 1424 1555 1532 1417 1555 1532 1418 Q Serve(g_s), s 20.6 49.0 28.6 17.5 19.5 44.4 11.5 32.8 19.1 16.5 44.2 11.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 20.6 49.0 28.6 17.5 19.5 44.4 11.5 32.8 19.1 16.5 44.2 11.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 474 1081 480 375 1407 436 247 1242 383 354 1401 432 V/C Ratio(X) 0.94 1.30 0.68 1.45 0.53 1.24 1.32 0.87 0.57 1.44 1.20 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 474 1081 480 375 1407 436 247 1249 385 354 1401 432 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 60.8 48.0 41.3 63.8 41.6 50.3 66.7 50.6 45.6 64.3 50.4 38.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 26.8 143.5 4.9 215.5 1.1 124.8 170.2 7.6 3.1 215.1 95.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln9.7 40.4 10.4 18.0 7.4 30.4 10.3 13.1 6.9 17.0 28.7 3.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 87.6 191.5 46.2 279.2 42.7 175.1 237.0 58.2 48.7 279.4 145.4 39.8 LnGrp LOS F F D F D F F E D F F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2181 1827 1630 2326
Approach Delay, s/veh 148.5 152.1 92.7 168.4
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s17.0 50.0 27.6 50.4 22.0 45.0 23.0 55.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s11.5 * 44 22.1 44.4 16.5 * 39 17.5 49.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s13.5 46.2 22.6 46.4 18.5 34.8 19.5 51.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 143.7
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2648 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
13: Zinfandel Dr & Douglas Road PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 13
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 130 523 30 151 552 590 20 270 253 1430 730 610 Future Volume (veh/h) 130 523 30 151 552 590 20 270 253 1430 730 610 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 141 568 33 164 600 641 22 293 275 1554 793 663 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 113 859 50 188 1229 382 27 231 217 1022 1923 858 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.54 0.54 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3408 198 3456 5106 1585 1781 887 833 3456 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 141 296 305 164 600 641 22 0 568 1554 793 663 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1829 1728 1702 1585 1781 0 1720 1728 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 22.5 22.5 7.1 15.2 36.2 1.9 0.0 39.2 44.5 19.8 49.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 22.5 22.5 7.1 15.2 36.2 1.9 0.0 39.2 44.5 19.8 49.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 448 461 188 1229 382 27 0 448 1022 1923 858 V/C Ratio(X) 1.25 0.66 0.66 0.87 0.49 1.68 0.80 0.00 1.27 1.52 0.41 0.77 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 113 448 461 188 1229 382 72 0 448 1022 1923 858 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 70.5 50.5 50.5 70.6 49.1 57.1 73.8 0.0 55.6 53.0 20.4 27.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 167.7 2.9 2.8 31.7 0.1 317.3 17.7 0.0 136.7 239.0 0.1 4.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln9.5 10.0 10.3 3.9 6.3 47.8 1.0 0.0 33.6 52.7 8.0 18.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 238.2 53.3 53.4 102.2 49.2 374.4 91.6 0.0 192.3 291.9 20.4 31.2 LnGrp LOS F D D F D F F A F F C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 742 1405 590 3010
Approach Delay, s/veh 88.5 203.8 188.6 163.0
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s15.0 41.1 7.8 86.5 13.3 42.8 50.0 44.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 4.9 5.5 * 5.1 * 5.1 * 4.9 5.5 * 5.1 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s9.5 * 36 6.1 * 77 * 8.2 * 38 44.5 * 39 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s11.5 38.2 3.9 51.6 9.1 24.5 46.5 41.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 166.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2649 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
14: Sunrise Blvd & Douglas Road PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 14
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 610 1281 630 190 556 320 450 1030 80 370 2680 220 Future Volume (veh/h) 610 1281 630 190 556 320 450 1030 80 370 2680 220 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 663 1392 685 207 604 348 489 1120 87 402 2913 239 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 393 1517 471 155 1165 357 298 1813 556 448 2034 631 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.09 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1564 3456 5106 1565 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 663 1392 685 207 604 348 489 1120 87 402 2913 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1564 1728 1702 1565 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.5 38.2 43.1 6.5 15.0 32.0 12.5 26.3 5.5 16.6 57.8 15.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 16.5 38.2 43.1 6.5 15.0 32.0 12.5 26.3 5.5 16.6 57.8 15.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 393 1517 471 155 1165 357 298 1813 556 448 2034 631 V/C Ratio(X) 1.69 0.92 1.45 1.34 0.52 0.98 1.64 0.62 0.16 0.90 1.43 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 393 1517 471 155 1165 357 298 1813 556 588 2034 631 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 64.3 49.3 51.0 69.3 49.0 55.6 66.3 38.7 32.0 62.2 43.6 30.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 320.1 9.0 216.3 188.8 0.2 40.7 303.9 0.5 0.0 11.8 197.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln24.5 16.8 44.6 6.9 6.2 16.2 17.9 10.6 2.0 7.8 60.0 5.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 384.4 58.3 267.3 258.1 49.2 96.3 370.2 39.1 32.0 74.0 241.0 31.1 LnGrp LOS F E F F D F F D C E F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 2740 1159 1696 3554
Approach Delay, s/veh 189.5 100.7 134.2 208.0
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s24.3 58.9 12.0 49.9 18.0 65.2 22.0 39.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 7.4 5.5 * 6.8 5.5 * 7.4 5.5 6.8 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s24.7 * 46 6.5 * 43 12.5 * 58 16.5 33.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s18.6 28.3 8.5 45.1 14.5 59.8 18.5 34.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 175.2
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2650 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
15: Douglas Road & Americano Boulevard PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 15
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 325 660 100 70 420 30 50 100 80 140 310 246 Future Volume (veh/h) 325 660 100 70 420 30 50 100 80 140 310 246 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 353 717 109 76 457 33 54 109 87 152 337 267 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 397 1226 547 102 589 263 108 298 253 204 402 341 Arrive On Green 0.22 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 353 717 109 76 457 33 54 109 87 152 337 267 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.5 10.7 3.1 2.7 8.0 1.2 1.9 3.4 3.2 5.4 11.2 10.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.5 10.7 3.1 2.7 8.0 1.2 1.9 3.4 3.2 5.4 11.2 10.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 397 1226 547 102 589 263 108 298 253 204 402 341 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.58 0.20 0.74 0.78 0.13 0.50 0.37 0.34 0.75 0.84 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 428 1791 799 203 1298 579 632 663 562 714 750 635 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.4 17.4 14.9 30.1 25.9 23.1 29.5 24.3 24.2 27.8 24.4 24.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.0 0.2 0.1 10.1 0.8 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.3 2.0 1.8 1.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln6.4 3.5 1.1 1.3 3.0 0.4 0.8 1.4 1.1 2.3 4.8 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.5 17.6 15.0 40.2 26.8 23.1 30.9 24.6 24.5 29.9 26.2 25.5 LnGrp LOS D B B D C C C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1179 566 250 756
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.8 28.3 25.9 26.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.9 16.2 9.3 19.4 8.2 27.9 12.9 15.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 5.4 * 5.5 5.4 * 5.5 4.5 * 5.5 5.5 * 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 16 * 24 23.0 * 26 7.4 * 33 26.0 * 23 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s14.5 10.0 3.9 13.2 4.7 12.7 7.4 5.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.2 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2651 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
16: Sunrise Blvd & Jackson Rd/SR-16 PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 16
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 500 835 20 183 383 200 10 960 175 300 1680 290 Future Volume (veh/h) 500 835 20 183 383 200 10 960 175 300 1680 290 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 543 908 22 199 416 217 11 1043 190 326 1826 315 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 279 632 536 113 458 388 36 997 445 303 1530 931 Arrive On Green 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.43 0.43 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 543 908 22 199 416 217 11 1043 190 326 1826 315 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 23.5 50.7 1.4 9.5 32.4 18.0 0.9 42.1 14.7 25.5 64.6 15.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.5 50.7 1.4 9.5 32.4 18.0 0.9 42.1 14.7 25.5 64.6 15.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 279 632 536 113 458 388 36 997 445 303 1530 931 V/C Ratio(X) 1.95 1.44 0.04 1.76 0.91 0.56 0.31 1.05 0.43 1.08 1.19 0.34 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 279 632 536 113 458 388 226 997 445 303 1530 931 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 63.3 49.7 33.3 70.3 55.0 49.6 72.5 53.9 44.1 62.2 42.7 15.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 438.5 205.3 0.0 377.3 21.5 1.1 1.8 41.2 0.2 73.6 93.6 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln44.3 58.6 0.5 16.0 17.4 7.0 0.4 23.7 5.6 17.3 46.4 5.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 501.7 254.9 33.3 447.6 76.5 50.7 74.3 95.1 44.3 135.8 136.3 16.0 LnGrp LOS F F C F E D E F D F F B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1473 832 1244 2467
Approach Delay, s/veh 342.6 158.5 87.2 120.9
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s28.0 43.5 7.5 71.0 14.0 57.5 30.0 48.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.8 4.5 * 6.4 4.5 6.8 4.5 6.4 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s23.5 36.7 19.0 * 49 9.5 50.7 25.5 42.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s25.5 34.4 2.9 66.6 11.5 52.7 27.5 44.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 173.4
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2652 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
17: Grant Line Rd & Jackson Rd/SR-16 PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 17
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 320 970 10 100 420 143 10 751 100 242 896 246 Future Volume (veh/h) 320 970 10 100 420 143 10 751 100 242 896 246 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 348 1054 11 109 457 155 11 816 109 263 974 267 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 313 880 9 89 466 158 13 670 90 195 869 237
Arrive On Green 0.18 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1848 19 1781 1331 451 1781 3151 421 1781 2758 753 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 348 0 1065 109 0 612 11 460 465 263 626 615 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1867 1781 0 1782 1781 1777 1795 1781 1777 1735 Q Serve(g_s), s 26.4 0.0 71.6 7.5 0.0 51.1 0.9 32.0 32.0 16.5 47.4 47.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 26.4 0.0 71.6 7.5 0.0 51.1 0.9 32.0 32.0 16.5 47.4 47.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.23 1.00 0.43
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 313 0 889 89 0 625 13 378 382 195 560 547 V/C Ratio(X) 1.11 0.00 1.20 1.23 0.00 0.98 0.84 1.22 1.22 1.35 1.12 1.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 313 0 889 89 0 625 59 378 382 195 560 547 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 62.0 0.0 39.4 71.4 0.0 48.3 74.6 59.2 59.2 66.9 51.5 51.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 84.8 0.0 100.1 168.6 0.0 30.8 37.9 119.6 119.4 185.7 74.9 77.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln18.9 0.0 55.0 7.5 0.0 26.9 0.6 26.4 26.7 17.4 31.8 31.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 146.8 0.0 139.5 240.0 0.0 79.1 112.5 178.8 178.6 252.6 126.4 129.1 LnGrp LOS F A F F A E F F F F F F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1413 721 936 1504
Approach Delay, s/veh 141.3 103.4 177.9 149.6
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s30.9 59.5 5.6 54.4 12.0 78.4 21.0 39.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.8 4.5 * 7 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s26.4 52.3 5.0 * 44 7.5 * 72 16.5 32.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s28.4 53.1 2.9 49.4 9.5 73.6 18.5 34.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 145.5
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2653 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
18: Grant Line Rd & Kiefer Blvd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 18
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 135 10 190 20 10 30 180 944 10 280 994 203 Future Volume (veh/h) 135 10 190 20 10 30 180 944 10 280 994 203 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 147 11 207 22 11 33 196 1026 11 304 1080 221 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 234 301 255 44 221 187 248 1268 565 354 1719 767 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.48 0.48 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 147 11 207 22 11 33 196 1026 11 304 1080 221 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1870 1585 1781 1870 1585 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 0.3 8.8 0.8 0.4 1.3 3.9 18.2 0.3 11.5 15.7 5.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 0.3 8.8 0.8 0.4 1.3 3.9 18.2 0.3 11.5 15.7 5.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 234 301 255 44 221 187 248 1268 565 354 1719 767 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.04 0.81 0.50 0.05 0.18 0.79 0.81 0.02 0.86 0.63 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 248 484 410 128 484 410 248 1584 707 461 2248 1003 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.6 24.6 28.2 33.5 27.2 27.6 31.8 20.2 14.5 26.9 13.3 10.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.6 0.0 6.4 8.3 0.1 0.4 15.6 2.6 0.0 12.1 0.4 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.3 0.2 3.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 2.0 6.5 0.1 5.4 4.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.1 24.7 34.5 41.8 27.3 28.1 47.3 22.9 14.5 39.0 13.7 11.0 LnGrp LOS D C C D C C D C B D B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 365 66 1233 1605
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.9 32.5 26.7 18.1
Approach LOS C C C B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.5 38.1 6.2 15.7 18.3 29.3 9.2 12.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s5.0 44.0 5.0 18.0 18.0 31.0 5.0 18.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.9 17.7 2.8 10.8 13.5 20.2 4.9 3.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.6 0.0 0.1 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.5
HCM 6th LOS C
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2654 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
19: Grant Line Rd & Douglas Road PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 19
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 480 240 250 80 130 59 70 1099 60 67 1363 360 Future Volume (veh/h) 480 240 250 80 130 59 70 1099 60 67 1363 360 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 522 261 272 87 141 64 76 1195 65 73 1482 391 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 590 261 272 107 244 111 121 1492 665 93 1550 691 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.20 0.20 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.05 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 839 874 1781 1218 553 3456 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 522 0 533 87 0 205 76 1195 65 73 1482 391 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1713 1781 0 1771 1728 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.6 0.0 39.3 6.1 0.0 13.2 2.7 37.1 3.1 5.1 51.0 23.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.6 0.0 39.3 6.1 0.0 13.2 2.7 37.1 3.1 5.1 51.0 23.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 590 0 533 107 0 355 121 1492 665 93 1550 691 V/C Ratio(X) 0.88 0.00 1.00 0.81 0.00 0.58 0.63 0.80 0.10 0.79 0.96 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 708 0 533 107 0 355 547 1930 861 141 1637 730 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 0.0 43.5 58.7 0.0 45.7 60.1 32.0 22.2 59.2 34.5 26.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 0.0 39.1 35.9 0.0 2.3 2.0 1.4 0.0 14.9 12.7 0.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln8.6 0.0 21.4 3.8 0.0 6.1 1.2 15.0 1.1 2.6 22.8 8.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.5 0.0 82.6 94.6 0.0 48.0 62.1 33.5 22.2 74.1 47.2 27.2 LnGrp LOS E A F F A D E C C E D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1055 292 1336 1946
Approach Delay, s/veh 72.6 61.9 34.5 44.2
Approach LOS E E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.0 61.2 26.1 30.0 11.1 59.1 12.1 44.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 4.6 * 6.1 4.5 * 4.7 4.5 * 6.1 4.5 * 4.7 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 20 * 58 25.9 * 21 10.0 * 69 7.6 * 39 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s4.7 53.0 20.6 15.2 7.1 39.1 8.1 41.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 49.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2655 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
20: Grant Line Rd & Raymer Way PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 278 30 170 100 30 260 208 1270 80 300 1790 479 Future Volume (veh/h) 278 30 170 100 30 260 208 1270 80 300 1790 479 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 302 33 185 109 33 283 226 1380 87 326 1946 521 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 182 20 112 171 52 195 137 1419 633 310 1765 787 Arrive On Green 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.50 0.50 Sat Flow, veh/h 994 109 609 1383 419 1585 1781 3554 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 520 0 0 142 0 283 226 1380 87 326 1946 521 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1711 0 0 1801 0 1585 1781 1777 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 27.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 18.5 11.5 57.2 5.2 26.1 74.5 37.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 27.5 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 18.5 11.5 57.2 5.2 26.1 74.5 37.0 Prop In Lane 0.58 0.36 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 314 0 0 222 0 195 137 1419 633 310 1765 787 V/C Ratio(X) 1.66 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 1.45 1.65 0.97 0.14 1.05 1.10 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 314 0 0 222 0 195 137 1419 633 310 1765 787 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.3 0.0 0.0 62.6 0.0 65.8 69.2 44.2 28.6 62.0 37.8 28.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 309.8 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 227.8 324.9 17.7 0.1 65.4 55.3 2.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln38.9 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 19.9 17.4 27.2 1.9 17.0 43.3 13.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 371.0 0.0 0.0 68.6 0.0 293.5 394.2 61.9 28.7 127.3 93.0 30.4 LnGrp LOS F A A E A F F E C F F C
Approach Vol, veh/h 520 425 1693 2793
Approach Delay, s/veh 371.0 218.4 104.6 85.4
Approach LOS F F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s30.6 64.4 32.0 16.0 79.0 23.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s26.1 59.9 27.5 11.5 74.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s28.1 59.2 29.5 13.5 76.5 20.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 129.1
HCM 6th LOS F
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2656 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
21: Grant Line Rd/White Rock Rd & White Rock Road PM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 21
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1480 469 302 1516 2090 560
Future Volume (veh/h) 1480 469 302 1516 2090 560
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1609 510 328 1648 2272 609
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1163 687 172 2064 1590 709
Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.58 0.45 0.45
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 1585 1781 3647 3647 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1609 510 328 1648 2272 609
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1585 1781 1777 1777 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 50.5 40.3 14.5 54.4 67.1 51.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 50.5 40.3 14.5 54.4 67.1 51.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1163 687 172 2064 1590 709
V/C Ratio(X) 1.38 0.74 1.90 0.80 1.43 0.86
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1163 687 172 2071 1590 709
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.7 35.5 67.8 24.6 41.5 37.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 177.8 3.8 428.1 2.1 196.8 9.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln50.4 34.0 26.9 21.3 70.8 20.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 227.5 39.4 495.9 26.7 238.3 47.1
LnGrp LOS F D F C F D
Approach Vol, veh/h 2119 1976 2881
Approach Delay, s/veh 182.2 104.6 197.9
Approach LOS F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s20.0 74.0 56.0 94.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 6.9 5.5 * 6.9
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s14.5 * 67 50.5 * 87
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s16.5 69.1 52.5 56.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 166.7
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2657 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions
22: White Rock Rd & Prairie City Rd PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 22
Movement EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 1314 2132 0 1627 450 230 1013
Future Volume (veh/h) 1314 2132 0 1627 450 230 1013
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 1428 2317 1768 489 250 1101
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 1055 2424 1215 542 422 375
Arrive On Green 0.31 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.24
Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3647 3647 1585 1781 1585
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 1428 2317 1768 489 250 1101
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 1777 1777 1585 1781 1585
Q Serve(g_s), s 45.8 89.4 51.3 44.0 18.7 35.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 45.8 89.4 51.3 44.0 18.7 35.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1055 2424 1215 542 422 375
V/C Ratio(X) 1.35 0.96 1.45 0.90 0.59 2.93
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1055 2424 1215 542 422 375
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.1 21.8 49.3 47.0 50.8 57.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 165.3 9.9 209.3 17.8 1.5 878.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln43.1 34.1 56.9 19.2 8.3 105.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 217.4 31.7 258.6 64.8 52.4 935.2
LnGrp LOS F C F E D F
Approach Vol, veh/h 3745 2257 1351
Approach Delay, s/veh 102.5 216.6 771.8
Approach LOS F F F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s51.0 58.0 109.0 41.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s* 5.2 * 6.7 * 6.7 5.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s* 46 * 51 * 93 35.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s47.8 53.3 91.4 37.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 260.5
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2658 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Rancho Cordova,
DRAFT Transportation Impact Analysis California

