Rancho Cordova City Council
April 4, 2022

Local Regulations
Relevant goals and policies from the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan as well as various other local guidelines and regulations related to hydrology and water quality, are discussed below.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan related to hydrology and water quality are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal NR.5: Protect the quantity and quality of the City’s water resources.

Policy NR.5.3 Protect surface and ground water from major sources of pollution, including hazardous materials contamination and urban runoff.

Policy NR.5.4 Prevent contamination of the groundwater table and surface water, and remedy existing contamination to the extent
practicable.

Policy NR.5.5 Minimize erosion to stream channels resulting from new development in urban areas consistent with State law.

Policy NR.5.6 Incorporate Storm Water, Urban Runoff, and Wetland Mosquito Management Guidelines and Best Management Practices into the design of water retention structures, drainage ditches, swales, and the construction of mitigated wetlands in order to reduce the potential for mosquito-borne disease transmission.

Policy NR.5.7 Continue to cooperate and participate with the County, other cities, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding compliance with the joint National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (NPDES No. CAS082597) or any
subsequent permit and support water quality improvement projects in order to maintain compliance with regional, state and federal water quality requirements.

Policy NR.5.8 The City shall require groundwater impact evaluations be conducted for the Grant Line West, Westborough, Aerojet, Glenborough, Mather and Jackson Planning Areas to determine whether urbanization of these areas would adversely impact groundwater remediation activities associated with Mather and Aerojet prior to the approval of large-scale development. Should an adverse impact be determined, a mitigation program shall be developed in consultation with applicable local, state, and federal agencies to ensure remediation activities are not impacted. This may include the provision of land areas for groundwater remediation facilities, installation/extension of necessary infrastructure, or other appropriate measures.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Goal S.2: Reduce the possibility of a flooding or drainage issue causing loss of life or damage to property.

Policy S.2.2 Manage the risk of flooding by discouraging new development located in an area that is likely to flood.

Policy S.2.4 Ensure that adequate drainage exists for both existing and new development.

City of Rancho Cordova NPDES Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit
The NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from separate storm sewer systems. NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits are issued in two phases.

Phase I regulates stormwater discharges from large- and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems (those serving more than 100,000 persons). Most Phase I permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. Phase II provides coverage for smaller municipalities, including nontraditional small storm sewer systems, which include governmental facilities such as military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes. The NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan/Program with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

The CVRWQCB issued the NPDES General Permit No. CAS0085324, Order R5-2016-0040 Waste Discharge Requirements for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, which became effective in October 2016. An “MS4” is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; (ii) which is not a combined sewer; and (iii) which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The City of Rancho Cordova is a Phase I MS4 permittee.

Projects subject to the requirements of the Phase I MS4 NPDES permit must submit the appropriate Post-Construction Stormwater Plan based on the project type/development category.

Regulated Projects include residential projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface. Regulated Projects that create and/or replace one or more acres of impervious surface are subject to hydromodification management, treatment, low impact development, and trash capture requirements. The proposed project would create more than one acre of impervious area, and, thus, is considered a Regulated Project subject to the Phase I MS4 NPDES permit post-construction stormwater requirements.

Regulated Projects are required to divide the project area into Drainage Management Areas (DMAs) and implement and direct water to appropriately-sized Site Design Measures (SDMs) and applicable Post Construction Measures to each DMA to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).

Regulated Projects must additionally include Source Control BMPs where possible. SDMs and post construction measures include, but are not limited to:
• Rooftop and impervious area disconnection;
• Porous pavement;
• Rain barrels and cisterns;
• Vegetated swales;
• Bio-retention facilities;
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• Green roofs; or
• Other equivalent measures.

A detailed description of the requirements for Regulated Projects, such as the proposed project, is included in the 2018 Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento region. 6 Per Figure
5-2 of the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, the project site is located within an area that is subject to hydromodification management.

Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code includes ordinances associated with hydrology and water quality. The applicable ordinances are discussed in further detail below.