Appendix F

Analysis Worksheets for
Mitigated Conditions

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2659 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Existing plus Project Conditions - Mitigated 17: Grant Line Rd & Jackson Rd/SR-16 AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 259 0 36 640 34 3 324 16 23 245 76 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 259 0 36 640 34 3 324 16 23 245 76 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 94 278 0 40 711 38 3 360 18 26 275 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 114 810 0 50 698 37 4 408 20 31 337 104
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.43 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.02 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 0 1781 1759 94 1781 1766 88 1781 1371 424 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 94 278 0 40 0 749 3 0 378 26 0 360 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 0 1781 0 1853 1781 0 1854 1781 0 1794 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 7.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 31.1 0.1 0.0 15.4 1.1 0.0 14.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 7.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 31.1 0.1 0.0 15.4 1.1 0.0 14.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.05 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 114 810 0 50 0 736 4 0 428 31 0 441 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.34 0.00 0.81 0.00 1.02 0.70 0.00 0.88 0.84 0.00 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 114 810 0 114 0 736 114 0 570 114 0 441 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.3 14.8 0.0 37.9 0.0 23.6 39.1 0.0 29.1 38.4 0.0 27.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 35.5 0.1 0.0 10.8 0.0 37.8 54.6 0.0 10.1 19.6 0.0 10.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 18.8 0.1 0.0 7.2 0.6 0.0 6.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 71.7 14.9 0.0 48.7 0.0 61.5 93.7 0.0 39.2 58.0 0.0 38.5 LnGrp LOS E B A D A F F A D E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 372 789 381 386
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.3 60.8 39.6 39.8
Approach LOS C E D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.5 37.9 4.7 26.3 6.7 40.7 5.9 25.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.8 4.5 * 7 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.0 31.1 5.0 * 16 5.0 * 32 5.0 24.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 33.1 2.1 16.8 3.7 9.8 3.1 17.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 46.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2660 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Existing plus Project Conditions - Mitigated 20: Grant Line Rd & Raymer Way AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 19
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 215 51 19 699 400 73
Future Volume (veh/h) 215 51 19 699 400 73
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 347 82 22 813 435 79
Peak Hour Factor 0.62 0.62 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 405 96 47 984 627 114
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.53 0.41 0.41
Sat Flow, veh/h 1404 332 1781 1870 1540 280
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 430 0 22 813 0 514
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1740 0 1781 1870 0 1820
Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 0.0 0.6 17.7 0.0 11.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 0.0 0.6 17.7 0.0 11.3
Prop In Lane 0.81 0.19 1.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 502 0 47 984 0 740
V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.00 0.47 0.83 0.00 0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 657 0 195 2419 0 1986
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.3 0.0 23.3 9.6 0.0 11.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 7.0 1.8 0.0 1.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 0.3 3.9 0.0 3.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.0 0.0 30.3 11.5 0.0 13.1
LnGrp LOS C A C B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 430 835 514
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.0 12.0 13.1
Approach LOS C B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 18.5 5.8 24.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.7 18.3 5.3 52.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.7 13.3 2.6 13.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.8 0.7 0.0 3.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2661 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Existing plus Project Conditions - Mitigated 17: Grant Line Rd & Jackson Rd/SR-16 PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 72 684 0 57 334 40 3 302 58 37 340 59 Future Volume (veh/h) 72 684 0 57 334 40 3 302 58 37 340 59 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 78 743 0 67 393 47 4 364 70 42 382 66 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 100 790 0 86 678 81 6 398 76 53 447 77
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.42 0.00 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.03 0.29 0.29 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 0 1781 1635 196 1781 1524 293 1781 1554 268 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 78 743 0 67 0 440 4 0 434 42 0 448 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 0 1781 0 1830 1781 0 1818 1781 0 1822 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 36.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 17.7 0.2 0.0 22.1 2.2 0.0 22.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 36.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 17.7 0.2 0.0 22.1 2.2 0.0 22.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 790 0 86 0 759 6 0 474 53 0 524 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.94 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.58 0.71 0.00 0.92 0.79 0.00 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 242 932 0 196 0 857 196 0 571 196 0 614 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.5 26.4 0.0 44.9 0.0 21.6 47.6 0.0 34.3 46.0 0.0 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 14.6 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.3 46.2 0.0 16.2 9.3 0.0 9.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 17.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 6.7 0.2 0.0 11.0 1.1 0.0 10.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3 41.1 0.0 50.5 0.0 21.9 93.8 0.0 50.4 55.3 0.0 41.1 LnGrp LOS D D A D A C F A D E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 821 507 438 490
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.9 25.7 50.8 42.3
Approach LOS D C D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 46.4 4.8 34.5 9.1 47.1 7.3 31.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 6.8 4.5 * 7 4.5 * 6.8 4.5 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 44.7 10.5 * 32 10.5 * 48 10.5 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.1 19.7 2.2 24.2 5.6 38.4 4.2 24.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2662 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Existing plus Project Conditions - Mitigated 20: Grant Line Rd & Raymer Way PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 19
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 126 34 58 542 670 215
Future Volume (veh/h) 126 34 58 542 670 215
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 225 61 59 553 728 234
Peak Hour Factor 0.56 0.56 0.98 0.98 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 260 70 84 1291 792 255
Arrive On Green 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.69 0.58 0.58
Sat Flow, veh/h 1361 369 1781 1870 1356 436
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 287 0 59 553 0 962
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1736 0 1781 1870 0 1792
Q Serve(g_s), s 12.1 0.0 2.5 9.8 0.0 36.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.1 0.0 2.5 9.8 0.0 36.5
Prop In Lane 0.78 0.21 1.00 0.24
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 331 0 84 1291 0 1047
V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.00 0.71 0.43 0.00 0.92
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 419 0 125 1548 0 1251
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.7 0.0 35.6 5.2 0.0 14.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.4 0.0 10.4 0.2 0.0 9.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.2 0.0 1.2 2.0 0.0 12.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 44.1 0.0 45.9 5.4 0.0 24.0
LnGrp LOS D A D A A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 287 612 962
Approach Delay, s/veh 44.1 9.3 24.0
Approach LOS D A C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 56.8 19.0 8.1 48.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 62.7 18.3 5.3 52.9
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 14.1 4.5 38.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 0.4 0.0 5.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2663 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions - Mitigated 20: Grant Line Rd & Raymer Way AM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 494 30 201 80 20 290 140 1840 90 240 1090 215 Future Volume (veh/h) 494 30 201 80 20 290 140 1840 90 240 1090 215 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 537 33 218 87 22 315 152 2000 98 261 1185 234 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 581 34 226 111 104 344 185 2117 657 287 1677 1014 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.47 0.47 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 213 1405 1781 1870 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 537 0 251 87 22 315 152 2000 98 261 1185 234 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1617 1781 1870 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.8 0.0 13.8 4.3 1.0 5.0 7.5 33.9 3.5 12.9 23.7 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.8 0.0 13.8 4.3 1.0 5.0 7.5 33.9 3.5 12.9 23.7 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 581 0 261 111 104 344 185 2117 657 287 1677 1014 V/C Ratio(X) 0.92 0.00 0.96 0.78 0.21 0.92 0.82 0.94 0.15 0.91 0.71 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 581 0 261 143 104 344 222 2126 660 287 1677 1014 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.8 0.0 37.4 41.5 40.5 34.4 39.4 25.3 16.4 37.0 18.8 6.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 20.8 0.0 45.3 18.8 1.0 28.2 18.2 9.6 0.1 30.4 1.4 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln7.4 0.0 8.6 2.5 0.5 9.2 4.0 13.5 1.2 7.6 8.5 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 57.6 0.0 82.7 60.3 41.5 62.6 57.7 34.9 16.5 67.5 20.2 6.9 LnGrp LOS E A F E D E E C B E C A
Approach Vol, veh/h 788 424 2250 1680
Approach Delay, s/veh 65.6 61.1 35.6 25.7
Approach LOS E E D C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s19.0 41.7 10.1 19.0 13.9 46.9 19.6 9.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s14.5 37.4 7.2 12.9 11.2 40.7 15.1 5.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s14.9 35.9 6.3 15.8 9.5 25.7 15.8 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 39.1
HCM 6th LOS D
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2664 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Cumulative plus Project Conditions - Mitigated 20: Grant Line Rd & Raymer Way PM Peak
Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 20
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 278 30 170 100 30 260 208 1270 80 300 1790 479 Future Volume (veh/h) 278 30 170 100 30 260 208 1270 80 300 1790 479 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 302 33 185 109 33 283 226 1380 87 326 1946 521 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 336 18 101 125 87 395 235 2501 776 361 1992 1043 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.49 0.49 0.20 0.56 0.56 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 246 1377 1781 1870 1585 1781 5106 1585 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 302 0 218 109 33 283 226 1380 87 326 1946 521 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1728 0 1623 1781 1870 1585 1781 1702 1585 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.5 0.0 8.1 6.7 1.9 5.1 13.9 20.8 3.3 19.6 58.5 18.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.5 0.0 8.1 6.7 1.9 5.1 13.9 20.8 3.3 19.6 58.5 18.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 336 0 120 125 87 395 235 2501 776 361 1992 1043 V/C Ratio(X) 0.90 0.00 1.82 0.87 0.38 0.72 0.96 0.55 0.11 0.90 0.98 0.50 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 336 0 120 125 87 395 235 2501 776 507 1995 1044 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.1 0.0 50.9 50.6 50.9 37.7 47.4 19.6 15.1 42.8 23.5 9.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 25.4 0.0 401.3 44.7 2.7 6.1 47.9 0.3 0.1 15.1 15.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln5.3 0.0 16.6 4.5 0.9 7.6 8.9 7.3 1.2 9.6 24.4 6.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 74.5 0.0 452.2 95.4 53.6 43.8 95.3 19.9 15.2 57.9 38.5 10.0 LnGrp LOS E A F F D D F B B E D A
Approach Vol, veh/h 520 425 1693 2793
Approach Delay, s/veh 232.8 57.8 29.7 35.4
Approach LOS F E C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s26.8 58.3 12.2 12.6 19.0 66.1 15.2 9.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s31.3 44.9 7.7 8.1 14.5 61.7 10.7 5.1 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s21.6 22.8 8.7 10.1 15.9 60.5 11.5 7.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 54.3
HCM 6th LOS D
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2665 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Rancho Cordova,
DRAFT Transportation Impact Analysis California

Appendix G

Analysis Worksheets for
Signal Warrants
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2666 of 3764 ends

11/14/2019
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing Conditions AM
Intersection: Grant Line Rd AND Kiefer Blvd
Comments:

PART A or PART B SATISFIED YES
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

PART B SATISFIED YES
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 793
Highest Approache - Minor Street 179
The Preserve Traffic Impact Study
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 75 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 100 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-4.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2667 of 3764 ends

11/14/2019
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing Conditions PM
Intersection: Grant Line Rd AND Kiefer Blvd
Comments:

PART A or PART B SATISFIED NO
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

PART B SATISFIED NO
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 900
Highest Approache - Minor Street 56
The Preserve Traffic Impact Study
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 75 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 100 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2668 of 3764 ends

11/14/2019
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing plus Proposed Project Conditions AM
Intersection: Grant Line Rd AND Kiefer Blvd
Comments:

PART A or PART B SATISFIED YES
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

PART B SATISFIED YES
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 854
Highest Approach - Minor Street 183
The Preserve Traffic Impact Study
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 75 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 100 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-4.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2669 of 3764 ends

11/14/2019
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing plus Proposed Project Conditions PM
Intersection: Grant Line Rd AND Kiefer Blvd
Comments:

PART A or PART B SATISFIED NO
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

PART B SATISFIED NO
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 974
Highest Approach - Minor Street 69
The Preserve Traffic Impact Study
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 75 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 100 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2670 of 3764 ends

11/14/2019
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing Conditions AM
Intersection: Grant Line Rd AND Raymer Way
Comments:

PART A or PART B SATISFIED NO
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

PART B SATISFIED NO
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 1119
Highest Approache - Minor Street 50
The Preserve Traffic Impact Study
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 75 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 100 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-4.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2671 of 3764 ends

11/14/2019
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2014 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing Conditions PM
Intersection: Grant Line Rd AND Raymer Way
Comments:

PART A or PART B SATISFIED NO
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

PART B SATISFIED NO
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 1244
Highest Approache - Minor Street 18
The Preserve Traffic Impact Study
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 75 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 100 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2672 of 3764 ends

PART A or PART B SATISFIED YES
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2673 of 3764 ends

PART A or PART B SATISFIED NO
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2674 of 3764 ends

kimley‐horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 Memorandum
To: George Carpenter
Grantline Road, LLC
c/o Winn Communities
From: Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., PTOE, PTP
Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE, RSP1
Re: The Preserve
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation
Date: August 16, 2021
As requested, we have prepared this memorandum to document our evaluation of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for your residential development project located just west of the Raymer Way intersection with Grant Line Road in Rancho Cordova.

Overview
The primary purpose of this evaluation was to document the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita for The Preserve residential development and compare it to the VMT per capita value calculated for the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, and the SACOG region. Kimley‐Horn understands that the proposed Project consists of 436 single‐family detached units on the vacant parcels. A VMT analysis is required to determine if the addition of the proposed project results in a significant impact for CEQA purposes.

VMT Analysis Methodology
A CEQA VMT analysis was completed using the City’s version of SACOG’s SACSIM19 travel demand model for consistency of evaluation with the calculated values for the SACOG region. In addition, the analysis was tour‐based, meaning that the analysis fully accounts for the entire trip length, including the length outside of the model area. While generally tour‐based approaches include trips that are linked to trips that start or end at the project, for consistency with direction provided by City staff, the VMT analysis documented in this memorandum only estimates VMT based on all trips that have one end in a project location. This clarification means that intermediate trips, such as those occurring after someone has left the project area, such as a trip to pick‐up lunch while at work, are not included in this analysis.

Furthermore, consistent with the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines1 only automobile trips are considered as a part of this analysis. Heavy vehicle trips and alternative mode trips are not included in VMT analyses.

Kimley‐Horn used the City’s recently developed travel demand model with a base year of 2016 to perform the VMT analysis. A Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) representing the project area with no other land use was used to isolate the proposed project from all surrounding land uses. The 436 residential units were added to the project’s TAZ to represent the project. Using the socioeconomic characteristics of developments in the immediate vicinity of the project to develop a profile of the households and persons expected to live in the proposed project, a population of 1,333 was estimated for the proposed project. Using the output trip table from the travel demand model, automobile trips either starting or ending in the proposed project were selected. These trips were factored based on the auto occupancy; single occupancy trips were multiplied by one, two‐person vehicle trips were multiplied by 0.5, and three or more person trips 1 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2675 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Page 2 of 3
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation August 16, 2021 were multiplied by 0.3, in a manner consistent with the methodology outlined by SACOG in its recent VMT analysis guidelines2
. Each trip was multiplied by the model‐determined distance based on the model’s skim matrix determining the distance between each TAZ during the peak periods to determine that trip’s VMT. Each trip’s VMT was totaled to determine the total internal‐internal VMT related to the proposed project.

External‐internal and internal‐external VMT was also calculated based on the methodologies outlined in SACOG’s guidelines. A script file provided by SACOG and included in their model for VMT post‐processing was run, which determined the VMT for trips that either start or end outside of the model area by TAZ. As the project was separated into its own TAZ, the VMT for the project’s TAZ was added to the internal‐ internal total VMT to determine the total VMT associated with the proposed project. This VMT was then divided by the population of the project to determine a VMT per capita associated with the proposed project. This value was then compared to the Regional VMT Threshold for Residential land use types (15‐ percent below the Regional Average) to determine whether the project results in a significant impact.

VMT Analysis Results
Using the methodology described above, the VMT per Capita for the proposed Project was calculated. As shown in Table 1 below, the proposed Project results in a VMT per capita value of 23.3.

Table 1 – Existing VMT Analysis Results Summary for the Proposed Project Trip Type Internal VMT External VMT Total VMT
Origin 15,157 610 15,767
Destination 14,677 604 15,281
Total 29,834 1,214 31,048
1,333

23.3 Total Population
VMT per Capita
In order to place the Project’s VMT per Capita value in context, the average VMT per Capita was calculated for the entire SACOG region. The VMT per capita average for the SACOG region was calculated using the same methodology that was used to calculate the Project’s average VMT per capita.

As shown Table 2 below, the average VMT per capita in the SACOG region is 23.2. Using the state’s guidance, absent other substantial evidence, thresholds should be set 15‐percent below the average VMT per capita. Thus, based on the analysis summarized in the tables below, the threshold for the SACOG region would be 19.7 VMT per capita, respectively.

Table 2 – Existing VMT Analysis Results Summary for the SACOG Region Trip Type Internal VMT External VMT Total VMT
Origin 18,765,997 8,788,214 27,554,210
Destination 18,765,997 8,788,214 27,554,210
Total 37,531,994 17,576,427 55,108,421
2,376,311

23.2 Total Population
VMT per Capita
Based on the analysis provided above, the project is expected to result in a finding of a significant impact based on the SACOG regional threshold as the project exceeds the threshold by approximately 15‐ percent.
2 VMT computation Procedures (DRAFT). Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). September 30, 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2676 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Page 3 of 3
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation August 16, 2021 VMT Mitigation Strategies
In an attempt to mitigate the Project’s significant impact to less than significant, SACOG’s SB 743 guidance document3 was used to help determine what mitigation strategies would be appropriate for the Project and how much those strategies would reduce the Project’s VMT per Capita. SACOG’s guidance relies heavily on the information provided by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidance document for quantifying VMT reduction measures4 and both documents were used to determine the strategies that could be implemented to reduce the Project’s VMT per Capita.

Based on the CAPCOA guidance, the maximum VMT reduction that can be reasonably be obtained for Projects in a suburban setting is 15‐percent, but this includes reductions related to commute trips. After a review of the mitigation strategies, many of the proposed strategies were found to not be applicable for the project as they are based on projects in urban locations or are applicable only to non‐residential projects. The mitigation strategies that were considered include those related to parking, reducing work commute trips, or are related to transit. As the Project is located in a developing area with only vacant land and other residential communities surrounding it, there are limited alternatives to driving for work or shopping needs and no restrictions are placed on parking. In addition, the limited access to transit and the inability to implement strategies related to employment and commuting further restricts the Project’s ability to reduce its VMT per Capita.

The two feasible mitigation strategies the Project is implementing include constructing a portion of the regional trail system that is planned in the vicinity of the Project and providing monetary support for transit related services through the City of Rancho Cordova’s Transit Related Services Special Tax.

The Transit Related Services Special Tax will fund transportation services as determined appropriate by the City Council. Supplemental transportation services may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Transit Shuttle – shuttle for residents and/or employees between residential areas, employment centers, shopping and service centers and light rail stations and/or other public transit options.  Guaranteed Ride Home – free taxi rides and rental cars for ride sharers in case of an emergency.  Transit Subsidies – financial assistance to encourage residents and employees to use transit or other alternative transportation measures.
 Transportation Plans for employers and/or resident groups – plans which guide employers and resident groups on the implementation of trip reduction programs, such as ride share matching or other similar programs.
 Education Programs – various programs such as education of transit options, home office set up, alternative commute opportunities.
 Infrastructure Support – additional bike racks and lockers, transportation alternative and ride share informational boards/kiosks, and transit facilities.  Transportation Coordinator Training and Support – instruction in mobility (transportation alternatives) for residential groups and work site coordinators.  Bicycle and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives – incentives for purchasing new bicycles or alternative fuel vehicles.

Based on the CAPCOA guidance, these two measures combined would provide a maximum VMT reduction of 4.5‐percent, but the reduction realized would likely be lower. Even with the maximum reduction applied, the VMT per Capita for the project would continue to exceed the regional threshold and therefore the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 3 Senate Bill 743 Implementation Tools. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). June 2020. 4 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. August 2010.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2677 of 3764 ends

kimley‐horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 Memorandum
To: George Carpenter
Grantline Road, LLC
c/o Winn Communities
From: Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., PTOE, PTP
Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE, RSP1
Re: The Preserve
Supplemental Analysis for Six Additional Units
Date: February 8, 2021
As requested, we have prepared this memorandum to document the effect of adding six (6) additional units to the Proposed Project. These findings are compared against the Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analyses completed previously for your residential development project located west of the Raymer Way intersection with Grant Line Road in Rancho Cordova.

Overview
The primary purpose of this evaluation is to document the effect of adding six (6) additional units to the Proposed Project. Kimley‐Horn understands that the Proposed Project previously consisted of 434 single‐ family detached units on three vacant parcels. The six (6) additional units results in a revised total of 440 single‐family detached units.

Trip Generation
To determine the number of additional trips that result from the addition of the Proposed Project (six additional units), a trip generation comparison was completed. The number of trips anticipated to be generated by the Proposed Project was approximated using data included in the Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). As shown in Table 1, the six additional units are estimated to generate 50 additional new daily trips, with four additional trips occurring during the AM peak‐hour and five additional trips occurring during the PM peak‐hour.

Table 1 – Trip Generation Summary
% Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips
Single‐Family Detached
Housing (210)1 434 4,014 313 25% 78 75% 235 416 63% 262 37% 154 Single‐Family Detached
Housing (210)1 440 4,064 317 25% 79 75% 238 421 63% 265 37% 156 New Project Trips 50 4 1 3 5 3 2 1 Trip generation based on Institute of Transporation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, (10 th Edition) equations for Single‐Family Detached Housing (Land Use Code 210)
Daily: Ln(T) = 0.92Ln(X) + 2.71
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.71(X) + 4.80
PM Peak Hour: Ln(T) = 0.96Ln(X) + 0.2
Where: T = trips generated, X = dwelling units
Land Use (ITE Code) In Out
Size
(Dwelling
Units)
Daily
Trips
AM Peak‐Hour PM Peak‐Hour
Total Trips
In Out
Total Trips

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2678 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Page 2 of 3
Supplemental Analysis for Six Additional Units February 8, 2020 Level of Service (LOS) Analysis Comparison
The following guidelines were used when evaluating whether the Proposed Project results in a LOS deficiency:

Roadways/Signalized Intersections: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would:
 result in a roadway or a signalized intersection operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; or
 increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.05 at a roadway or at a signalized intersection that is operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project.

Unsignalized Intersections: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would:
 result in an unsignalized intersection movement/approach operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS, and also cause the intersection to meet a traffic signal warrant; or
 for an unsignalized intersection that meets a signal warrant, increase the delay by more than 5 seconds at a movement/approach that is operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project.

Previously, the addition of the Proposed Project to the Existing (2019) Conditions resulted in a deficiency at two (2) study intersections. The addition of the Proposed Project to Cumulative (2035) Conditions resulted in a deficiency at three (3) study intersections. The addition of the Proposed Project did not result in a deficiency at any of the study roadway segments for Existing (2019) or Cumulative (2035) Conditions.

A review was undertaken to determine whether the six (6) project units would result in additional deficiencies. Only intersections and roadway segments that were identified as being close to becoming deficient or were already deficient without the addition of the project, were included in this supplemental review. Specifically, if an intersection was within five (5) seconds of delay to becoming deficient or if a roadway segment had a volume to capacity ratio (V/C ratio) within 0.05 of capacity or was already over capacity it was included in the review.

The additional 50 daily trips, with four new trips occurring during the AM peak‐hour, and five new trips occurring during the PM peak‐hour, were distributed to the selected study intersections and roadway segments based on the previously developed Existing (2019) and Cumulative (2035) trip distributions. It was determined that the additional trips did not result in any intersections or roadway segments currently operating acceptably to become deficient, nor did the additional trips result in any intersections or roadway segments currently operating at deficient levels to exceed the guidelines described above.

VMT Analysis Conclusions Comparison
As shown in Table 2 below, the proposed Project resulted in a VMT per capita value of 23.3.

Table 2 – Existing VMT Analysis Results Summary for the Proposed Project Trip Type Internal VMT External VMT Total VMT
Origin 15,157 610 15,767
Destination 14,677 604 15,281
Total 29,834 1,214 31,048
1,333

23.3 Total Population
VMT per Capita
In order to place the Project’s VMT per Capita value in context, the average VMT per Capita was calculated for the City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, and the entire SACOG region.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2679 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Page 3 of 3
Supplemental Analysis for Six Additional Units February 8, 2020 Based on the previously completed analysis, the project is expected to result in a finding of a significant impact only if the City’s threshold were to be based on Sacramento County or SACOG regional data as the project would exceed the threshold based on these data sources. However, the project would be expected to result in a finding of less than significant impact if the City’s threshold were to be based on only City of Rancho Cordova data.

As the character of the additional six units would be consistent in terms of size and socioeconomic distribution of the residents of the other 434 units in the Proposed Project, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution and length of trips resulting from the additional units would be consistent with the rest of the units comprising the Proposed Project because the City’s travel demand model is used to complete the VMT analysis. The trips generated, distributed, and assigned to the model roadway network would only increase in magnitude with the additional units and the pattern of the trips would remain consistent. While the additional six units would increase the total daily VMT generated by the Proposed Project, there would be a commensurate increase in the Proposed Project’s population leading to a VMT per capita value that is consistent with the analysis performed previously.

Conclusions
As noted above, the six units are estimated to generate 50 additional new daily trips, with four additional new trips occurring during the AM peak‐hour, and five additional new trips occurring during the PM peak‐ hour. It was determined that the additional trips do not result in any intersections or roadway segments currently operating acceptably to become deficient, nor did the additional trips result in any intersections or roadway segments currently operating at deficient levels to exceed the guidelines described above. In addition, while the additional six units would increase the total daily VMT generated by the Proposed Project, there would be a commensurate increase in the Proposed Project’s population leading to a VMT per capita value that is consistent with the analysis performed previously.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2680 of 3764 ends

kimley‐horn.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95814 916 858 5800 Memorandum
To: Albert Stricker, P.E.

Public Works Director, City of Rancho Cordova
From: Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., PTOE, PTP
Matt Weir, P.E., T.E., PTOE, RSP1
Re: The Preserve
Centennial Drive Considerations
Date: August 16, 2021

Project Understanding
We understand that the City is currently assessing the potential of removing the extension of Centennial Drive to Grant Line Road/Capital SouthEast Connector (thereby removing the link between Rio Del Oro and Grant Line Road/the Capital SouthEast Connector). This memorandum summarizes the efforts that have been undertaken to date to analyze the removal of the extension of Centennial Drive.

Travel Demand Modeling
The initial effort occurred in April 2019 and was documented in a memorandum completed by Kimley‐ Horn1
. At that time, the City provided their currently adopted Travel Demand Model (TDM) for the Forecast Year (2035) and provided two roadway network modifications to be assumed as a part of this effort2
. The two network modifications were as follows:
1) Douglas Road – reduced from 6 lanes to 4 lanes between Rancho Cordova Parkway and Grant Line Road
2) Rancho Cordova Parkway – reduced from 6 lanes to 4 lanes between Chrysanthy Boulevard and Villagio Drive
Two versions of the model were run once these roadway network modifications were completed. The first version of the model did not have any modifications to Centennial Drive and it was assumed to connect between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road. A second version of the model was run with Centennial Drive between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road removed and the centroid connector that previously connected to this portion of Centennial Drive was moved to connect directly to Grant Line Road. The resulting volumes from the two model runs were compared and a difference was taken between the model run without the Centennial Drive connection and the model run with the Centennial Drive connection. The volume difference is displayed graphically in Exhibit 1. As shown in Exhibit 1, the largest daily volume increase is along White Rock Road immediately west of Grant Line Road while the largest daily volume decrease is along Centennial Drive immediately west of Americanos Boulevard. Minimal daily volume differences occur along Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway.

Roadway Segment Volumes and Levels of Service (LOS)
In addition to the volume comparison, a Level of Service (LOS) analysis was completed for select roadways in the vicinity of Centennial Drive, both with and without the Centennial Drive connection between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road. The results of the LOS analysis are shown in Table 1 The Preserve DRAFT Centennial Drive Assessment. Kimley‐Horn. April 9, 2019. 2 Email from Mark Thomas, City of Rancho Cordova, March 25, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2681 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Page 2 of 3
Centennial Drive Considerations August 16, 2021
1, below. As shown in Table 1, no roadway is expected to operate unacceptably (LOS E or worse) either with or without the Centennial Drive connection between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road.

Table 1 – Roadway Segment Analysis Results
From To
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
1 Douglas Rd Mather Blvd Sunrise Blvd 6 Arterial M 36,880 0.68 B 6 Arterial M 36,840 0.68 B 2 Douglas Rd Rancho Cordova Pkwy Americanos Blvd 4 Arterial M 17,550 0.49 A 4 Arterial M 18,230 0.51 A 3 Douglas Rd Americanos Blvd Grant Line Rd 4 Arterial M 15,770 0.44 A 4 Arterial M 17,250 0.48 A 4 White Rock Rd Sunrise Blvd Rancho Cordova Pkwy 6 Arterial M 31,510 0.58 A 6 Arterial M 32,080 0.59 A 5 White Rock Rd Americanos Blvd Grant Line Rd 6 Arterial M 22,940 0.42 A 6 Arterial M 27,500 0.51 A 6 White Rock Rd Grant Line Rd Prairie City Rd 4 Expressway 59,900 0.83 D 4 Expressway 52,540 0.73 C 7 Sunrise Blvd White Rock Rd Douglas Rd 6 Arterial M 47,780 0.88 C 6 Arterial M 47,760 0.88 C 8 Grant Line Rd White Rock Rd Douglas Rd 4 Expressway 48,230 0.67 B 4 Expressway 51,600 0.72 C 9 Rancho Cordova Pkwy White Rock Rd Rio Del Oro Pkwy 6 Arterial M 33,170 0.61 B 6 Arterial M 33,170 0.61 B 10 Rancho Cordova Pkwy Rio Del Oro Pkwy Douglas Rd 4 Arterial M 17,680 0.49 A 4 Arterial M 17,790 0.49 A 11 Americanos Blvd International Rd Centennial Dr 2 Arterial M 11,170 0.62 B 2 Arterial M 8,330 0.46 A 12 Americanos Blvd Centennial Dr Douglas Rd 2 Arterial M 10,070 0.56 A 2 Arterial M 10,240 0.57 A Note: Bold represents unacceptable operations.

ID Roadway
Segment 2035 with Centennial Drive 2035 without Centennial Drive The number of lanes assumed for each roadway segment were taken directly from the City’s TDM with the exception of Segment #6 and Segment #8 (White Rock Road between Grant Line Road and Prairie City Road, and Grant Line Road between White Rock Road and Douglas Road). While these roadway segments are assumed to be six (6) lanes in the model, they were analyzed as four‐lane expressways, consistent with guidelines for the Capital SouthEast Connector.

Roadway Segment Volumes and Levels of Service (LOS) Follow Up On July 22, 2019, Kimley‐Horn met with City Staff where they requested a follow up roadway segment analysis for Baseline and Cumulative conditions based on the Rio del Oro traffic study. The No Project and Plus Project scenarios for Baseline and Cumulative Conditions from the traffic study, as well as the volumes and LOS when the rerouted volumes are taken into account based on the removal of Centennial Drive, are summarized in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, respectively. As shown in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, no additional impacts that haven’t been previously identified were shown as a result of the removal of the Centennial Drive extension. In addition, one impact was removed in the Cumulative scenario as a result of the removal of the Centennial Drive extension.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment
In addition to the roadway segment analysis, a Vehicle Miles Traveled assessment was also completed.

The regional (SACOG) VMT totaled for the two model runs, with and without the Centennial Drive extension. The assessment indicated that VMT was reduced by 6,820 without the Centennial, however it should be noted that the difference reflects a 0.008‐percent difference in regional VMT. As the model used to perform this analysis includes an iterative process for assigning traffic to the model network there is inherent randomness introduced and thus this difference should be considered as indication that the removal of Centennial Drive results in a negligible difference to regional VMT.

Physical Constraints
The adopted South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) has created conflicts with both the previously planned development of Heritage Falls and the potential construction of Centennial Drive. A review was completed in June 2019 that looked at alternative alignments for Centennial Drive that would run south of the current Centennial Drive alignment, cross the Rio Del Oro preserve and extend through the proposed Project to Grant Line Road. This was documented in a memorandum that was submitted to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2682 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Page 3 of 3
Centennial Drive Considerations August 16, 2021
the City3. The following reasons were cited as to why these alternative alignments were deemed infeasible:

1. The needed road crossing of the Rio Del Oro preserve is not allowed under the project’s Biological Opinion and would require an amendment. The environmental consultant to the Rio Del Oro developers indicates that the developers have made it clear on several occasions that they are not interested in amending or revisiting the Biological Opinion, which was controversial and took many years to obtain.

2. Agency approval of an additional crossing through the Rio Del Oro preserve is speculative at best.

This stretch of the Rio Del Oro preserve is full of resources and is a linkage preserve intended as a wildlife corridor. It seems unlikely that the USFWS would support an additional crossing.

3. The City’s threshold for a collector road with frontage is fewer than 8,000 daily vehicles. The travel demand model states that the estimated traffic volume in the future along Centennial Drive would be 10,250 daily vehicles which would disallow front on driveway access. The high volume of thru‐traffic would create a crossing hazard separating the existing neighborhoods of North Douglas and the future The Preserve neighborhood south of the Centennial extension from the planned park and open space amenities in conflict with the design concept for the project.

The mere possibility of the future connection to Rio Del Oro would interfere with project design whether or not the connection was ever completed.

Conclusions
As shown in Exhibit 1 and Table 1, the removal of the Centennial Drive connection between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road is not expected to significantly impact the surrounding roadway network.

While volumes are expected to fluctuate between increasing by almost 6,500 daily vehicles to decreasing by 6,600 daily vehicles, the change in daily volumes does not impact any roadway segment. When applying these fluctuating volumes to the Rio del Oro roadway segment analysis, no impacts were created that weren’t previously identified and one impact for Cumulative (2030) Conditions was removed, as shown in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3. In addition, the removal of the Centennial Drive extension has a negligible effect on regional VMT. Finally, when considering alternative alignments for the Centennial Drive extension, three alignments were reviewed and all were deemed infeasible.