Chapter 15.12: Storm Water Management and Discharge Control The purpose of Chapter 15.12, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control, of the City’s Municipal Code, is to protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands within the City area in a manner consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act, the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and Municipal Discharge Permit No. CA0085324 by controlling the contribution of urban pollutants to storm water runoff which enters the City’s stormwater conveyance system. Per Section 15.12.040 of the Municipal Code, the provisions of Chapter 15.12 are applicable to all users and potential users located within the incorporated area of the City and all users that discharge either directly or indirectly into the County storm water conveyance system.

Land Grading and Erosion Control
The intent of Chapter 16.44, Land Grading and Erosion Control, is to minimize damage to surrounding properties and public rights-of-way, the degradation of the water quality of watercourses, and the disruption of natural or city-authorized drainage flows caused by the activities of clearing and grubbing, grading, filling and excavating of land, and sediment and pollutant runoff from other construction-related activities, and to comply with the provisions of the City’s NPDES permit No. CA0085324, issued by the CVRWQCB. Except as provided by Sections

16.44.060, 16.44.065, or 16.44.070 of the Municipal Code, a grading and erosion control permit is required to (A) grade, fill, excavate, store or dispose of 350 cubic yards or more of soil or earthly material or (B) clear and grub one acre or greater of land within the City of Rancho Cordova.

4.6.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
6 City of Citrus Heights, City of Elk Grove, City of Folsom, City of Galt, City of Rancho Cordova, City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento. Sacramento Region Stormwater Quality Design Manual. July 2018.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge;
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or;
o Impede or redirect flood flows;
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation;
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The proposed project’s impacts associated with erosion or siltation on- or off-site are discussed in Chapter 4.4, Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources, of this EIR.

Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A) determined that development of the proposed project would result in no impact related to the following:
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

For the reasons cited in the Initial Study, the potential impacts associated with the above are not analyzed further in this EIR.

Method of Analysis
The impacts analysis for this chapter is based primarily on the Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar.7 The Drainage Study included hydrologic modeling for the proposed project (both pre-project and post-project conditions) using the HEC computer program. In particular, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar used a combination of the HEC Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) and HEC River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) software.

Hydrographs for the HEC-HMS program were developed using the Sacramento Method, which includes calculation of peak flows from the hydrographs produced. The hydrographs are developed based on a design storm, initial losses, constant losses, lag time, and land use. The major contributor in loss coefficients is soil type. Table 4.6-1 below, adopted from the Drainage Study, summarizes the hydrology coefficients applied to the SacCalc program, which was used to calculate the Sacramento Method.
7 Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Drainage Study for the Preserve. Updated January 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.6-1
Hydrology Coefficients
Land Use
Initial Loss
(inches)
Constant Loss
(inches/hour)
Percent
Impervious
Precipitation
Zone
Open Space (Grassland) 0.10 0.10 2 2
Recreation (Park) 0.10 0.10 5 2
Low Density Residential
(6-8 units/acre) 0.10 0.10 50 2
Note: Constant losses are based on a combination of Type C and D soils.

Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, 2020.

The design storm selected for proposed project is the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which, according to the Drainage Study, is appropriate for an analysis of a hydromodification basin designed to reduce the peak flow from a developed condition to the existing condition peak flow and is consistent with County analysis standards. The 10-year, 24-hour storm was also evaluated for the developed condition for informational purposes. As part of the Drainage Study, the hydrograph created for the project using the Sacramento Method was applied to the HEC-HMS program to evaluate stormwater flows through the proposed LID drainage features. The modeling results are included in the appendices to the Drainage Study.

Furthermore, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar performed a floodplain analysis of Morrison Creek under both existing and post-development conditions using the HEC-RAS program. The existing condition cross sections for the HEC-RAS model were developed from the existing topography for the project site and supplemental field survey points. The developed condition cross sections used the existing topography, survey points, and the preliminary grading plan for the proposed project.

The developed condition 100-year water surface elevations from the HEC-RAS model were plotted on the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map.

The cross sections begin at the downstream end of the project site (western boundary) and continue upstream until the final cross section located east of Grant Line Road. The beginning water surface elevation at the downstream cross section is calculated based on a normal depth condition with a slope along the creek flowline at S=0.004. Along the way are two man-made ponds and an existing driveway. The two ponds are assumed full for the HEC-RAS analysis. The water surface for each pond is the lowest overflow elevation. The overflow elevation for the downstream pond is elevation 210.5 and the upper pond overflow elevation is 215.2. The existing driveway crosses the creek upstream of the upper pond. The typical Manning’s ‘n’ Value used for the creek is 0.035. This value is appropriate for the grasses that grow along the creek. The ‘n’ values were increased to 0.04 at the overflows from the two ponds. The existing overflows from the two ponds show erosion and the output from the HEC-RAS model show higher velocities in both areas.

The City has reviewed the technical analysis prepared for the proposed project and preliminarily concurs with the methodology applied by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, as well as the conclusions provided therein.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.6-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction. Based on the
analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Construction of the proposed project would include grading, excavation, trenching for utilities, and other construction-related activities that could cause soil at an accelerated rate during storm events. All such activities have the potential to affect water quality and contribute to localized violations of water quality standards if impacted stormwater runoff from construction activities enters Morrison Creek.

Soils exposed by the aforementioned types of construction activities have the potential to affect water quality in two ways: 1) suspended soil particles and sediments transported through runoff; or 2) sediments transported as dust that eventually reach local water bodies. Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging areas, or building sites also have the potential to enter runoff. Typical pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents, which could contain hazardous constituents. Sediment from erosion of graded or excavated surface materials, leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent releases of building products could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing the sediment or contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities. Discharge of polluted stormwater or non-stormwater runoff could violate waste discharge requirements. However, in general, impacts from construction-related activities would generally be short-term and of limited duration.

Because the proposed project would require construction activities that would result in a land disturbance of over an acre, the project applicant would be required by the State to comply with the most current Construction General Permit requirements. Per the requirements, a SWPPP would be prepared for the overall project, which would include the site map, drainage patterns and stormwater collection and discharge points, BMPs, and a monitoring and reporting framework for implementation of BMPs, as necessary. In addition, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be filed with CVRWQCB.

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.

Non-stormwater management and material management controls reduce nonsediment-related pollutants from potentially leaving the construction site to the extent practicable. The Construction General Permit prohibits the discharge of materials ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

other than stormwater and authorized non-stormwater discharges (such as irrigation and pipe flushing and testing). Non-stormwater BMPs tend to be management practices with the purpose of preventing stormwater from coming into contact with potential pollutants. Examples of non-stormwater BMPs include preventing illicit discharges, and implementing good practices for vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling operations, such as using drip pans under vehicles. Waste and materials management BMPs include implementing practices and procedures to prevent pollution from materials used on construction sites. Examples of materials management BMPs include the following:
• Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials covered and elevated off the ground, in a central location;
• Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and performing routine maintenance;
• Providing a central location for concrete washout and performing routine maintenance;
• Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site for litter/floatable management; and
• Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good housekeeping on the site.

While the final materials management BMPs to be used during construction of the proposed project are currently unknown, the project would likely include a combination of the BMP examples listed above. Final BMPs for the proposed project construction would be chosen in consultation with the applicable California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater BMP Handbooks and Section 11 of the City’s Improvement Standards, and implemented by the project contractor.

In accordance with the Construction General Permit, the project site would also be inspected during construction before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events in order to identify maintenance requirements for the implemented BMPs and to determine the effectiveness of the implemented BMPs. As a “living document”, the site-specific SWPPP that would be prepared for the proposed project would be modified as construction activities progress. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The QSP for the project would amend the SWPPP and revise project BMPs, as determined necessary through field inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.

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 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

potential for, and effects from, accidental spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1(b) below requires 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.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

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.

4.6-2 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during operations. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of a rural area to single-family residential uses and associated amenities, such as parks and landscaping. Such new land uses could result in new stormwater pollutants being introduced to the project area. Pollutants associated with the operational phase of the proposed project could include nutrients, oil and grease, metals, organics, pesticides, bacteria, sediment, trash, and other debris. Nutrients that could be present in postconstruction stormwater include nitrogen and phosphorous resulting from fertilizers applied to landscaping. Excess nutrients could affect water quality by promoting excessive and/or a rapid growth of aquatic vegetation, which reduces water clarity and results in oxygen depletion. Pesticides, which are toxic to aquatic organisms and can bioaccumulate in larger species, such as birds and fish, can potentially enter stormwater after application to landscaped areas within the project site. Oil and grease could enter stormwater from vehicle leaks, traffic, and maintenance activities. Metals could enter stormwater as surfaces corrode, decay, or leach. Clippings associated with landscape maintenance and street litter could be carried into storm drainage systems.