Attachments:

Exhibit 1 – 2035 Daily Volume Change without Centennial Drive Exhibit 2 – Baseline Roadway Segment Analysis and Volume Shift Exhibit 3 – Cumulative (2030) Roadway Segment Analysis and Volume Shift 3 Centennial Drive Alternatives. Bob Shattuck, Shattuck Community Planning. June 10, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2683 of 3764 ends

Source:

Esri,
Grant Line Road
Douglas Road
White Rock Road
Sunrise Blvd
1,000 2,520
6,470
5,030
-3,190
-2,590
1,260
-6,600
4,290
Exhibit 1
2035 Daily Volume Change without Centennial Drive
The Preserve - Centennial Drive Assessment

NOT TO SCALE
Legend
1,000 - 2,500 ADT
2,500 - 5,000 ADT
> 5,000 ADT
Centennial Drive
Change < 500 ADT
Volume Increases
1,000 - 2,500 ADT
2,500 - 5,000 ADT
> 5,000 ADT
Volume Decreases
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2684 of 3764 ends

Baseline Roadway Segment Analysis and Volume Shift
From To
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
LOS
Threshold
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
LOS
Threshold
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
1 SR 16 Excelsior Rd Eagles Nest Road 2 Arterial Moderate 11,400 18,000 0.63 B 2 Arterial Moderate 12,100 18,000 0.67 B D 2 SR 16 Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 15,400 18,000 0.86 D 2 Arterial Moderate 16,000 18,000 0.89 D E3 Kiefer Blvd Grant Line Rd SR 16 2 Rural Two‐Lane 1,800 17,000 0.11 B 2 Rural Two‐Lane 1,900 17,000 0.11 B E4 Mather Blvd Femoyer St Douglas Road 2 Arterial Moderate 6,000 18,000 0.33 A 2 Arterial Moderate 17,400 18,000 0.97 E D5 Douglas Rd Mather Blvd Sunrise Blvd 2 Arterial Moderate 5,000 18,000 0.28 A 2 Arterial Moderate 18,200 18,000 1.01 F D 6 Douglas Rd Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 2,300 18,000 0.13 A D7 International Dr South White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr 4 Arterial Moderate 12,000 36,000 0.33 A 4 Arterial Moderate 13,700 36,000 0.38 A D8 International Dr Zinfandel Dr Kilgore Road 4 Arterial Moderate 6,800 36,000 0.19 A 4 Arterial Moderate 8,900 36,000 0.25 A D9 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 17,900 54,000 0.33 A 6 Arterial Moderate 23,200 54,000 0.43 A D 10 White Rock Rd Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 4,400 18,000 0.24 A 2 Arterial Moderate 8,200 18,000 0.46 A D 11 Zinfandel Dr White Rock Rd International Dr 6 Arterial Moderate 19,700 54,000 0.36 A 6 Arterial Moderate 23,000 54,000 0.43 A D12 Sunrise Blvd Gold Country Blvd Coloma Rd 6 Arterial Moderate 75,800 54,000 1.40 F 6 Arterial Moderate 77,600 54,000 1.44 F D13 Sunrise Blvd Coloma Rd US 50 6 Arterial Moderate 82,400 54,000 1.53 F 6 Arterial Moderate 85,000 54,000 1.57 F D14 Sunrise Blvd US 50 Folsom Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 52,100 54,000 0.96 E 6 Arterial Moderate 58,600 54,000 1.09 F D 15 Sunrise Blvd Folsom Blvd White Rock Rd 6 Arterial Moderate 37,200 54,000 0.69 B 6 Arterial Moderate 49,500 54,000 0.92 E D16 Sunrise Blvd White Rock Rd Douglas Road 4 Arterial Moderate 24,600 36,000 0.68 B 4 Arterial Moderate 36,700 36,000 1.02 B D 17 Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd SR 16 2 Arterial High 20,000 20,000 1.00 E D18 Sunrise Blvd SR 16 Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 13,600 18,000 0.76 C 2 Arterial Moderate 15,000 18,000 0.83 D E 19 Grant Line Road White Rock Rd Douglas Road 2 Arterial Moderate 6,000 18,000 0.33 A 2 Arterial Moderate 8,900 18,000 0.49 A D20 Grant Line Road Douglas Rd SR 16 2 Arterial Moderate 6,700 18,000 0.37 A 2 Arterial Moderate 7,100 18,000 0.39 A D21 Grant Line Road SR 16 Sunrise Blvd 2 Arterial Moderate 5,600 18,000 0.31 A 2 Arterial Moderate 6,100 18,000 0.34 A E 22 Douglas Rd Sunrise Blvd Jaeger Rd 4 Arterial Moderate 21,400 36,000 0.59 A D23 Douglas Rd Americanos Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 5,700 18,000 0.32 A D24 Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd Keifer Blvd 4 Arterial Moderate 25,000 36,000 0.69 B D25 Sunrise Blvd Keifer Blvd SR 16 4 Arterial Moderate 23,100 36,000 0.64 B D From To Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
LOS
Threshold
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
Volume
Difference
LOS
Threshold
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
1 SR 16 Excelsior Rd Eagles Nest Road 2 Arterial Moderate 12,900 18,000 0.72 C 2 Arterial Moderate 12,950 50 18,000 0.72 C D 2 SR 16 Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 17,500 18,000 0.97 E 2 Arterial Moderate 17,550 50 18,000 0.98 E E3 Kiefer Blvd Grant Line Rd SR 16 2 Rural Two‐Lane 2,100 17,000 0.12 B 2 Rural Two‐Lane Rd (NS) 2,100 0 17,000 0.12 B E 4 Mather Blvd Femoyer St Douglas Road 2 Arterial Moderate 20,500 18,000 1.14 F 2 Arterial Moderate 20,590 90 18,000 1.14 F D5 Douglas Rd Mather Blvd Sunrise Blvd 2 Arterial Moderate 25,400 18,000 1.41 F 2 Arterial Moderate 25,350 ‐50 18,000 1.41 F D 7 International Dr South White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr 4 Arterial Moderate 17,800 36,000 0.49 A 4 Arterial Moderate 14,800 ‐3,000 36,000 0.41 A D8 International Dr Zinfandel Dr Kilgore Road 4 Arterial Moderate 14,200 36,000 0.39 A 4 Arterial Moderate 13,700 ‐500 36,000 0.38 A D 9 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 45,100 54,000 0.84 D 6 Arterial Moderate 45,500 400 54,000 0.84 D D 10 White Rock Rd Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 20,900 18,000 1.16 F 2 Arterial Moderate 27,370 6,470 18,000 1.52 F D LOS C with identified mitigation11 Zinfandel Dr White Rock Rd International Dr 6 Arterial Moderate 23,200 54,000 0.43 A 6 Arterial Moderate 22,700 ‐500 54,000 0.42 A D12 Sunrise Blvd Gold Country Blvd Coloma Rd 6 Arterial Moderate 92,500 54,000 1.71 F 6 Arterial Moderate 92,440 ‐60 54,000 1.71 F D13 Sunrise Blvd Coloma Rd US 50 6 Arterial Moderate 102,500 54,000 1.90 F 6 Arterial Moderate 102,470 ‐30 54,000 1.90 F D 14 Sunrise Blvd US 50 Folsom Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 82,900 54,000 1.54 F 6 Arterial Moderate 82,960 60 54,000 1.54 F D15 Sunrise Blvd Folsom Blvd White Rock Rd 6 Arterial Moderate 77,300 54,000 1.43 F 6 Arterial Moderate 77,450 150 54,000 1.43 F D16 Sunrise Blvd White Rock Rd Douglas Road 4 Arterial Moderate 65,600 36,000 1.82 F 4 Arterial Moderate 65,540 ‐60 36,000 1.82 F D 18 Sunrise Blvd SR 16 Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 22,400 18,000 1.24 F 2 Arterial Moderate 22,450 50 18,000 1.25 F E 19 Grant Line Road White Rock Rd Douglas Road 2 Arterial Moderate 10,500 18,000 0.58 A 2 Arterial Moderate 15,290 4,790 18,000 0.85 D D LOS Increase, but not impacted 20 Grant Line Road Douglas Rd SR 16 2 Arterial Moderate 7,800 18,000 0.43 A 2 Arterial Moderate 8,100 300 18,000 0.45 A D 21 Grant Line Road SR 16 Sunrise Blvd 2 Arterial Moderate 6,200 18,000 0.34 A 2 Arterial Moderate 6,210 10 18,000 0.35 A E 22 Douglas Rd Sunrise Blvd Jaeger Rd 4 Arterial Moderate 29,700 36,000 0.83 D 4 Arterial Moderate 30,500 800 36,000 0.85 D D23 Douglas Rd Americanos Blvd Grant Line Road 2 Arterial Moderate 6,500 18,000 0.36 A 2 Arterial Moderate 9,020 2,520 18,000 0.50 A D24 Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd Keifer Blvd 4 Arterial Moderate 39,900 36,000 1.11 F 4 Arterial Moderate 40,020 120 36,000 1.11 F D 25 Sunrise Blvd Keifer Blvd SR 16 4 Arterial Moderate 33,800 36,000 0.94 E 4 Arterial Moderate 33,870 70 36,000 0.94 E D Note: Bold represents unacceptable operations. Shaded indicates significant impact See Segments #22 and #23See Segments #24 and #25
ID Roadway
Segment
LOS
Threshold Comments
Baseline (No Project)
Baseline plus Proposed Project ‐ REROUTED
Note: Bold represents unacceptable operations. Shaded indicates significant impact LOS
Threshold ID Roadway
Segment Existing
Baseline plus Proposed Project
See Segment #6
See Segment #17
7/25/2019
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2685 of 3764 ends

Cumulative (2030) Roadway Segment Analysis and Volume Shift From To
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
LOS
Threshold
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume
LOS
Threshold
Volume /
Capacity
Ratio
Level of
Service
Travel
Lanes
Facility
Type
Daily
Volume Difference LOS Threshold Volume / Capacity Ratio Level of Service 1 SR 16 Excelsior Rd Eagles Nest Road 4 Arterial Moderate 19,200 36,000 0.53 A 4 Arterial Moderate 19,200 36,000 0.53 A 4 Arterial Moderate 19,250 50 36,000 0.53 A E2 SR 16 Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 4 Arterial Moderate 19,700 36,000 0.55 A 4 Arterial Moderate 19,900 36,000 0.55 A 4 Arterial Moderate 19,950 50 36,000 0.55 A D 3 Kiefer Blvd Grant Line Rd SR 16 2 Rural Two‐Lane 13,300 17,000 0.78 E 2 Rural Two‐Lane 15,300 17,000 0.90 E 2 Rural Two‐Lane 15,300 0 17,000 0.90 EE4 Mather Blvd Femoyer St Douglas Road 4 Arterial Moderate 19,600 36,000 0.54 A 4 Arterial Moderate 20,800 36,000 0.58 A 4 Arterial Moderate 20,890 90 36,000 0.58 A E5 Douglas Rd Mather Blvd Sunrise Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 18,100 54,000 0.34 A 6 Arterial Moderate 23,300 54,000 0.43 A 6 Arterial Moderate 23,250 ‐50 54,000 0.43 B D LOS increase, but no impact6 International Dr South White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr 6 Expressway 53,900 81,000 0.67 C 6 Expressway 73,500 81,000 0.91 E 6 Expressway 70,500 ‐3,000 81,000 0.87 D D LOS decrease, removal of impact7 International Dr Zinfandel Dr Kilgore Road 6 Expressway 38,300 81,000 0.47 B 6 Expressway 68,400 81,000 0.84 D 6 Expressway 67,900 ‐500 81,000 0.84 D D8 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr Sunrise Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 19,700 54,000 0.36 A 6 Arterial Moderate 30,300 54,000 0.56 A 6 Arterial Moderate 30,700 400 54,000 0.57 A D 9 White Rock Rd Sunrise Blvd Grant Line Road 6 Arterial High 20,900 60,000 0.35 A 6 Arterial High 36,100 60,000 0.60 B 6 Arterial High 42,570 6,470 60,000 0.71 C D LOS increase, but no impact 16 Zinfandel Dr White Rock Rd International Dr 6 Arterial Moderate 42,400 54,000 0.79 C 6 Arterial Moderate 46,100 54,000 0.85 D 6 Arterial Moderate 45,600 ‐500 54,000 0.84 D D17 Sunrise Blvd Gold Country Blvd Coloma Rd 6 Arterial High 84,400 60,000 1.41 F 6 Arterial High 95,300 60,000 1.59 F 6 Arterial High 95,240 ‐60 60,000 1.59 F D 18 Sunrise Blvd Coloma Rd US 50 6 Arterial High 95,500 60,000 1.59 F 6 Arterial High 108,700 60,000 1.81 F 6 Arterial High 108,670 ‐30 60,000 1.81 F D 19 Sunrise Blvd US 50 Folsom Blvd 6 Arterial High 49,600 60,000 0.83 D 6 Arterial High 63,000 60,000 1.05 F 6 Arterial High 63,060 60 60,000 1.05 F D 20 Sunrise Blvd Folsom Blvd White Rock Rd 6 Arterial High 40,000 60,000 0.67 B 6 Arterial High 55,800 60,000 0.93 E 6 Arterial High 55,950 150 60,000 0.93 E D 21 Sunrise Blvd White Rock Rd Douglas Road 6 Arterial Moderate 33,700 54,000 0.62 B 6 Arterial Moderate 44,900 54,000 0.83 D 6 Arterial Moderate 44,840 ‐60 54,000 0.83 D D 22 Sunrise Blvd SR 16 Grant Line Road 6 Arterial Moderate 28,100 54,000 0.52 A 6 Arterial Moderate 32,200 54,000 0.60 A 6 Arterial Moderate 32,250 50 54,000 0.60 A E24 Grant Line Road White Rock Rd Douglas Road 6 Expressway 26,700 81,000 0.33 B 6 Expressway 27,500 81,000 0.34 B 6 Expressway 32,290 4,790 81,000 0.40 B D25 Grant Line Road Douglas Rd SR 16 6 Expressway 21,200 81,000 0.26 A 6 Expressway 21,600 81,000 0.27 A 6 Expressway 21,900 300 81,000 0.27 A D26 Grant Line Road SR 16 Sunrise Blvd 6 Arterial High 15,100 60,000 0.25 A 6 Arterial High 16,500 60,000 0.28 A 6 Arterial High 16,510 10 60,000 0.28 A E 32 Douglas Rd Sunrise Blvd Jaeger Rd 6 Arterial Moderate 22,500 54,000 0.42 A 6 Arterial Moderate 27,300 54,000 0.51 A 6 Arterial Moderate 28,100 800 54,000 0.52 A D33 Douglas Rd Americanos Blvd Grant Line Road 4 Arterial Moderate 11,700 36,000 0.33 A 4 Arterial Moderate 14,600 36,000 0.41 A 4 Arterial Moderate 17,120 2,520 36,000 0.48 A D34 Douglas Rd Jaeger Rd Americanos Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 11,500 54,000 0.21 A 6 Arterial Moderate 14,600 54,000 0.27 A 6 Arterial Moderate 15,600 1,000 54,000 0.29 A D35 Chrysanthy Blvd Sunrise Blvd Jaeger Rd 4 Arterial Moderate 8,400 36,000 0.23 A 4 Arterial Moderate 9,600 36,000 0.27 A 4 Arterial Moderate 9,550 ‐50 36,000 0.27 A D36 Chrysanthy Blvd Jaeger Rd Americanos Blvd 4 Arterial Moderate 13,100 36,000 0.36 A 4 Arterial Moderate 16,200 36,000 0.45 A 4 Arterial Moderate 16,130 ‐70 36,000 0.45 A D37 Keifer Blvd Eagles Nest Rd Sunrise Blvd 2 Arterial Moderate 17,000 18,000 0.94 E 2 Arterial Moderate 17,100 18,000 0.95 E 2 Arterial Moderate 17,150 50 18,000 0.95 E D 38 Keifer Blvd Sunrise Blvd Jaeger Rd 4 Arterial Moderate 9,100 36,000 0.25 A 4 Arterial Moderate 9,300 36,000 0.26 A 4 Arterial Moderate 9,470 170 36,000 0.26 A D39 Eagles Nest Road Mather Blvd Douglas Road 6 Arterial Moderate 34,800 54,000 0.64 B 6 Arterial Moderate 36,100 54,000 0.67 B 6 Arterial Moderate 36,190 90 54,000 0.67 B E40 Eagles Nest Road Douglas Rd Keifer Blvd 4 Arterial Moderate 14,000 36,000 0.39 A 4 Arterial Moderate 14,400 36,000 0.40 A 4 Arterial Moderate 14,400 0 36,000 0.40 A E41 Eagles Nest Road Keifer Blvd SR 16 4 Arterial Moderate 9,400 36,000 0.26 A 4 Arterial Moderate 9,700 36,000 0.27 A 4 Arterial Moderate 9,690 ‐10 36,000 0.27 A E 42 Sunrise Blvd Douglas Rd Chrysanthy Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 47,000 54,000 0.87 D 6 Arterial Moderate 59,400 54,000 1.10 F 6 Arterial Moderate 59,450 50 54,000 1.10 F D 43 Sunrise Blvd Chrysanthy Blvd Keifer Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 35,000 54,000 0.65 B 6 Arterial Moderate 43,700 54,000 0.81 D 6 Arterial Moderate 43,820 120 54,000 0.81 D D44 Sunrise Blvd Keifer Blvd SR 16 6 Arterial Moderate 40,700 54,000 0.75 C 6 Arterial Moderate 47,200 54,000 0.87 D 6 Arterial Moderate 47,270 70 54,000 0.88 D D 45 Rancho Cordova Pkwy US 50 Easton Valley Pkwy 6 Expressway 49,600 81,000 0.61 C 6 Expressway 67,800 81,000 0.84 D 6 Expressway 67,960 160 81,000 0.84 D D46 Rancho Cordova Pkwy Easton Valley Pkwy White Rock Rd 6 Arterial Moderate 40,600 60,000 0.68 B 6 Arterial Moderate 63,900 60,000 1.07 F 6 Arterial Moderate 64,050 150 60,000 1.07 F D 47 Rancho Cordova Pkwy White Rock Rd Douglas Road 6 Arterial Moderate 23,000 54,000 0.43 A 6 Arterial Moderate 47,300 54,000 0.88 D 6 Arterial Moderate 47,380 80 54,000 0.88 D D48 Jaeger Rd Douglas Rd Chrysanthy Blvd 6 Arterial Moderate 19,800 54,000 0.37 A 6 Arterial Moderate 35,100 54,000 0.65 B 6 Arterial Moderate 35,130 30 54,000 0.65 B D49 Jaeger Rd Chrysanthy Blvd Keifer Blvd 4 Arterial Moderate 9,900 36,000 0.28 A 4 Arterial Moderate 15,400 36,000 0.43 A 4 Arterial Moderate 15,470 70 36,000 0.43 A D50 Americanos Blvd White Rock Rd Douglas Road 4 Arterial Moderate 18,100 36,000 0.50 A 4 Arterial Moderate 30,400 36,000 0.84 D 4 Arterial Moderate 27,560 ‐2,840 36,000 0.77 C D LOS decrease51 Americanos Blvd Douglas Rd Chrysanthy Blvd 4 Arterial Moderate 15,600 36,000 0.43 A 4 Arterial Moderate 21,800 36,000 0.61 B 4 Arterial Moderate 21,500 ‐300 36,000 0.60 A D LOS decrease52 Excelsior Rd 2 Arterial Moderate 7,800 18,000 0.43 A 2 Arterial Moderate 10,400 18,000 0.58 A 2 Arterial Moderate 10,420 20 18,000 0.58 A E53 SR 16 6 Arterial High 18,800 60,000 0.31 A 6 Arterial High 19,000 60,000 0.32 A 6 Arterial High 18,710 ‐290 60,000 0.31 A E Comments
Note: Bold represents unacceptable operations. Shaded indicates significanta impact. north of SR 16
west of Excelsior Rd
Cumulative (2030) plus Proposed Project ‐ REROUTED
LOS
Threshold ID Roadway
Segment Cumulative (2030) No Project Cumulative (2030) plus Proposed Project 7/25/2019
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Page 2686 of 3764 ends

The Preserve
Project
SCH# 2019100515
Final Environmental Impact
Report
Prepared for
City of Rancho Cordova
March 2022
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2687 of 3764 ends

The Preserve Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2019100515
Lead Agency
City of Rancho Cordova
Community Development Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95760
Darcy Goulart
Principal Planner
(916) 851-8784
Prepared By
Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 372-6100
Contact:

Rod Stinson
Vice President
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2688 of 3764 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2689 of 3764 ends

CHAPTER PAGE

1. Introduction and List of Commenters.................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Background .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Purpose of the Final EIR .............................................................................. 1-2

1.4 List of Commenters ...................................................................................... 1-2

1.5 Certification of the Final EIR ......................................................................... 1-2

1.6 Organization of the Final EIR ....................................................................... 1-3

2. Responses to Comments ....................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Responses to Comments ............................................................................. 2-1

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Text ............................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Description of Changes ................................................................................ 3-1

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program....................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Compliance Checklist................................................................................... 4-1

4.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .............................................. 4-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2690 of 3764 ends

1. Introduction and List of
Commenters
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2691 of 3764 ends

1.1 INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains comments received during the public review period of The Preserve Project (proposed project) Draft EIR. This document has been prepared by the City of Rancho Cordova, as Lead Agency, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15132. The Introduction and List of Commenters chapter of the Final EIR discusses the background of the Draft EIR and purpose of the Final EIR, and provides an overview of the organization of the Final EIR.