Pathogens (from pets, wildlife, and human activities) have the potential to affect downstream water quality.

Development of the proposed project could also increase polluted non-stormwater runoff (e.g., car wash water, other wash water, and landscape irrigation runoff). Such non-stormwater runoff could flow down sidewalks, parking areas, and streets, and pick ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

up additional pollutants deposited on impervious surfaces prior to discharge into the storm drain system and surface waters. Discharge of polluted stormwater or nonstormwater runoff could violate waste discharge requirements.

Phase I MS4 Permit Requirements
As discussed previously, the proposed project is located within the permit area covered by City’s MS4 Permit (NPDES General Permit No. CAS0085324, Order R5- 2016-0040 Waste Discharge Requirements for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems), pursuant to the NPDES Phase I program. Projectrelated stormwater discharges are subject to all applicable requirements of said permit. Specifically, as noted above, regulated projects are required to divide the project area into DMAs and implement and direct water to appropriately-sized post construction stormwater quality measures to each DMA. Source control measures must be designed for pollutant-generating activities or sources consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, the Sacramento region Stormwater Quality Design Manual, or equivalent manual, and must be shown on the Improvement Plans. Additional details related to post construction stormwater quality requirements associated with the Phase I MS4 permit are discussed under Impact 4.6-4 below.

Proposed Storm Drain System
Per the Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project would include an on-site storm drain system composed of the following post construction stormwater quality measures: Low Impact Development (LID) components-dedication of open space, disconnected pavement, disconnected roof drains, interceptor trees, a hydromodification basin, and two bio-retention basins. Consistent with MS4 permit requirements and the Sacramento region Stormwater Quality Design Manual, the proposed development area and the Raymer Way off-site improvement area would be divided into DMAs. The portion of the project site located to the north of Morrison Creek, which would not be developed as part of the project, would not be included in the proposed stormwater management system.

Impervious surfaces proposed as part of the project include building roofs, driveways, and roadways. Runoff from such surfaces would be captured by a series of drain inlets located within the internal roadways and routed, through new underground 12- to 24- inch storm drains, to two bio-retention basins located within the northwest portion of the development area, as shown in Figure 4.6-3. Consistent with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, the bio-retention basins would include a six-inch deep topsoil layer underlain by at least 18 inches of bio-retention soil media. A nine-inch gravel layer with a perforated underdrain would be located underneath the bio-retention soil media. In addition, each basin would include an overflow structure connected to the underdrain. Treated stormwater would be captured by the perforated underdrain and flow, through new 15-inch storm drains, to a hydromodification basin located in between the two bio-retention basins. During large storm events, excess stormwater in the bio-retention basins would flow directly through to the hydromodification basin.

The hydromodification basin would allow for detention of captured runoff prior to discharging through a new 36-inch storm drain and outlet structure to Morrison Creek.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.6-3
Proposed Drainage Conditions
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The proposed bio-retention basins would be sized to treat the first flush, which includes a majority of the larger pollutants (sand, soil, silt, grease and trash), as well as smaller pollutants (sediment, nutrient, metals, pesticides and organics).

As demonstrated in Table 4.6-2 below, the proposed LID features would be sufficiently sized to meet the required storage volumes. Thus, project runoff entering Morrison Creek would be properly treated, and would not pollute downstream waterways.

Table 4.6-2
Proposed LID Control Sizing
Basin
Required
Water
Quality
Volume
(acre-feet)
Storage
Volume
Proposed
(acre-feet)
Flow from
Hydromodification
Basin at Storage
Volume (cfs)
BioRetention
Area (sf)
Hydromodification Basin 1.73 1.73 1.6 -
Bio-Retention Basin 1 - - - 39,000
Bio-Retention Basin 2 - - - 26,700
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, 2019.

Maintenance and Inspection
In order to ensure continued operation of the proposed LID control features, a detailed site-specific inspection and maintenance procedures plan should be implemented by the project applicant. For example, plants and vegetation within the bio-retention basins and hydromodification basin should be inspected monthly, and the basins should be inspected for the presence of standing water 72 hours after rain events.

Required maintenance activity should include, but not necessarily be limited to, removal of debris from basins and removal of debris from outlets of basins. Without implementation of such measures, the basins could fail to ensure that polluted runoff would not enter downstream water bodies during the continued operation of the project.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project includes site design measures to ensure that stormwater runoff is properly treated prior to discharge to Morrison Creek. Thus, urban pollutants entering and potentially degrading local water quality would not be expected to occur as a result of the project. However, because a final BMP and water quality maintenance plan has not been prepared, ongoing maintenance of the proposed bio-retention basins and the incorporation of proper source control measures cannot be ensured. Should the project applicant fail to prepare and implement such documentation, the proposed project could result in a significant impact related to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality during operations.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.6-2 Prior to approval of final project improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit a detailed Best Management Practice (BMP) and water quality maintenance plan to the City for review and approval. The BMP and water quality maintenance plan shall meet the standards of the City’s NPDES Permit (No. CAS0085324), the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento region. Site design measures, source control measures, hydromodification management, and Low Impact Development (LID) standards, as necessary, shall be incorporated into the design and shown on the improvement plans.

4.6-3 Prior to approval of final project improvement plans, the project applicant shall submit a maintenance covenant to the City for review and approval. The maintenance covenant shall be recorded with the property deed and executed following property ownership to ensure the long-term maintenance of stormwater quality measures.

4.6-3 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would result in an increase in on-site impervious surfaces, which would reduce the infiltration of groundwater as compared to existing conditions.

Groundwater relies on annual rainfall and percolation through pervious soils to recharge the system. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has classified soils into four hydrologic categories (A, B, C, and D) based on infiltration rates from prolonged wetting. Soil Type A has the highest infiltration rate and Type D has the lowest infiltration rate. According to the Drainage Study, the majority of the project site consists of Type C soils, while a small portion of the site along Morrison Creek consists of Type C/D soils. Because the majority of the site is characterized by Type C or D soils, the project site would not be considered an important groundwater recharge area. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include any development within the channel of Morrison Creek; thus, infiltration of water moving through the creek would continue to occur and contribute to groundwater recharge.

Given the limited recharge potential of the portion of the project site that would be developed with impervious surfaces, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the groundwater subbasin within which the project site is located is not currently in a state of overdraft. As further discussed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, the water supply for the proposed project would only include groundwater sources during dry and critically dry years.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Considering that the project site is not considered an important groundwater recharge area, stormwater from the project site would continue to replenish groundwater through percolation into soils within Morrison Creek, and that the project would not involve substantially increased demand on groundwater supplies within an area in a state of overdraft, the proposed project would not create a conflict with, or impede the implementation of, a sustainable groundwater plan. Thus, impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.6-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would: substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

It should be noted that the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, including erosion, is addressed under Impacts

4.6-1 and 4.6-2 above. Further discussion regarding erosion is provided in Chapter

4.4, Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources, of this EIR.

Increases to peak runoff flows or volumes resulting from alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the site have the potential to result in exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or flooding on- or off-site.

As discussed previously, runoff from impervious surfaces created as part of the proposed project would be routed to two new bio-retention basins in the northwest portion of the development area. The bio-retention basins would detain and treat runoff prior to discharging treated runoff to a hydromodification basin located in between the two bio-retention basins. The hydromodification basin would allow for metering of flows discharged to Morrison Creek. In addition to the bio-retention basins and hydromodification basin, the project would incorporate LID controls such as disconnected pavement, disconnected roof drains, and interceptor trees to help reduce stormwater runoff. Such strategies are consistent with the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento region.