1.2 BACKGROUND
The Draft EIR identified the proposed project’s potential impacts and the mitigation measures that would be required to be implemented. The proposed project Draft EIR includes the following environmental analysis chapters: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy; Biological Resources; Cultural and Tribal Resources; Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services and Utilities; and Transportation. The remaining environmental issue areas identified by Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are addressed in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project and included in Appendix A of The Preserve Project Draft EIR, as an attachment to the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

In accordance with CEQA, the City of Rancho Cordova used the following methods to solicit public input on the Draft EIR:
• A NOP for the Draft EIR was released for a 30-day public review period from October 25, 2019 to November 25, 2019. The NOP comment letters are included as Appendix B to the Draft EIR.
• A public scoping meeting was held in Rancho Cordova City Hall, American River South Room on November 13, 2019 to solicit comments regarding the scope of the Draft EIR. • On November 9, 2021, the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State and local agencies, resulting in a 45-day public review period from November 9, 2021 to December 27, 2021.
• On November 9, 2021, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was posted to the City’s website, and mailed to local agencies and interested members of the public. • The Draft EIR was made available for review on the CEQA website at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019100515/3
All public comments received on the Draft EIR are listed in this chapter, and written responses to comments are included in Chapter 2, Response to Comments, as discussed in more detail in Section 1.4 of this chapter.

1. INTRODUCTION AND LIST OF

COMMENTERS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2692 of 3764 ends

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR consists of the following:

1. Comments received on the Draft EIR (Chapter 2 of this Final EIR);

2. Revisions to the Draft EIR (Chapter 3 of this Final EIR); A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR (included as Section 1.4 of this chapter); and

3. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

1.4 LIST OF COMMENTERS
The City of Rancho Cordova received eight comment letters during the public comment period on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The comment letters were authored by the following agencies, groups, and individual residents.

Agencies
Letter 1 .................................. Sacramento County Department of Transportation – Gary Gasperi Letter 2 .......................................... California Department of Parks and Recreation – Barry Smith Letter 3 ......................................................California Department of Transportation – Alex Padilla Letter 4 .................................................... Sacramento Regional Transit District – Kevin Schroder Letter 5 .................Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District – Joseph J. Hurley Letter 6 ........................................Central Valley Regional Water Quality Board – Peter G. Minkel Groups
Letter 7 ......................................................................................... Civic Thread – Kathryn Canepa Residents
Letter 8 ............................................................................................................................Don Ross

1.5 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
State law requires that the City make several types of CEQA “findings” at the time of final action on the project. Findings describe the conclusions reached regarding particular issues, including specific evidence in support of those conclusions. The Final EIR typically provides much of the substantial evidence to support these findings. The required findings for the project are as follows:
• Certification of the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090) – These findings support the adequacy of the Final EIR for decision-making purposes. The Lead Agency must make the following three determinations in certifying a Final EIR:

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. • Findings Regarding Significant Impacts and Project Alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091) – These findings explain how the City chose to address each identified significant impact, including the mitigation measures adopted or an explanation of why ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2693 of 3764 ends

such measures are infeasible. A discussion of the feasibility of project alternatives is also required by this section (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]).

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093(b), when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the action (Statement of Overriding Considerations). The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence. The proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and transportation; thus, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted if the project is approved. The required Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations will be included as part of the resolution considered by the City of Rancho Cordova.

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR is organized into the following four chapters.

1. Introduction and List of Commenters
Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview of the document, describes the background of the Draft EIR and the purposes of the Final EIR, provides a list of commenters, and describes the organization of the Final EIR.

2. Responses to Comments
Chapter 2 presents the comment letters received, and responses to each comment. Each comment letter received has been numbered at the top and bracketed to indicate how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a number with the letter number appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, the first comment in Letter 1 would have the following format: 1-1. The response to each comment will reference the comment number.

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Text
Chapter 3 summarizes changes made to the Draft EIR text including clarifications, modifications, and amplifications of the analysis. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR when “significant new information” is added to the document after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The modifications to the Draft EIR identified in Chapter 3 have been examined with these requirements and obligations in mind. The City has determined that the provisions of Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines are not triggered and recirculation of this EIR is not required. A more detailed description of this determination will be included in the CEQA Findings of Fact described above.

4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097, requires lead agencies to adopt a program for monitoring the mitigation measures required to avoid the significant environmental impacts of a project. The intent of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the EIR for the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2694 of 3764 ends

2. Responses to Comments
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2695 of 3764 ends

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Responses to Comments chapter contains responses to each of the comment letters submitted regarding The Preserve Project (proposed project) Draft EIR during the public review period.

2.2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Each bracketed comment letter is followed by numbered responses to each bracketed 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 that are unrelated to its environmental impacts) are either discussed or noted for the record.

Where revisions to the Draft EIR text are required in response to the comments, such revisions are noted in the response to the comment, and are also listed in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR. All new text is shown as double underlined and deleted text is shown as struck through.

2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2696 of 3764 ends

Letter 1
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2697 of 3764 ends

Letter
1 Cont’d
1-6
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2698 of 3764 ends

LETTER 1: GARY GASPERI, SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION
Response to Comment 1-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 1-2
The Sacramento County Department of Transportation’s willingness to coordinate on the improvements at the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection is noted for the record, and the City commits to do so.

Response to Comment 1-3
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Nonetheless, as detailed on page 4.10-17 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would be conditioned to build a signal with turn pockets at Intersection 20. Consistent with the commenter’s recommendation, the City of Rancho Cordova would be required to coordinate with the Capital Southeast Connector JPA on the Intersection 20 improvement. As part of that discussion, the City would consider the future east access needs to the Teichert Aggregates quarry sites.

Response to Comment 1-4
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

However, consistent with the commenter’s recommendation, the City of Rancho Cordova would be required to coordinate with the Capital Southeast Connector JPA on the Intersection 21 improvement as well as future construction projects along Grant Line Road. It is noted that the Intersection 21 improvement cited by the commenter is not included as a project condition of approval. As detailed on page 4.10-17 of the Draft EIR, the project conditions of approval include improvements to Intersections 17 and 20.

Response to Comment 1-5
Please see Response to Comment 1-4.

Response to Comment 1-6
Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2699 of 3764 ends

Letter 2
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2700 of 3764 ends

LETTER 2: BARRY SMITH, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND

RECREATION
Response to Comment 2-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 2-2
The comment provides background on Prairie City State Vehicle Recreation Area and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 2-3
While the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, the comment is noted for the record and will be considered by City staff in developing the staff recommendation, and by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations and decision-making regarding certification of the EIR and the proposed project.

Response to Comment 2-4
Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2701 of 3764 ends

Letter 3
3-1
3-2
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2702 of 3764 ends

Letter 3
Cont’d
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2703 of 3764 ends

Letter 3
Cont’d
3-7
3-8
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2704 of 3764 ends

LETTER 3: ALEX PADILLA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION
Response to Comment 3-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-2
The comment summarizes the project components and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 3-3
The City of Rancho Cordova’s Travel Demand Model was used to complete the subject vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis. The model is based on the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) SACSIM19 model, but is refined within the City Limits for land use, roadway network, and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) structure. The process outlined by SACOG in their VMT methodology document was used to calculate the project’s VMT per capita.1 It is acknowledged that the results may differ from the standard SACSIM19 model, due to the aforementioned modifications made by the City for their City-specific model. It is also reasonable to anticipate that the results may differ from the Highway Performance Modeling System (HPMS), due to their respective data sources and methodology procedures. Additionally, the methodology and findings of the VMT analysis within the Draft EIR were reviewed by the City prior to publication of the Draft EIR and were determined to be adequate.

Response to Comment 3-4
Please refer to Response to Comment 3-3 for a summary of the methodology that was used to estimate the project VMT per capita. The same methodology was applied to estimate the VMT per capita for the entire SACOG region. Consistent with State guidance, the VMT threshold was determined to be 15 percent below the regional VMT per capita. The methodology and findings from this analysis were reviewed and approved by the City prior to publication and were determined to be adequate.

It is noted that the VMT analysis in the Draft EIR is conservative. If the VMT threshold of significance were based on the SACOG or HPMS values, consistent with the commenter’s request, then the VMT threshold of significance would be 20.91 or 21.34, respectively. Thus, the project specific VMT per capita of 23.3 would be closer to the threshold, and the threshold would be easier to achieve. Regardless, the conclusion would remain the same as what was presented in the Draft EIR even if the SACOG or HPMS regional VMT values were used to calculate the VMT threshold of significance.

Response to Comment 3-5
The Traffic Impact Analysis includes evaluations of the Mather Field Road, Zinfandel Drive, and Sunrise Boulevard interchanges with U.S. Route 50. As detailed in the Draft EIR on page 4.10- 17, the additional traffic generated by the proposed project would not result in inconsistency with the City’s acceptable level of service (LOS) standard at the aforementioned locations. Therefore, the Traffic Impact Analysis did not identify improvement requirements at the foregoing interchanges. In addition, Figures 5 and 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis show the trip distribution 1 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. VMT Computation Procedures. September 30, 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2705 of 3764 ends

under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions, respectively. As indicated therein, the distribution percentages and roadway segment volumes were accounted for in the modeling completed as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Mather Field Road, Zinfandel Drive, and Sunrise Boulevard interchanges with U.S. Route 50.

The Traffic Impact Analysis additionally evaluated the potential effects from project-generated traffic north of the project site along Grant Line Road and White Rock Road to the Prairie City Road/White Rock Road intersection. Based on the locations’ proximity to the project site, projectgenerated traffic would pass through the aforementioned locations before reaching the Prairie City Road interchange with U.S. Route 50. The Traffic Impact Analysis determined that LOSrelated improvements were not warranted at the White Rock Road/Grant Line Road and White Rock Road/Prairie City Road intersections. Nor were improvements necessary along the White Rock Road segment from Grant Line Road to Prairie City Road. Accordingly, because the aforementioned locations, which are closer to the project site, do not require improvements to sufficiently accommodate project-generated traffic, the Traffic Impact Analysis also found that an evaluation of the Prairie City Road interchange with U.S. Route 50, located further north of the project site, was not needed.

As part of development of the proposed project, the City has committed to coordinating with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the County, the Capital Southeast Connector JPA, and the developer to make improvements at the two locations identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis requiring LOS-related improvements.

Response to Comment 3-6
The comment concurs with the methodology, inputs, and fair share project contribution used in the Traffic Impact Analysis to assess the project’s effects on LOS under Existing Plus Project conditions at the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection. The Draft EIR analyzes the proposed project’s consistency with the City’s applicable General Plan LOS standard at the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection on page 4.10-17 and requires a project condition of approval to address the project’s LOS inconsistency. The condition of approval requires the project applicant to pay a fair-share contribution for the required improvements to the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection through payment of the City’s transportation fees.

Response to Comment 3-7
Caltrans is included on the distribution list for the proposed project. Accordingly, consistent with the commenter’s request, subsequent project documents will be submitted to Caltrans.

Response to Comment 3-8
Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2706 of 3764 ends

Letter
4 4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2707 of 3764 ends

LETTER 4: KEVIN SCHRODER, SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT

DISTRICT
Response to Comment 4-1
The comment is an introductory statement summarizing the project components, but does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 4-2
The comment is noted for the record and will be considered by City staff in developing the staff recommendation, and by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations and decision-making regarding certification of the EIR and the proposed project.

Response to Comment 4-3
Please see Response to Comment 4-2.

Response to Comment 4-4
As part of its approval, the proposed project would be annexed into the City’s Transit Related Services Tax district, which is a primary source of funding for the CordoVan shuttle service. The City anticipates expanding CordoVan services to the project site, as residents move into the proposed residences.

CEQA requires a VMT analysis as part of evaluating transportation impacts. As detailed under Impact 4.10-2 of the Draft EIR, starting on page 4.10-25, the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact under Existing Plus Project conditions related to VMT.

Nonetheless, as set forth by Mitigation Measure 4.10-2(b), the project would be required to “provide monetary support for the City’s transportation services…” to address the identified VMT impact. Such services may include Transit Shuttle, Guaranteed Ride Home, Transit Subsidies, Education Programs, etc.

Response to Comment 4-5
The Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) is included on the distribution list for the proposed project. Subsequent project documents will be submitted to SacRT. Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2708 of 3764 ends

Letter 5
5-1
5-2
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2709 of 3764 ends

Letter 5
Cont’d
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2710 of 3764 ends

Letter 5
Cont’d
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2711 of 3764 ends

LETTER 5: JOSEPH J. HURLEY, SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR

QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Response to Comment 5-1
The comment is an introductory statement, summarizes the project components, and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 5-2
Although noted at other points in Chapter 4, the commenter is correct that Table 4.1-6 did not explicitly specify that the presented thresholds are only applicable when all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied. To improve clarity and in response to the commenter’s concern, Table 4.1-6, on page

4.1-35 is hereby revised as follows:

Table 4.1-1
SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant Construction Threshold Operational Threshold
NOX 85 lbs/day 65 lbs/day
ROG - 65 lbs/day
PM10 80 lbs/day and 14.6 tons/yr* 80 lbs/day and 14.6 tons/yr* PM2.5 82 lbs/day and 15 tons/yr* 82 lbs/day and 15 tons/yr* * The above thresholds for PM only apply when all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied. If all feasible BACT/BMPs are not applied, then the applicable threshold of significance for PM is 0.

Source: SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table, April 2020.

The above revisions are included for clarification purposes, and do not change the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 5-3
The discussion following Table 4.1-8, on page 4.1-41, lists the SMAQMD’s Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices, and includes the following excerpt:

Compliance with the foregoing measures is required per Rule 403, and the City would enforce compliance with Rule 403 as a condition of approval of the proposed project. Thus, project construction is assumed to include compliance with the foregoing BMPs.

Based on the above, the proposed project would be required to comply with the SMAQMD’s Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices, and the non-zero construction thresholds are appropriate for comparison in Table 4.1-8.

Nonetheless, to improve clarity and in response to the commenter’s concern, page 4.1-40 is hereby revised as follows:
“Table 4.1-2 below presents the estimated construction-related emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the proposed project in comparison with the SMAQMD thresholds of significance as described above. The construction modeling assumptions are described in the Method of Analysis section above. As discussed in further detail below, project construction would comply with the SMAQMD’s Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2712 of 3764 ends

As shown in Table 4.1-2, construction activities would result in emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 below the applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would not substantially contribute to the SVAB’s non-attainment status for ozone or PM. Accordingly, construction of the proposed project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, and a less-than-significant impact would occur associated with construction.

Table 4.1-2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions
Pollutant
Project
Emissions
Construction
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
NOX 54.00 lbs/day 85 lbs/day NO
ROG 28.63 lbs/day - NO
PM10 20.32 lbs/day and

0.53 tons/yr
80 lbs/day and 14.6
tons/yr*
NO
PM2.5 11.87 lbs/day and

0.28 tons/yr
82 lbs/day and 15
tons/yr*
NO
* The above thresholds for PM only apply when all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied. If all feasible BACT/BMPs are not applied, then the applicable threshold of significance for PM is 0.

Source: CalEEMod, May 2021.

It should be noted that construction activity related to implementation of the proposed project is required to comply with all SMAQMD rules and regulations. […]” In addition, page 4.1-41 is hereby revised as follows:
“In addition, the control of fugitive dust during construction is required by SMAQMD Rule 403, and enforced by SMAQMD staff. The SMAQMD’s Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices (BMPs) for dust control include the following:
• Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads;
• Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered; • Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;[…]”
The foregoing revisions are for clarification purposes, and do not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 5-4
The commenter is correct that the project description does not commit to the prohibition of natural gas. As the project site is located within the jurisdiction of SMAQMD, the analysis generally assumed compliance with SMAQMD requirements. However, to ensure that the project will comply with BMPs 1 and 2, page 4.1-56 is hereby revised to include the following mitigation measures:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2713 of 3764 ends

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.1-7 To achieve Tier 1, BMP 1, the project applicant shall commit to one of the following options:

A. All structures proposed as part of the project shall be construction without natural gas infrastructure; or
B. Off-site credits shall be purchased in order to reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 571.93 MTCO2e per year.

Credit purchases shall adhere to all of the following:

Such credits must be purchased through one of the
following:
(i) A California Air Resources Board (CARB)-
approved registry, such as the Climate Action
Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the
Verified Carbon Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved by CARB to act as a
registry under the California Cap and Trade
program; or
(iii) Through the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx and the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits meeting these criteria are available within California, the applicant may
purchase credits elsewhere so long as: (a) the
Governor or the Governor’s designee has made
the findings set forth in Government Code
Section 12894; (b) and these findings have been
submitted to the Legislature; and (c) California
has accepted the credits as meeting the linkage
standards contained in Government Code
Section 12894 or its successor statute.

2. The applicant must show that the emission reductions from identified projects are real, permanent through the duration of the project (if it is a one-time purchase), enforceable, and are equal to the pollutant type and
amount of the project impact being offset. In addition, any off-site purchase shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development
Department.

Should the applicant select Option B, it is noted that the provisions of Mitigation Measure 4.1-9 still apply in full.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2714 of 3764 ends

Proof of compliance shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department prior to approval of final improvement plans.

4.1-8 To achieve Tier 2, BMP 2, all single-family residences included as part of the proposed project shall include EV ready infrastructure. Proof of compliance shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department prior to approval of final improvement plans.

4.1-79 To achieve Tier 2, BMP 3, off-site credits shall be purchased in order to reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 617.30 MTCO2e per year. Credit purchases shall adhere to all of the following:

1. Off-site credits shall be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). Such credits shall be based on protocols that are consistent with the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 95972 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. Such credits must be purchased through one of the following:
(i) A California Air Resources Board (CARB)-approved
registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the
American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon
Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or
(iii) Through the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx and the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits meeting these criteria are available within California, the applicant may purchase credits elsewhere so long as: (a) the Governor or the
Governor’s designee has made the findings set forth in
Government Code Section 12894; (b) and these findings
have been submitted to the Legislature; and (c) California has accepted the credits as meeting the linkage
standards contained in Government Code Section 12894
or its successor statute.

In addition, any off-site purchase shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department.

The foregoing revisions ensure what was implied in the discussion and, therefore, do not identify a new or more significant environmental impact. As such, the conclusions presented in the Draft ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2715 of 3764 ends

EIR remain the same and, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not warranted.

Response to Comment 5-5
See Response to Comment 5-4.

Response to Comment 5-6
See Response to Comment 5-4.

Response to Comment 5-7
The comment provides background information regarding the Urban Heat Island effect, and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 5-8
The comment includes suggestions related to the albedo of paving materials. Such features are planning considerations, and are outside the purview of CEQA. Additionally, the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the suggestions are noted for the record and have been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

Response to Comment 5-9
The comment includes suggestions related to project landscaping. Such features are planning considerations, and are outside the purview of CEQA. Additionally, the comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Nonetheless, the suggestions are noted for the record and have been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.