To assess the changes in runoff volumes from the project site that could occur due to the proposed project, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar calculated the pre- and post-construction peak flow runoff volumes at the location of the proposed stormwater outlet at Morrison Creek. Pre- and post-construction peak flows are presented in Table 4.6-3 below for the 10-year, 24-hour and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.6-3
Pre- and Post-Project Peak Flows
Project
Condition
Combined Peak Flow at Outlet Location (cfs)
10-year, 24-hour 100-year, 24-hour
Pre-Project 79 134
Post-Project
(without LID) 107 171
Post-Project
(with LID) 65.9 116.7
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar, 2020.

As shown in the table, with inclusion of the proposed LID features, the proposed project would result in reduced peak flows relative to existing conditions for the design storm event, as well as during the 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable hydromodification requirements, and would not increase the rate or amount of runoff leaving the project site during the design storm event. In addition, the outlet invert elevation from the hydromodification basin would be above the 100-year water surface elevation calculated from the HECRAS model of Morrison Creek.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to substantially altering the drainage pattern of the site or area, or increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.6-5 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

As discussed previously, per the FEMA FIRM for the project area, the entirety of the project site is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard that is located outside of the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. In addition, per the Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project, under post-development conditions, the proposed residences would be located outside of the modeled 100- year floodplain associated with Morrison Creek. The proposed project would not include any grading activities within the 100-year floodplain. Furthermore, the outlet invert elevation from the hydromodification basin would be above the 100-year water surface elevation calculated from the HEC-RAS model of Morrison Creek.

Based on the above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the impediment or redirection of flood flows such that on- or off-site structures would be exposed to flood risk. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of a course ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections of this EIR. The cumulative setting for impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be the US3 drainage area identified within the MDS.

4.6-6 Cumulative impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, groundwater
quality, management, and recharge, and impacts resulting from the alteration of existing drainage patterns. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than
significant.

As noted previously, the proposed project is located within the drainage area identified as US3 in the MDS prepared for the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan. The northwestern portion of the project site, which is located within the drainage area identified in the MDS as US2, would not be developed as part of the project; thus, drainage conditions within US2 are assumed to remain unchanged for the purpose of this analysis.

The US3 drainage shed encompasses a total of 1,003 acres, including the project site.

Excluding the project site, the remainder of the US3 drainage shed is located within unincorporated Sacramento County. The portions of the drainage shed within the unincorporated County are primarily undeveloped, with the exception of existing industrial mining operations within the central portion of the drainage shed and limited agricultural operations within the far eastern portion of the drainage shed. According to the Sacramento County General Plan, the existing mining operation area is currently designated Extensive Industrial, while the remainder of US3 is designated General Agriculture. Thus, the County has not anticipated any substantial new development within the US3 drainage shed under buildout of the County’s General Plan. As such, drainage conditions within the reach of Morrison Creek located upstream of the project site within US3 are not anticipated to change substantially.

As discussed in Impacts 4.6-1 through 4.6-5 above, all identified project-level impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth herein. In the absence of any additional planned or pending future development within the US3 drainage area, significant cumulative impacts related to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

hydrology and water quality would not occur. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.7 Land Use and
Planning/Population and Housing
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.7.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing chapter of the EIR is to examine the proposed project’s compatibility with existing and planned land uses in the area and identify any incompatibilities with applicable land use plans, policies and regulations adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects, including the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan1 and associated EIR.2 In addition, the chapter assesses the compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding land uses, both existing and proposed. Furthermore, the chapter includes discussion of the potential for the project to induce substantial population growth in the project area, either directly or indirectly. The reader is referred to the various environmental resource evaluations presented in the other technical chapters of this EIR for a discussion of potential physical/environmental effects that may result from the proposed land use changes.

4.7.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section describes the existing land uses on the project site and within the surrounding area at the time the NOP was published, as well as the existing plans and policies that guide the development of the project site. In addition, the Existing Environmental Setting section describes current population and housing trends in the project region.

Project Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is located in the City of Rancho Cordova, northwest of Raymer Way and Grant Line Road. The site is located within the Grant Line West Planning Area of the City.

Currently, the 279.3-acre project site consists primarily of ruderal grasses, with two single-family residences and associated outbuildings located within the southern portion of the site, and a third single-family residence and associated outbuildings located in the northwestern portion of the site. A private road, identified as Douglas Road, leads from south of the project site to the two residences. Currently, the undeveloped portions of the site are used for livestock grazing.