Response to Comment 5-10
The comment references SMAQMD’s rules, and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 5-11
The comment is a conclusion statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2716 of 3764 ends

Letter 6
6-1
6-2
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2717 of 3764 ends

Letter 6
Cont’d
6-2 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2718 of 3764 ends

Letter 6
Cont’d
6-2 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2719 of 3764 ends

Letter 6
Cont’d
6-2 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2720 of 3764 ends

Letter 6
Cont’d
6-3
6-2 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2721 of 3764 ends

LETTER 6: PETER G. MINKEL, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER

QUALITY BOARD
Response to Comment 6-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 6-2
The comment provides background information regarding applicable regulations and required permits. The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR and has been noted for the record.

Response to Comment 6-3
Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2722 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
7-1
7-2
7-3
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2723 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
Cont’d
7-3 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2724 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
Cont’d
7-3 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2725 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
Cont’d
7-3 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2726 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
Cont’d
7-4
7-5
7-6
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2727 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
Cont’d
7-6 cont’d
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2728 of 3764 ends

Letter 7
Cont’d
7-6 cont’d 7-7
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2729 of 3764 ends

LETTER 7: KATHRYN CANEPA, CIVIC THREAD
Response to Comment 7-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 7-2
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but instead, introduces requests subsequently made in Comment 7-3 that relate to connection points to the Morrison Creek Trail.

Please see Response to Comment 7-3.

Response to Comment 7-3
The requests included as part of Comment 7-3 do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Nor are the requested project modifications necessary to prevent potential environmental impacts, as required under CEQA. Nevertheless, the following discussions address the five requests made in the comment and are based on iterative collaboration between the project applicant and the City.

It should be noted that most of the requested connections are proposed as part of the project, and one is being considered, depending on topographical feasibility.

1. CRPD Neighborhood Park 2 on Parcel F: A connector path as part of the proposed project is planned at the commenter’s suggested location.

2. Parcel L: The requested connector path is under review.

3. Parcel M: A connector path is planned at this general location and is designed to safely accommodate the slope.

4. Parcel D: A connection from CRPD Neighborhood Park 1 to the Morrison Creek Trail would be proposed as part of the design of the park and is included in the project applicant’s conceptual plan.

5. Parcel J: The parcel is a utility corridor and is not part of a neighborhood bicycle travel way.

Response to Comment 7-4
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment requesting increased density is noted for the record and will be considered by City staff in developing the staff recommendation, and by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations and decision-making regarding certification of the EIR and the proposed project.

Response to Comment 7-5
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, but instead, introduces requests subsequently made in Comment 7-6 that relate to connection to transit and bicycle facilities.

Please see Response to Comment 7-6.

Response to Comment 7-6
The requests included as part of Comment 7-6 do not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR, nor are necessary to prevent potential environmental impacts, as required under CEQA. However, the following discussions address the six requests made in the comment.

1. The request to upgrade the bike lanes on Douglas Road and Americanos Boulevard is not proposed as part of the project. The applicant and City do not currently have plans to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2730 of 3764 ends

include such upgrades; nonetheless, the request will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

2. The requested addition of conflict striping to the Americanos Boulevard bike lane is not proposed as part of the project. The applicant and City do not currently have plans to include such striping; nonetheless, the request will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

3. The requested consultation with SacRT about the possibility of including a bus stop within the project site is under discussion by the project applicant.

4. As discussed under Impact 4.10-3 of the Draft EIR on page 4.10-27, the proposed project’s street frontage, roadways, and access points would be designed in accordance with all applicable standards established in the City’s Municipal Code, including those set forth in Chapter 22.110 pertaining to safety of primary and minor residential streets.

Additionally, although not a requirement under CEQA, the project would be conditioned, if approved, to construct the intersection improvements set forth on page 4.10-17 of the Draft EIR.

5. The requested mobility hub is not proposed as part of the project. The applicant and City do not currently have plans to include a mobility hub; nonetheless, the request will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.

6. The design concept of the proposed project concentrates connected park and open space amenities along the citywide trail system, to provide access to open space areas based on the close proximity of future residents and direct pedestrian connection points provided as part of the project. Neighborhood residents would have access to three parks in the immediate project vicinity, including two within the project site as well as the existing Hillside Park located in the Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision to the south of the project site. In addition, open space areas that provide areas for rest and relaxation have been strategically placed along the Morrison Creek Trail. Altogether, the inclusion of the proposed amenities allows for open space recreation and urban cooling benefits.

Response to Comment 7-7
Civic Thread is included on the distribution list for the proposed project. Subsequent project documents will be submitted to Civic Thread. Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2731 of 3764 ends

Letter 8
8-1
8-2
8-3
8-4
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2732 of 3764 ends

LETTER 8: DONALD ROSS, RESIDENT
Response to Comment 8-1
The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment 8-2
The comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Nonetheless, it is noted that the Draft EIR evaluates potential project impacts to bird species on pages 4.2-45 through 4.2-55. As discussed therein, the inclusion of the mitigation measures required as part of the project would ensure that all potential impacts to birds are reduced to lessthan-significant levels.

The comment is noted for the record and will be considered by City staff in developing the staff recommendation, and by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations and decision-making regarding certification of the EIR and the proposed project.

Response to Comment 8-3
As detailed throughout Chapter 4.2, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR, a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) was prepared for the proposed project by ECORP Consulting, Inc. (see Appendix D to the Draft EIR). The BRA included findings from a field reconnaissance of the project site, which surveyed for wildlife species covered under the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP), as well as findings from multiple field surveys of the project site for other special-status species protected under CEQA. In addition, the BRA included a literature review, which consisted of a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Buffalo Creek quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles for special-status species that have occurred in the foregoing study area, as well as a query of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). As such, the BRA serves as a thorough study on the seasonal and migratory bird species that make the project area home for the purposes of nesting, foraging, and migration.

The 108.25-acre study area for the proposed project is depicted in Figure 4.2-1 of the Draft EIR on page 4.2-3 and includes the 98.9-acre proposed development area for The Preserve Project, as well as a total of 7.85 acres in which potential off-site improvements are proposed. The identified special-status wildlife species that have potential to occur within the study area are detailed in Table 4.2-2 of the Draft EIR, which starts on page 4.2-11.

Potential project impacts to special-status bird species protected under CEQA and migratory birds and raptors protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act are detailed under Impacts 4.2- 4 through 4.2-7, which starts on page 4.2-45 of the Draft EIR. Applicable mitigation measures are set forth therein, the implementation of which would ensure that all identified potential project impacts to the foregoing species are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

With respect to the commenter’s views regarding the merits of the proposed project, such views are noted for the record. All comments, whether substantiated by facts or simply reflecting the position of the commenter, will be considered by City staff in developing the staff recommendation, and by the Planning Commission and City Council in their deliberations and decision-making regarding certification of the EIR and the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2733 of 3764 ends

Response to Comment 8-4
Thank you for participating in the public review process of the Draft EIR. Your comments and concerns are noted for the record.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2734 of 3764 ends

3. Revisions to the Draft EIR Text
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2735 of 3764 ends

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The Revisions to the Draft EIR Text chapter provides all corrections, additions, and revisions made to the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR when “significant new information” is added to the document after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. Pursuant to this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not considered "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the City has decided not to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes any of the following:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The changes presented herein offer minor clarifications and amplifications of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR and do not constitute significant new information that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft EIR. In other words, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

It should be noted that in addition to the text revisions presented in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR in response to public comments, this chapter provides other text revisions to the Draft EIR initiated by the City of Rancho Cordova based upon further review of the document since publication.

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
New text is double underlined and deleted text is struck through. Text changes are presented in the page order in which they appear in the Draft EIR.
2 Executive Summary
For clarification purposes, Table 2-1 beginning on page 2-6 in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, of the Draft EIR is hereby revised to reflect revisions made to mitigation measures as part of this

3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT

EIR TEXT
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2736 of 3764 ends

Final EIR in the relevant chapters, as presented throughout this chapter. Rather than include the entirety of Table 2-1 with revisions shown where appropriate, only the impacts for which mitigation has been revised or added are presented below. The revisions to the Executive Summary table are for clarification purposes only and do not change the conclusions of the Draft EIR. Please refer to the end of this chapter for Table 2-1.

4.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
Table 4.1-6, on page 4.1-35 of the Draft EIR, is hereby revised as follows:

Source: SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance Table, April 2020.

The above revisions are included for clarification purposes, and do not change the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Page 4 ends

“Table 4.1-2 below presents the estimated construction-related emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with the proposed project in comparison with the SMAQMD thresholds of significance as described above. The construction modeling assumptions are described in the Method of Analysis section above. As discussed in further detail below, project construction would comply with the SMAQMD’s Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices.

Accordingly, construction of the proposed project would not violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur associated with construction.

Table 4.1-2
Maximum Unmitigated Construction-Related
Emissions
Pollutant
Project
Emissions
Construction
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
NOX 54.00 lbs/day 85 lbs/day NO
ROG 28.63 lbs/day - NO
PM10 20.32 lbs/day and

0.53 tons/yr
80 lbs/day and 14.6
tons/yr*
NO
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2737 of 3764 ends

PM2.5 11.87 lbs/day and

Source: CalEEMod, May 2021.

It should be noted that construction activity related to implementation of the proposed project is required to comply with all SMAQMD rules and regulations. […]” In addition, page 4.1-41 is hereby revised as follows:
“In addition, the control of fugitive dust during construction is required by SMAQMD Rule 403, and enforced by SMAQMD staff. The SMAQMD’s Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices (BMPs) for dust control include the following:
• Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads;
• Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered;
• Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;[…]”
The foregoing revisions are for clarification purposes, and do not affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR.

Page 4 ends

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.1-7 To achieve Tier 1, BMP 1, the project applicant shall commit to one of the following options:

Credit purchases shall adhere to all of the following:

Such credits must be purchased through one of the
following:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2738 of 3764 ends

(i) A California Air Resources Board (CARB)-
approved registry, such as the Climate Action
Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the
Verified Carbon Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved by CARB to act as a
registry under the California Cap and Trade
program; or
(iii) Through the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx and the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits meeting these criteria are available within California, the applicant may
purchase credits elsewhere so long as: (a) the
Governor or the Governor’s designee has made
the findings set forth in Government Code
Section 12894; (b) and these findings have been
submitted to the Legislature; and (c) California
has accepted the credits as meeting the linkage
standards contained in Government Code
Section 12894 or its successor statute.

Should the applicant select Option B, it is noted that the provisions of Mitigation Measure 4.1-9 still apply in full.

Proof of compliance shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department prior to approval of final improvement plans.

Page 2739 of 3764 ends

95972 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. Such credits must be purchased through one of the following:
(i) A California Air Resources Board (CARB)-approved
registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the
American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon
Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or
(iii) Through the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx and the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits meeting these criteria are available within California, the applicant may purchase credits elsewhere so long as: (a) the Governor or the
Governor’s designee has made the findings set forth in
Government Code Section 12894; (b) and these findings
have been submitted to the Legislature; and (c) California has accepted the credits as meeting the linkage
standards contained in Government Code Section 12894
or its successor statute.

In addition, any off-site purchase shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department.

The foregoing revisions do not identify a new or more significant environmental impact and the conclusions presented in the Draft EIR remain the same.

4.6 Biological Resources
The following staff-initiated change to Mitigation Measure 4.2-3(a) has been included to incorporate a mitigation measure from the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan that was inadvertently omitted from the Draft EIR. Page 4.2-42 of Chapter 4.2, Biological Resources, is hereby revised as follows:
• WS-5 (Erosion Control Materials in Western Spadefoot Habitat): If erosion control (BMP-2) is implemented within western spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]), non-entangling erosion control material will be used to reduce the potential for entrapment. Tightly woven fiber netting (mesh size less than 0.25 inch) or similar material will be used to ensure that western spadefoots are not trapped (no monofilament). Coconut coir matting and fiber rolls containing burlap are examples of acceptable erosion control materials. • WS-6 (Western Spadefoot Encounter Protocol): If Covered Activities must be implemented in modeled habitat (Figure 3-17) during the breeding and dispersal season (after October 15 and before May 15), and a western spadefoot is encountered during construction activities, the approved biologist will notify the Wildlife Agencies immediately. Construction activities will be ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2740 of 3764 ends

suspended in a 100-foot radius of the animal until the animal leaves the project site on its own volition. If necessary, the approved biologist will notify the Wildlife Agencies to determine the appropriate procedures related to relocation. If the animal is handled, a report will be submitted, including date(s), location(s), habitat description, and any corrective measures taken to protect the western spadefoot within 1 business day to the Wildlife Agencies. The biologist will report any take of listed species to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife immediately. Any worker who inadvertently injures or kills a western spadefoot or who finds dead, injured, or entrapped western spadefoot(s) must immediately report the incident to the approved biologist.

The foregoing revision includes the full measures required by the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan, and does not affect the analysis or conclusions presented within the Draft EIR.

4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
The following staff-initiated change has been included to eliminate an outdated reference to Mitigation Measure 4.4-2. Page 4.6-14 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

As discussed in further depth in Chapter 4.4, Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources, of this EIR, development of the SWPPP would include plans to treat stormwater runoff in accordance with the standards of the California Stormwater Management Practice New Development and Redevelopment Handbook and the MS4 Permit standards. The plan would include drainage design from all paved surfaces, including streets, parking lots, driveways, and roofs, as well as landscaping. In addition, the project would be subject to Chapter 16.44 of the City’s Municipal Code and Section 11 of the City’s Improvement Standards. Implementation of BMPs to control erosion, and, thus, sediment related pollution, is further mandated by Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 within Chapter 4.4 of this EIR. Chapter 16.44 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates grading and erosion by requiring all projects that grade more than one acre of land submit an application for review by the City prior to approval of a grading permit. The application must include a grading and erosion plan which would be reviewed for safety of grading and potential for erosion. The project would be subject to compliance with Chapter

16.44 of the City’s Municipal Code and the project applicant would be required to prepare a grading and erosion plan. The grading and erosion plan would include erosion control measures and sediment control measures to ensure the stability of the ground surface and soil within the project site during construction activities.

The following staff-initiated change has been included for consistency. Pages 4.6-15 through 4.6- 16 of the Draft EIR are hereby revised as follows:

Compliance with the State’s Construction General Permit, Chapter 11 of the Improvement Standards, and Chapter 16.44 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, as described above and required by Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 within this EIR, would minimize the potential degradation of stormwater quality and downstream surface water associated with construction of the proposed project. In addition, BMPs would be required to be designed in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Construction and for New Development/Redevelopment and Chapter 11 of the Improvement Standards (or other similar source as approved by the City). In order to further minimize the potential for, and effects from, accidental spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) below requires ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2741 of 3764 ends

the project to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Control Plan (SPCC). Without implementation of the aforementioned measures, the proposed project could result in a significant impact related to short-term construction-related water quality.

In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 of Chapter 4.6 of the Draft EIR, Hydrology and Water Quality, is hereby revised as follows:

4.6-1(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2

4.6-1(b) Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall submit, and obtain approval of, a Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Control Plan (SPCC) to the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department. The SPCC shall specify measures and procedures to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during all construction activities, and shall meet the requirements specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 112.

The forgoing staff-initiated revisions are for consistency and clarification purposes, and do not affect the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2742 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

4.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy

4.1-7 Generation of GHG
emissions that may have a
significant impact on the
environment or conflict with
an applicable plan, policy
or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of
GHGs.

S 4.1-7 To achieve Tier 1, BMP 1, the project applicant shall commit to one of the following options:

A. All structures proposed as part of the project shall be construction without natural gas
infrastructure; or
B. Off-site credits shall be purchased in order to
reduce annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
by 571.93 MTCO2e per year. Credit purchases
shall adhere to all of the following:

Page 2743 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
California Cap and Trade
program; or
(iii) Through the California Air
Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx
and the Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits
meeting these criteria are
available within California, the
applicant may purchase credits
elsewhere so long as: (a) the
Governor or the Governor’s
designee has made the findings
set forth in Government Code
Section 12894; (b) and these
findings have been submitted to
the Legislature; and (c) California
has accepted the credits as
meeting the linkage standards
contained in Government Code
Section 12894 or its successor
statute.

2. The applicant must show that the
emission reductions from identified
projects are real, permanent through
the duration of the project (if it is a onetime purchase), enforceable, and are equal to the pollutant type and amount
of the project impact being offset. In
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2744 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
addition, any off-site purchase shall be
subject to review and approval by the
City of Rancho Cordova Community
Development Department.

Should the applicant select Option B, it is
noted that the provisions of Mitigation
Measure 4.1-9 still apply in full.

Proof of compliance shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City of
Rancho Cordova Community
Development Department prior to
approval of final improvement plans.

4.1-8 To achieve Tier 2, BMP 2, all single-family residences included as part of the proposed project shall include
EV ready infrastructure. Proof of compliance shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City of
Rancho Cordova Community Development
Department prior to approval of final improvement
plans.

4.1-79 To achieve Tier 2, BMP 3, off-site credits shall be purchased in order to reduce annual greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions by 617.30 MTCO2e per year. Credit
purchases shall adhere to all of the following:

1. Off-site credits shall be real,
quantifiable, permanent, verifiable,
enforceable, and additional, consistent
with the standards set forth in California
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2745 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Health and Safety Code Section 38562,
subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). Such
credits shall be based on protocols that
are consistent with the criteria set forth
in subdivision (a) of Section 95972 of
Title 17 of the California Code of
Regulations. Such credits must be
purchased through one of the following:
(i) A California Air Resources Board
(CARB)-approved registry, such
as the Climate Action Reserve,
the American Carbon Registry,
and the Verified Carbon
Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved by CARB
to act as a registry under the
California Cap and Trade
program; or
(iii) Through the California Air
Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) GHG Rx
and the Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality Management District
(SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits
meeting these criteria are
available within California, the
applicant may purchase credits
elsewhere so long as: (a) the
Governor or the Governor’s
designee has made the findings
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2746 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
set forth in Government Code
Section 12894; (b) and these
findings have been submitted to
the Legislature; and (c) California
has accepted the credits as
meeting the linkage standards
contained in Government Code
Section 12894 or its successor
statute.

4.2 Biological Resources

4.2-3 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat
modifications, on specialstatus amphibian species.

S 4.2-3(a) The project applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMMs WS-1 through WS-6.
• WS-1 (Western Spadefoot Work Window):

Ground-disturbing Covered Activities within
western spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure
3-17 [of the SSHCP]) will occur outside the
breeding and dispersal season (after May 15
and before October 15), to the maximum
extent practicable.

LS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2747 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• WS-2 (Western Spadefoot Exclusion
Fencing): If Covered Activities must be
implemented in modeled habitat (Figure 3-
17) after October 15 and before May 15,
exclusion fencing will be installed around the
project footprint before October 15, and the
project site must be monitored by an
approved biologist following rain events.

Temporary high- visibility construction
fencing will be installed along the edge of
work areas, and silt fencing will be installed
immediately behind the temporary highvisibility construction fencing to exclude western spadefoot from entering the
construction area. Fencing will remain in
place until all construction activities within the
construction area are completed. No project
activities will occur outside the delineated
project footprint. If a western spadefoot is
encountered, refer to WS-6, below.
• WS-3 (Western Spadefoot Monitoring): If
Covered Activities must be implemented in
modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the
SSHCP]) in the breeding and dispersal
season (after October 15 and before May 15),
an approved biologist experienced with
western spadefoot identification and behavior
will monitor the project site, including the
integrity of any exclusion fencing. The
approved biologist will be on site daily while
construction- related activities are taking
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2748 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
place, and will inspect the project site daily for
western spadefoot prior to construction
activities. The approved biologist will also
train construction personnel on the required
avoidance procedures, exclusion fencing,
and protocols in the event that a western
spadefoot enters an active construction zone
(i.e., outside the buffer zone). If a western
spadefoot is encountered, refer to WS-6,
below.
• WS-4 (Avoid Western Spadefoot
Entrapment): If a Covered Activity occurs in
western spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure
3-17 [of the SSHCP]), all excavated steepwalled holes and trenches more than 6 inches deep will be covered with plywood (or
similar material) or provided with one or
more escape ramps constructed of earth fill
or wooden planks at the end of each work
day or 30 minutes prior to sunset, whichever
occurs first. All steep-walled holes and
trenches will be inspected by the approved
biologist each morning to ensure that no
wildlife has become entrapped. All
construction pipes, culverts, similar
structures, construction equipment, and
construction debris left overnight within
western spadefoot modeled habitat will be
inspected for western spadefoot by the
approved biologist prior to being moved. If a
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2749 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
western spadefoot is encountered, refer to
WS-6 below.
• WS-5 (Erosion Control Materials in Western
Spadefoot Habitat): If erosion control (BMP-2)
is implemented within western spadefoot
modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]),
non-entangling erosion control material will be
used to reduce the potential for entrapment.

Tightly woven fiber netting (mesh size less than

0.25 inch) or similar material will be used to
ensure that western spadefoots are not trapped
(no monofilament). Coconut coir matting and
fiber rolls containing burlap are examples of
acceptable erosion control materials.
• WS-6 (Western Spadefoot Encounter
Protocol): If Covered Activities must be
implemented in modeled habitat (Figure 3-17)
during the breeding and dispersal season
(after October 15 and before May 15), and a
western spadefoot is encountered during
construction activities, the approved biologist
will notify the Wildlife Agencies immediately.

Construction activities will be suspended in a
100-foot radius of the animal until the animal
leaves the project site on its own volition. If
necessary, the approved biologist will notify
the Wildlife Agencies to determine the
appropriate procedures related to relocation.

If the animal is handled, a report will be
submitted, including date(s), location(s),
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2750 of 3764 ends

Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
habitat description, and any corrective
measures taken to protect the western
spadefoot within 1 business day to the Wildlife
Agencies. The biologist will report any take of
listed species to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife immediately. Any worker who
inadvertently injures or kills a western
spadefoot or who finds dead, injured, or
entrapped western spadefoot(s) must
immediately report the incident to the
approved biologist.

4.6 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.6-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground
water quality during
construction.

S 4.6-1(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2.

4.6-1(b) Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall submit, and obtain approval of, a Spill Prevention Countermeasure and
Control Plan (SPCC) to the Sacramento County
Environmental Management Department. The SPCC
shall specify measures and procedures to minimize
the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during all construction
activities, and shall meet the requirements specified in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 112.

LS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2751 of 3764 ends

4. Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2752 of 3764 ends

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all State and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for The Preserve Project (proposed project). Unless otherwise noted, the cost of implementing the mitigation measures as prescribed by this MMRP shall be funded by the project applicant.

4.2 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
The MMRP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the EIR for the proposed project prepared by the City of Rancho Cordova. 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 EIR that was prepared for the proposed project.

The Preserve Project EIR presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15370, as a measure that:
• Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; • Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

The MMRP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary and in-the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.

Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City of Rancho Cordova. The table in Section 4.3 of this chapter identifies the mitigation measure, the monitoring action for the mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MMRP.

The City will be responsible for monitoring compliance.

4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2753 of 3764 ends

4.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the impact the measure is designed to address, the measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation schedule, and an area for sign-off indicating compliance.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2754 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy

4.1-3 Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

4.1-3 Prior to the initiation of any ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall ensure
that all heavy-duty off-road diesel-powered
equipment to be used during the grading
phase of construction of the proposed project
(including owned, leased, and subcontractor
equipment) shall be CARB Tier 4 or cleaner.

In addition, all off-road equipment working at
the construction site must be maintained in
proper working condition according to
manufacturer’s specifications. Idling shall be
limited to five minutes or less in accordance
with the In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle
Regulation as required by CARB. Portable
equipment over 50 horsepower must have
either a valid SMAQMD Permit to Operate
(PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment
Registration Program (PERP) placard and
sticker issued by CARB.

The aforementioned requirements shall be
noted on improvement plans and submitted for
review and approval by the City of Rancho
Cordova Community Development
Department.

City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the initiation
of any grounddisturbing activities

4.1-7 Generation of GHG
emissions that may have
a significant impact on
the environment or
conflict with an applicable

4.1-7 To achieve Tier 1, BMP 1, the project applicant
shall commit to one of the following options:

City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
final improvement
plans
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2755 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
plan, policy or regulation
of an agency adopted for
the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs.

A. All structures proposed as part of the
project shall be construction without
natural gas infrastructure; or
B. Off-site credits shall be purchased in
order to reduce annual greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions by 571.93
MTCO2e per year. Credit purchases
shall adhere to all of the following:

Such credits shall be based
on protocols that are
consistent with the criteria set
forth in subdivision (a) of
Section 95972 of Title 17 of
the California Code of
Regulations. Such credits
must be purchased through
one of the following:
(i) A California Air
Resources Board
(CARB)-approved
registry, such as the
Climate Action
Reserve, the
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2756 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
American Carbon
Registry, and the
Verified Carbon
Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved
by CARB to act as a
registry under the
California Cap and
Trade program; or
(iii) Through the
California Air
Pollution Control
Officers Association
(CAPCOA) GHG Rx
and the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air
Quality Management
District (SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no
credits meeting these
criteria are available
within California, the
applicant may
purchase credits
elsewhere so long as:
(a) the Governor or
the Governor’s
designee has made
the findings set forth
in Government Code
Section 12894; (b)
and these findings
have been submitted
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2757 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
to the Legislature;
and (c) California has
accepted the credits
as meeting the
linkage standards
contained in
Government Code
Section 12894 or its
successor statute.

2. The applicant must show that
the emission reductions from
identified projects are real,
permanent through the
duration of the project (if it is a
one-time purchase),
enforceable, and are equal to
the pollutant type and amount
of the project impact being
offset. In addition, any off-site
purchase shall be subject to
review and approval by the
City of Rancho Cordova
Community Development
Department.

Should the applicant select Option B, it is noted
that the provisions of Mitigation Measure 4.1-9
still apply in full.

Proof of compliance shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Rancho
Cordova Community Development
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2758 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Department prior to approval of final
improvement plans.

4.1-8 To achieve Tier 2, BMP 2, all single-family
residences included as part of the proposed
project shall include EV ready infrastructure.

Proof of compliance shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Rancho
Cordova Community Development
Department prior to approval of final
improvement plans.

4.1-9 To achieve Tier 2, BMP 3, off-site credits shall
be purchased in order to reduce annual
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 617.30
MTCO2e per year. Credit purchases shall
adhere to all of the following:

City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
final improvement
plans
Prior to approval of
final improvement
plans
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2759 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
(i) A California Air Resources
Board (CARB)-approved
registry, such as the Climate
Action Reserve, the American
Carbon Registry, and the
Verified Carbon Standard;
(ii) Any registry approved by
CARB to act as a registry
under the California Cap and
Trade program; or
(iii) Through the California Air
Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) GHG
Rx and the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District
(SMAQMD);
(iv) In the event that no credits
meeting these criteria are
available within California, the
applicant may purchase
credits elsewhere so long as:
(a) the Governor or the
Governor’s designee has
made the findings set forth in
Government Code Section
12894; (b) and these findings
have been submitted to the
Legislature; and (c) California
has accepted the credits as
meeting the linkage standards
contained in Government
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2760 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Code Section 12894 or its
successor statute.

The applicant must show that the
emission reductions from identified
projects are real, permanent through
the duration of the project (if it is a onetime purchase), enforceable, and are equal to the pollutant type and amount
of the project impact being offset. In
addition, any off-site purchase shall be
subject to review and approval by the
City of Rancho Cordova Community
Development Department.

4.2 Biological Resources

4.2-1 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on specialstatus plant species.

4.2-1(a) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities within the Raymer Way Offsite, the project
applicant shall comply with SSHCP AMM
Plant-1 (Rare Plant Surveys). Though
stinkbells is not considered an SSHCP
Covered Species, the special-status plant
surveys conducted per PLANT-1 shall identify
whether the species is present in the survey
area. If any special-status plant species are
found to be present during the focused
survey(s), Mitigation Measure 4.2-1(b) shall be
implemented. If special-status plant species
are not found to be present during the focused
survey(s), then no further action is required. A
written summary of the survey results shall be
submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova
Community Development Department.

City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to initiation of
ground disturbing
activities within the
Raymer Way Offsite
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2761 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• PLANT-1 (Rare Plant Surveys): If a
Covered Activity project site contains
modeled habitat for Ahart’s dwarf rush
(Juncus leiospermus var. ahartii),
Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola
heterosepala), dwarf downingia
(Downingia pusilla), Legenere
(Legenere limosa), pincushion
navarretia (Navarretia myersii), or
Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria
sanfordii), the Covered Activity project
site will be surveyed for the rare plant
by an approved biologist and following
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) rare plant survey
protocols (CDFG 2009) or the most
recent CDFW rare plant survey
protocols. An approved biologist will
conduct the field surveys and will
identify and map plant species
occurrences according to the
protocols. See Chapter 10 (of the
SSHCP) for the process to submit
survey information to the Plan
Permittee and the Permitting
Agencies.

4.2-1(b) If any SSHCP-covered plants are determined
to be present within the Raymer Way Offsite,
SSHCP PLANT-2 (Rare Plant Protection)
shall be implemented. If any special-status
plant species are determined to be present, a
mitigation plan shall be prepared for review
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities, if specialstatus plants are
identified on-site
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2762 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova;
mitigation may include harvesting and
transplanting of impacted bulbs into a
preserved area with suitable habitat. Avoided
areas containing species shall be fenced with
orange construction fencing.
• PLANT-2 (Rare Plant Protection): If
a rare plant listed in AMM PLANT-1 is
detected within an area proposed to
be disturbed by a Covered Activity or
is detected within 250 feet of the area
proposed to be disturbed by a
Covered Activity, the Implementing
Entity will assure one unprotected
occurrence of the species is protected
within a SSHCP Preserve before any
ground disturbance occurs at the
project site.

4.2-2 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on specialstatus invertebrates.

4.2-2(a) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall submit a
South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan
(SSHCP) permit application package to the
City of Rancho Cordova to request that the
incidental take coverage provided by City’s
SSHCP Incidental Take Permit (ITP) be
extended to the proposed activities. The City
of Rancho Cordova shall review the SSHCP
permit application for consistency with all of
the SSHCP requirements and provide the
South Sacramento Conservation Agency with
a copy of the SSHCP requirements for tracking
purposes. The project applicant shall be
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2763 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
responsible for paying all SSHCP
development fees associated with obtaining
coverage from the City of Rancho Cordova.

Any proposal to provide land in fee title, or
provide a conservation easement in lieu of
paying all or part of the required SSHCP
development fees, shall include a consistency
analysis in the application that sufficiently
shows that the proposal is consistent with the
SSHCP Conservation Strategy.

4.2-2(b) The project applicant shall comply with
SSHCP requirements and all relevant AMMs
set forth in the SSHCP Permit obtained for the
proposed project.

4.2-2(c) Prior to approval of grading and improvement
plans and prior to initiation of any
groundbreaking activity associated with the
proposed project, or timed as required by the
applicable permits if the proposed project is
constructed in phases, the project applicant
shall ensure that mitigation for impacts to
aquatic features and other habitat for specialstatus species has been implemented through the SSHCP In-Lieu Fee Program or by other
methods agreeable to the USACE, RWQCB,
USFWS, CDFW, City, and South Sacramento
Conservation Agency as appropriate,
depending on agency jurisdiction.

City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities, and
throughout
construction period
Prior to approval of
grading and
improvement plans
and prior to initiation
of any
groundbreaking
activities, or timed as
required by the
applicable permits if
the proposed project
is constructed in
phases
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2764 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off

4.2-3 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on specialstatus amphibian
species.

Western Spadefoot

4.2-3(a) The project applicant shall comply with
SSHCP AMMs WS-1 through WS-6.
• WS-1 (Western Spadefoot Work
Window): Ground-disturbing Covered
Activities within western spadefoot
modeled habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the
SSHCP]) will occur outside the
breeding and dispersal season (after
May 15 and before October 15), to the
maximum extent practicable.
• WS-2 (Western Spadefoot
Exclusion Fencing): If Covered
Activities must be implemented in
modeled habitat (Figure 3-17) after
October 15 and before May 15,
exclusion fencing will be installed
around the project footprint before
October 15, and the project site must
be monitored by an approved biologist
following rain events. Temporary highvisibility construction fencing will be installed along the edge of work areas,
and silt fencing will be installed
immediately behind the temporary
high-visibility construction fencing to
exclude western spadefoot from
entering the construction area.

Fencing will remain in place until all
construction activities within the
construction area are completed. No
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Throughout the
duration of the
construction period
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2765 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
project activities will occur outside the
delineated project footprint. If a
western spadefoot is encountered,
refer to WS-6, below.
• WS-3 (Western Spadefoot
Monitoring): If Covered Activities
must be implemented in modeled
habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]) in
the breeding and dispersal season
(after October 15 and before May 15),
an approved biologist experienced
with western spadefoot identification
and behavior will monitor the project
site, including the integrity of any
exclusion fencing. The approved
biologist will be on site daily while
construction- related activities are
taking place, and will inspect the
project site daily for western spadefoot
prior to construction activities. The
approved biologist will also train
construction personnel on the required
avoidance procedures, exclusion
fencing, and protocols in the event that
a western spadefoot enters an active
construction zone (i.e., outside the
buffer zone). If a western spadefoot is
encountered, refer to WS-6, below.
• WS-4 (Avoid Western Spadefoot
Entrapment): If a Covered Activity
occurs in western spadefoot modeled
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2766 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
habitat (Figure 3-17 [of the SSHCP]),
all excavated steep-walled holes and
trenches more than 6 inches deep will
be covered with plywood (or similar
material) or provided with one or more
escape ramps constructed of earth fill
or wooden planks at the end of each
work day or 30 minutes prior to sunset,
whichever occurs first. All steepwalled holes and trenches will be inspected by the approved biologist
each morning to ensure that no wildlife
has become entrapped. All
construction pipes, culverts, similar
structures, construction equipment,
and construction debris left overnight
within western spadefoot modeled
habitat will be inspected for western
spadefoot by the approved biologist
prior to being moved. If a western
spadefoot is encountered, refer to
WS-6 below.
• WS-5 (Erosion Control Materials in
Western Spadefoot Habitat): If
erosion control (BMP-2) is
implemented within western
spadefoot modeled habitat (Figure 3-
17 [of the SSHCP]), non-entangling
erosion control material will be used to
reduce the potential for entrapment.

Tightly woven fiber netting (mesh size
less than 0.25 inch) or similar material
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2767 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
will be used to ensure that western
spadefoots are not trapped (no
monofilament). Coconut coir matting
and fiber rolls containing burlap are
examples of acceptable erosion
control materials.
• WS-6 (Western Spadefoot
Encounter Protocol): If Covered
Activities must be implemented in
modeled habitat (Figure 3-17) during
the breeding and dispersal season
(after October 15 and before May 15),
and a western spadefoot is
encountered during construction
activities, the approved biologist will
notify the Wildlife Agencies
immediately. Construction activities
will be suspended in a 100-foot radius
of the animal until the animal leaves
the project site on its own volition. If
necessary, the approved biologist will
notify the Wildlife Agencies to
determine the appropriate procedures
related to relocation. If the animal is
handled, a report will be submitted,
including date(s), location(s), habitat
description, and any corrective
measures taken to protect the western
spadefoot within 1 business day to the
Wildlife Agencies. The biologist will
report any take of listed species to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2768 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife immediately. Any worker who
inadvertently injures or kills a western
spadefoot or who finds dead, injured,
or entrapped western spadefoot(s)
must immediately report the incident
to the approved biologist.

Western Pond Turtle

4.2-3(b) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing
activities, pre-construction surveys shall be
conducted per SSHCP AMM WPT-1. If
western pond turtles are detected, WPT-2
through WPT-9 shall be implemented.
• WPT-1 (Western Pond Turtle
Surveys): If the SSHCP western pond
turtle modeled habitat maps (Figure 3-
19 [of the SSHCP]) show that modeled
habitat for western pond turtle is
present within a Covered Activity’s
project footprint or within 300 feet of a
project footprint, then an approved
biologist will conduct a field
investigation to delineate western
pond turtle aquatic habitat within the
project footprint and within 300 feet of
the project footprint. In addition to the
SSHCP land cover types shown in
Figure 3-19 (of the SSHCP), western
pond turtle aquatic habitat includes,
but is not limited to, low-gradient
streams and creeks, open water,
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the initiation
of ground-disturbing
activities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2769 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
freshwater marsh, and rice fields.

Adjacent parcels under different land
ownership will be surveyed only if
access is granted or if the parcels are
visible from authorized areas. The
Third-Party Project Proponent will map
all existing or potential sites and
provide those maps to the Local Land
Use Permittees and the Implementing
Entity. Locations of delineated western
pond turtle habitat must also be noted
on plans that are submitted to a Local
Land Use Permittee. The applicant will
use this information to finalize project
design. Covered Activities may occur
throughout the year as long as
western pond turtle habitat is identified
and fully avoided. Otherwise, Covered
Activities must comply with WPT-2
through WPT-9. See Chapter 10 (of
the SSHCP) for the process to conduct
and submit survey information.
• WPT-2 (Western Pond Turtle Work
Window): Maintenance and
improvements to existing structures
may occur throughout the year as long
as western pond turtle habitat is
identified and avoided, and movement
of equipment is confined to existing
roads. Otherwise, construction and
ground-disturbing Covered Activities
must be conducted outside of western
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2770 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
pond turtle’s active season.