Surrounding land uses include the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision directly to the south, vacant agricultural lands and a Teichert Aggregates Aggregate/Asphaltic Concrete site across Grant Line Road to the east, two single-family residences and industrial/open space to the north, and vacant land approved for the development of the Rio Del Oro residential community immediately adjacent to the west. The area further to the north of the site contains known contamination areas associated with the Aerojet General Corporation National Priorities List Superfund Site.
1 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 2 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. 2006.

4.7. LAND USE AND PLANNING/

POPULATION AND HOUSING
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Land Use and Zoning Designations
Per the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, the project site is located within the Grant Line West Planning Area and is designated Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density. The site is zoned Agricultural (AG-80) and Industrial Reserve (IR).

Table 4.7-1 below provides a summary of the current General Plan land use and zoning designations of the properties adjacent to the project site. The land uses to the north of the site, as well as the areas east of the site beyond Grant Line Road, are located within unincorporated Sacramento County, but are included in the City’s planning area and are assigned land uses per the City’s General Plan. The adjacent areas to the south and west of the site are located within the City of Rancho Cordova.

Table 4.7-1
Summary of Adjacent Community Plan Land Use and Zoning
Designations
Relationship
to Project
Site
Present Land
Use
City General Plan
Land Use
Designation Zoning Designation
North Superfund site Residential-Mixed Density Interim-Agricultural Reserve (IR) Natural Resources (Sacramento County)
South Single-family
residential
Residential-Mixed Density Residential 5 (RD 5)
Low Density Residential Agricultural 80 (AG-80)
(Sacramento County)
East Industrial/vacant Residential-Mixed Density Agricultural 80 (AG-80) (Sacramento County)
West Vacant
Residential-Mixed Density Single Family Residential (SF) (Rio Del Oro Specific Plan)
Natural Resources Wetland Preserve (WP)
(Rio Del Oro Specific Plan)
It should be noted that within the Grant Line West Planning Area, as well as other Planning Areas in the project vicinity, the land use designations provided by the City’s General Plan are conceptual; detailed planning efforts are required in such areas prior to approval of development.

In addition, while the General Plan contains conceptual land uses for each of the Planning Areas within the project vicinity, some of the Planning Areas are located outside the City limits. The land use designations endorsed by the General Plan for the Planning Areas located outside the City limits are merely advisory in nature. The General Plan does not change land use designations for land located outside of the City’s jurisdiction.

Land Use Designation Definitions
The following sections provide definitions of the land use designations noted above, as summarized from the City’s General Plan.

Residential-Mixed Density
The Residential-Mixed Density conceptual land use designation is intended to represent a mix of residential densities with target average densities in the medium density range.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Natural Resources
Land within the Natural Resources category is set aside as natural habitat and typically does not include any urban development.

Low Density Residential
The Low Density Residential land use category is intended to include traditional single-family neighborhoods with a majority of single-family detached homes. Per the City’s General Plan, the Low Density Residential designation is the predominant land use category for the City’s neighborhoods.

Zoning Designation Definitions
The following sections provide definitions of the zoning designations noted above, as summarized from the City of Rancho Cordova Zoning Code (Title 23 of the City’s Municipal Code) and the Sacramento County Zoning Code.

City of Rancho Cordova Zoning Code
The City defines the IR, AG-80, RD-5, SF, and WP zoning designations as follows:

Industrial Reserve (IR)
Per the City’s Zoning Code, properties zoned IR are considered “agricultural land” because general agricultural uses are allowed within the IR zone.

Agricultural 80 (AG-80)
Per the City’s Zoning Code, the AG-80 zone district is intended to preserve land for agricultural use and operations and discourage the premature conversion of agricultural land to urban uses.

The AG-80 zone is applied to areas of the City to accommodate a wide range of agricultural uses on parcels of land that are 80 acres or larger in size.

Residential 5 (RD-5)
The RD-5 district makes up the vast majority of residential development built within the City prior to incorporation. The zone allows for residential development in the 4.1 to 5.0 dwelling units per acre range, as well as other compatible neighborhood support facilities and public/quasi-public uses, such as parks, religious institutions, and community gathering facilities.