Construction and ground-disturbing
activities will be initiated after May 1
and will commence prior to September

15. If it appears that construction
activities may go beyond September
15, the appropriate Plan Permittee will
contact the Local Land Use Permittee
and the Implementing Entity as soon
as possible, but not later than
September 1, to determine if additional
measures are necessary to minimize
take.
• WPT-3 (Western Pond Turtle
Monitoring): If a Covered Activity is
occurring in western pond turtle
modeled habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the
SSHCP]), an approved biologist
experienced with western pond turtle
identification and behavior will monitor
the project site, including the integrity
of any exclusion fencing. The
approved biologist will be on site daily
while construction-related activities
are taking place in aquatic habitat or
within 300 feet of aquatic habitat, and
will inspect the project site daily for
western pond turtle prior to
construction activities. The approved
biologist will also training construction
personnel on the required avoidance
procedures, exclusion fencing, and
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2771 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
protocols in the event that a western
pond turtle enters an active
construction zone (i.e., outside the
buffer zone).
• WPT-4 (Western Pond Turtle
Habitat Dewatering and Exclusion):

If construction activities will occur in
western pond turtle aquatic habitat,
aquatic habitat for the turtle will be
dewatered and then remain dry and
absent of aquatic prey (e.g.,
crustaceans and other aquatic
invertebrates) for 15 days prior to the
initiation of construction activities. If
complete dewatering is not possible,
the Implementing Entity will be
contacted to determine what
additional measures may be
necessary to minimize effects to
western pond turtle. After aquatic
habitat has been dewatered 15 days
prior to construction activities,
exclusion fencing will be installed
extending a minimum of 300 feet into
adjacent uplands to isolate both the
aquatic and adjacent upland habitat.

Exclusionary fencing will be erected
36 inches above ground and buried at
least 6 inches below the ground to
prevent turtles from attempting to
burrow or move under the fence into
the construction area. In addition,
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2772 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
high-visibility fencing will be erected to
identify construction limits and to
protect adjacent habitat from
encroachment of personnel and
equipment. Western pond turtle
habitat outside construction fencing
will be avoided by all construction
personnel. The fencing and work area
will be inspected by the approved
biologist to ensure that the fencing is
intact and that no turtles have entered
the work area before the start of each
work day. Fencing will be maintained
by the contractor until completion of
the project. If, after exclusion fencing
and dewatering, western pond turtles
are found within the project footprint or
within 300 feet of the project footprint,
the Third-Party Project Proponent will
discuss the next best steps with the
Implementing Entity and Wildlife
Agencies.
• WPT-5 (Avoid Western Pond Turtle
Entrapment): If a Covered Activity
occurs within western pond turtle
modeled habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the
SSHCP]), all excavated steep-walled
holes and trenches more than 6 inches
deep will be covered with plywood (or
similar material) or provided with one
or more escape ramps constructed of
earth fill or wooden planks at the end
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2773 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
of each work day or 30 minutes prior to
sunset, whichever occurs first. All
steep-walled holes and trenches will
be inspected by the approved biologist
each morning to ensure that no wildlife
has become entrapped. All
construction pipes, culverts, similar
structures, construction equipment,
and construction debris left overnight
within western pond turtle modeled
habitat will be inspected for western
pond turtle by the approved biologist
prior to being moved.
• WPT-6 (Erosion Control Materials in
Western Pond Turtle Habitat): If
erosion control (BMP-2) is
implemented within western pond
turtle modeled habitat (Figure 3-19 [of
the SSHCP]), non-entangling erosion
control material will be used to reduce
the potential for entrapment. Tightly
woven fiber netting (mesh size less
than 0.25 inch) or similar material will
be used to ensure that turtles are not
trapped (no monofilament). Coconut
coir matting and fiber rolls containing
burlap are examples of acceptable
erosion control materials.
• WPT-7 (Western Pond Turtle
Modeled Habitat Speed Limit):

Covered Activity construction and
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2774 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
maintenance vehicles will observe a
20-mile-per-hour speed limit within
western pond turtle modeled upland
habitat (Figure 3-19 [of the SSHCP]).
• WPT-8 (Western Pond Turtle
Encounter Protocol): If a western
pond turtle is encountered during
construction activities, the approved
biologist will notify the Wildlife
Agencies immediately. Construction
activities will be suspended in a 100-
foot radius of the animal until the
animal leaves the project site on its
own volition. If necessary, the
approved biologist will notify the
Wildlife Agencies to determine the
appropriate procedures related to
relocation. If the animal is handled, a
report will be submitted, including
date(s), location(s), habitat
description, and any corrective
measures taken to protect the turtle,
within 1 business day to the Wildlife
Agencies. The biologist will report any
take of listed species to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service immediately. Any
worker who inadvertently injures or
kills a western pond turtle or who finds
one dead, injured, or entrapped must
immediately report the incident to the
approved biologist.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2775 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• WPT-9 (Western Pond Turtle PostConstruction Restoration): After completion of ground- disturbing
Covered Activities, the applicant will
remove any temporary fill and
construction debris and will restore
temporarily disturbed areas to preproject conditions. Restoration work includes such activities as revegetating the banks and active channels with a seed mix similar to
pre-project conditions. Appropriate
methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas will be determined on a site-specific basis in consultation
with the Implementing Entity.

Restoration work may include
replanting emergent aquatic
vegetation and placing appropriate
artificial or natural basking areas in
waterways and wetlands. A photo
documentation report showing preand post-project conditions will be submitted to the Implementing Entity 1
month after implementation of the
restoration.

4.2-4 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on
burrowing owl.

4.2-4 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall comply
with SSHCP AMMs WBO-2 through WBO-7. If
western burrowing owl is found within the
survey area, WBO-3 through 7 shall be
implemented as required based on the results
of surveys conducted per WBO-2.

City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2776 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• WBO-1 (Western Burrowing Owl
Surveys): Surveys within modeled
habitat are required for both the
breeding and non-breeding season. If
the project site falls within modeled
habitat, an approved biologist will
survey the project site and map all
burrows, noting any burrows that may
be occupied. Occupied burrows are
often (but not always) indicated by
tracks, feathers, egg shell fragments,
pellets, prey remains, and/or
excrement. Surveying and mapping
will be conducted by the approved
biologist while walking transects
throughout the entire project site plus
all accessible areas within a 250-foot
radius from the project site. The
centerline of these transects will be no
more than 50 feet apart and will vary
in width to account for changes in
terrain and vegetation that can
preclude complete visual coverage of
the area. For example, in hilly terrain
with patches of tall grass, transects
will be closer together, and in open
areas with little vegetation, they can
be 50 feet apart. This methodology is
consistent with current survey
protocols for this species (California
Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993).

Adjacent parcels under different land
ownership will be surveyed only if
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2777 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
access is granted or if the parcels are
visible from authorized areas. If
suitable habitat is identified during the
initial survey, and if the project does
not fully avoid the habitat, preconstruction surveys will be required.

Burrowing owl habitat is fully avoided
if project-related activities do not
impinge on a 250- foot buffer
established by the approved biologist
around suitable burrows. See Chapter
10 (of the SSHCP) for the process to
conduct and submit survey
information.
• WBO-2 (Western Burrowing Owl
Pre-Construction Surveys): Prior to
any Covered Activity ground
disturbance, an approved biologist will
conduct pre-construction surveys in all
areas that were identified as suitable
habitat during the initial surveys. The
purpose of the pre-construction
surveys is to document the presence
or absence of burrowing owls on the
project site, particularly in areas within
250 feet of construction activities. To
maximize the likelihood of detecting
owls, the pre-construction survey will
last a minimum of 3 hours. The survey
will begin 1 hour before sunrise and
continue until 2 hours after sunrise (3
hours total), or begin 2 hours before
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2778 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
sunset and continue until 1 hour after
sunset. Additional time may be
required for large project sites. A
minimum of two pre-construction
surveys will be conducted (if owls are
detected on the first survey, a second
survey is not needed). All owls
observed will be counted and their
location will be mapped. Surveys will
conclude no more than 2 calendar
days prior to construction. Therefore,
the Third-Party Project Proponent
must begin surveys no more than 4
days prior to construction (2 days of
surveying plus up to 2 days between
surveys and construction). To avoid
last-minute changes in schedule or
contracting that may occur if burrowing
owls are found, the Third-Party Project
Proponent may also conduct a
preliminary survey up to 15 days
before construction. This preliminary
survey may count as the first of the two
required surveys as long as the
second survey concludes no more
than 2 calendar days in advance of
construction.
• WBO-3 (Burrowing Owl Avoidance):

If western burrowing owl or evidence
of western burrowing owl is observed
on the project site or within 250 feet of
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2779 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the project site during pre-construction
surveys, then the following will occur:

During Breeding Season: If the
approved biologist finds evidence of
western burrowing owls within a
project site during the breeding
season (February 1 through August
31), all project-related activities will
avoid nest sites during the remainder
of the breeding season or while the
nest remains occupied by adults or
young (nest occupation includes
individuals or family groups foraging
on or near the site following fledging).

Avoidance is establishment of a
minimum 250-foot buffer zone around
nests. Construction and other projectrelated activities may occur outside of the 250-foot buffer zone. Construction
and other project-related activities
may be allowed inside of the 250-foot
non-disturbance buffer during the
breeding season if the nest is not
disturbed, and the Third-Party Project
Proponent develops an avoidance,
minimization, and monitoring plan that
is approved by the Implementing
Entity and Wildlife Agencies prior to
project construction based on the
following criteria:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2780 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
o The Implementing Entity and
Wildlife Agencies approve of
the avoidance and
minimization plan provided by
the project applicant.
o An approved biologist
monitors the owls for at least
3 days prior to construction to
determine baseline nesting
and foraging behavior (i.e.,
behavior without
construction).
o The same approved biologist
monitors the owls during
construction and finds no
change in owl nesting and
foraging behavior in response
to construction activities.

If there is any change in owl nesting
and foraging behavior as a result of
construction activities, the approved
biologist will have authority to shut
down activities within the 250-foot
buffer. Construction cannot resume
within the 250-foot buffer until any
owls present are no longer affected by
nearby construction activities, and
with written concurrence from the
Wildlife Agencies.

If monitoring by the approved biologist
indicates that the nest is abandoned
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2781 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
prior to the end of nesting season and
the burrow is no longer in use, the
non-disturbance buffer zone may be
removed if approved by the Wildlife
Agencies. The approved biologist will
excavate the burrow in accordance
with the latest California Department
of Fish and Wildlife guidelines for
burrowing owl to prevent reoccupation
after receiving approval from the
Wildlife Agencies.

The Implementing Entity and Wildlife
Agencies will respond to a request
from the Third-Party Project
Proponent to review the proposed
construction monitoring plan within 21
days.

During Non-Breeding Season:

During the non-breeding season
(September 1 through January 31),
the approved biologist will establish a
minimum 250-foot non-disturbance
buffer around occupied burrows.

Construction activities outside of this
250-foot buffer will be allowed.

Construction activities within the nondisturbance buffer will be allowed if the following criteria are met to prevent
owls from abandoning over- wintering
sites:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2782 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
o An approved biologist
monitors the owls for at least
3 days prior to construction to
determine baseline foraging
behavior (i.e., behavior
without construction).
o The same approved biologist
monitors the owls during
construction and finds no
change in owl foraging
behavior in response to
construction activities.
o If there is any change in owl
foraging behavior as a result
of construction activities, the
approved biologist will have
authority to shut down
activities within the 250-foot
buffer.
o If the owls are gone for at
least 1 week, the Third-Party
Project Proponent may
request approval from the
Implementing Entity and
Wildlife Agencies that an
approved biologist excavate
usable burrows and install
one-way exclusionary devices
to prevent owls from reoccupying the site. After all
usable burrows are
excavated, the buffer zone will
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2783 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
be removed and construction
may continue.

Monitoring must continue as
described above for the non-breeding
season as long as the burrow remains
active.
• WBO-4 (Burrowing Owl
Construction Monitoring): During
construction of Covered Activities,
250-foot construction buffer zones will
be established and maintained around
any occupied burrow. An approved
biologist will monitor the site to ensure
that buffers are enforced and owls are
not disturbed. The approved biologist
will also train construction personnel
on avoidance procedures, buffer
zones, and protocols in the event that
a burrowing owl flies into an active
construction zone.
• WBO-5 (Burrowing Owl Passive
Relocation): Passive relocation is not
allowed without the express written
approval of the Wildlife Agencies.

Passive owl relocation may be allowed
on a case-by-case basis on project
sites during the non-breeding season
(September 1 through January 31)
with the written approval of the Wildlife
Agencies if the other measures
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2784 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
described in this condition preclude
work from continuing. Passive
relocation must be done in
accordance with the latest California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
guidelines for burrowing owl. Passive
relocation will only be proposed if the
burrow needing to be removed or with
the potential to collapse from
construction activities is the result of a
Covered Activity. If passive relocation
is approved by the Wildlife Agencies,
an approved biologist can passively
exclude birds from their burrows
during the non-breeding season by
installing one-way doors in burrow
entrances. These doors will be in
place for 48 hours to ensure that owls
have left the burrow, and then the
biologist will excavate the burrow to
prevent reoccupation. Burrows will be
excavated using hand tools only.

During excavation, an escape route
will be maintained at all times. This
may include inserting an artificial
structure into the burrow to avoid
having materials collapse into the
burrow and trap owls inside. Other
methods of passive relocation, based
on best available science, may be
approved by the Wildlife Agencies
over the 50-year Permit Term.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2785 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• WBO-6 (Burrowing Owl Timing of
Maintenance Activities): All activities
adjacent to existing or planned
Preserves, Preserve Setbacks, or
Stream Setback areas will be
seasonally timed, when safety
permits, to avoid or minimize adverse
effects on occupied burrows.
• WBO-7 (Rodent Control): Rodent
control will be allowed only in
developed portions of a Covered
Activity project site within western
burrowing owl modeled habitat.

Where rodent control is allowed, the
method of rodent control will comply
with the methods of rodent control
discussed in the 4(d) Rule published in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
(2004) final listing rule for tiger
salamander.

4.2-5 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on raptors
and nesting birds.

4.2-5(a) Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall comply
with SSHCP AMMs RAPTOR-2 through
RAPTOR-4. Raptor surveys conducted per
RAPTOR-2 shall include surveying for golden
eagle although it is not a SSHCP Covered
Species. If raptor species (including golden
eagles) are found nesting within the survey
area, RAPTOR-3 and RAPTOR-4 shall be
implemented as required based on the results
of surveys conducted per RAPTOR-2. The
following AMMs do not apply to Swainson’s
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2786 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
hawk or burrowing owl, as specific AMMs have
been developed for such covered raptor
species and are included in separate
mitigation measures.
• RAPTOR-2 (Raptor PreConstruction Surveys): Preconstruction surveys will be required to determine if active nests are
present with a project footprint or
within 0.25 mile of a project footprint if
existing or potential nest sites are
found during initial surveys and
construction activities will occur during
the raptor breeding season. An
approved biologist will conduct preconstruction surveys within 30 days and 3 days of ground- disturbing
activities within the proposed project
footprint and within 0.25 mile of the
proposed project footprint to
determine presence of nesting
covered raptor species. Preconstruction surveys will be conducted during the raptor breeding
season. If a nest is present, then
RAPTOR-3 and RAPTOR-4 will be
implemented. The approved biologist
will inform the Land Use Authority
Permittee and Implementing Entity of
species locations, and they in turn will
notify the Wildlife Agencies.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2787 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• RAPTOR-3 (Raptor Nest/Roost
Buffer): If active nests are found
within the project footprint or within

0.25 mile of any project-related
Covered Activity, the Third-Party
Project Proponent will establish a 0.25
mile temporary nest disturbance
buffer around the active nest until the
young have fledged.
• RAPTOR-4 (Raptor Nest/Roost
Buffer Monitoring): If project-related
Covered Activities within the
temporary nest disturbance buffer are
determined to be necessary during the
nesting season, then an approved
biologist experienced with raptor
behavior will be retained by the ThirdParty Project Proponent to monitor the nest throughout the nesting season
and to determine when the young
have fledged. The approved biologist
will be on site daily while constructionrelated activities are taking place within the disturbance buffer. Work
within the temporary nest disturbance
buffer can occur with the written
permission of the Implementing Entity
and Wildlife Agencies. If nesting
raptors begin to exhibit agitated
behavior, such as defensive flights at
intruders, getting up from a brooding
position, or flying off the nest, the
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2788 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
approved biologist/monitor will have
the authority to shut down construction
activities. If agitated behavior is
exhibited, the biologist, Third-Party
Project Proponent, Implementing
Entity, and Wildlife Agencies will meet
to determine the best course of action
to avoid nest abandonment or take of
individuals. The approved biologist will
also train construction personnel on
the required avoidance procedures,
buffer zones, and protocols in the
event that a covered raptor species
flies into an active construction zone
(i.e., outside the buffer zone).

4.2-5(b) A qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction nesting bird survey of all areas
associated with construction activities, and a
100-foot buffer around such areas, within 14
days prior to commencement of construction if
construction occurs during the nesting season
(February 1 through August 31). If active nests
are found for any SSHCP Covered Species,
the applicable SSHCP AMM(s) TCB-3 through
-5, SWHA-3 through -4, WBO-3 through-6, and
RAPTOR-3 through-4 shall be implemented. If
active nests are found for any other species, a
no-disturbance buffer around the nest shall be
established. The buffer distance shall be
established by a qualified biologist in
consultation with the CDFW. The buffer shall
be maintained until the fledglings are capable
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Within 14 days prior
to commencement of
construction if
construction occurs
during the nesting
season (February 1
through August 31)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2789 of 3764 ends

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The Preserve Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
of flight and become independent of the nest,
to be determined by a qualified biologist. Once
the young are independent of the nest, further
measures are not necessary.

4.2-6 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on
Swainson’s hawk.

4.2-6 Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall comply
with SSHCP AMMs SWHA-2 through SWHA4. If Swainson’s hawk nesting is found within the survey area during the pre-construction
survey conducted per SWHA-2, then SWHA-3
and SWHA-4 shall be implemented as
required based on the results of surveys
conducted per SWHA-2.
• SWHA-2 (Swainson’s Hawk PreConstruction Surveys): Preconstruction surveys will be required to determine if active nests are
present within a project footprint or
within 0.25 mile of a project footprint if
existing or potential nest sites were
found during initial surveys and
construction activities will occur during
the breeding season (March 1 through
September 15). An approved biologist
will conduct pre-construction surveys
within 30 days and 3 days of grounddisturbing activities to determine presence of nesting Swainson’s hawk.

Pre-construction surveys will be
conducted during the breeding season
(March 1 through September 15). If a
nest is present, then SWHA-3 and
City of Rancho
Cordova
Community
Development
Department
Prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing
activities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 5

Page 2790 of 3764 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilApril 4, 2022

Rancho Cordova City Council
April 4, 2022