Single Family Residential (SF)
Within the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan area, the SF zoning designation is intended for residential development at densities ranging from 2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per acre. The size and type of lots anticipated will range from one half-acre executive lots to moderately sized lots. Density ranges, permitted uses and development standards and design guidelines for all residential uses are provided in the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines.

Wetland Preserve (WP)
The Rio Del Oro Specific Plan area includes a 510-acre WP-zoned area is located in the southern portion of the Specific Plan area, protecting Morrison Creek and approximately 52 percent of the existing vernal pools and associated upland habitat. Vernal pool creation, maintaining approximately 250-foot buffers from existing vernal pool features, will occur within the WP area.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Sacramento County Zoning Code
Sacramento County defines the IR and AG-80 zoning designations as follows:

Interim-Agricultural Reserve (IR)
Per the Sacramento Zoning Code, the IR zone district is an agricultural zoning district with a 20- acre minimum lot size. Single-family residential uses are allowed within the IR zone district.

However, the purpose of the IR zone district is to allow for future development with industrial uses.

Agricultural 80 (AG-80)
Within unincorporated Sacramento County, the AG-80 zone district is an agricultural zoning district with an 80-acre minimum lot size. Single-family residential uses are allowed within the AG80 zone district at a density of one unit per parcel, in addition to accessory dwellings for agricultural employees. The zone district is intended to promote long-term agricultural uses and discourage the premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses.

Population and Housing
Population growth assumptions, average household sizes, and vacancy rates for the City of Rancho Cordova are discussed below.

Historical and Current Population
Per the City’s General Plan, based on the Draft General Plan Land Use Map (see Section 3.0, Project Description) the City of Rancho Cordova Planning Area is anticipated to have a buildout capacity of 126,241 housing units and 310,568 persons. Buildout of the Grant Line West Planning Area, including the project site, has been anticipated to include a total of 3,393 dwelling units, 9,043 residents, 502,893 square feet (sf) of commercial uses, and 143,684 sf of office uses.3 Maximum buildout is anticipated to occur after year 2030.

The City of Rancho Cordova was incorporated in July 2003. As shown in Table 4.7-2, the population within the city limits has increased steadily, from 53,572 persons in 2010 to 74,566 persons in 2019. As growth has occurred within the City, the average household size has increased, reaching a high of 2.81 in 2019.

Table 4.7-2
City of Rancho Cordova Population and Household Growth
Year Population Households
Persons Per
Households
2000 53,572 19,909 2.69
2010 64,805 23,468 2.76
2019 74,566 26,559 2.81
Sources:

ESRI Business Analyst, 2010 Census Profile, November 2019.

ESRI Business Analyst, Comparison Report, City of Rancho Cordova, February 2019.

The observed population change within the City, presented in Table 4.7-2, remains well below the buildout estimates presented in the City’s General Plan EIR. 3 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan Environmental Impact Report [Table 3.0-3]. 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Projected Housing Growth
While Table 4.7-2 demonstrates that growth within the City has not reached the maximum growth buildout estimates, development within the City is anticipated to continue to grow as new development occurs within the undeveloped areas within southeastern portion of the City. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has anticipated growth within the six-county Sacramento region through the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).4 Per the 2020 MTP/SCS, the City is anticipated to grow to a total of 39,980 housing units by 2035 and 42,710 housing units by 2040.

Average Household Size
The average size of households is a function of the number of residents living in households within a given area divided by the number of occupied housing units within the given area. As shown in Table 4.7-3, as of 2019, the average household size within the City is approximately 2.81 persons per household, which is similar to average household sizes within Sacramento County but slightly smaller than the statewide average of 2.98 persons/household.

Table 4.7-3
Average Household Size (Persons Per Household)
Area 2019
California 2.98
Sacramento County 2.80
City of Rancho Cordova 2.81
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, Comparison Reports, City of Rancho Cordova, November 2019.

Regional Housing Needs Plan
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the housing element’s statutory planning period. Based on SACOG’s adopted RHNA, each city and county must update the housing element of their General Plan to demonstrate how the jurisdiction will meet the expected growth in housing need over the planning period.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), housing is classified as “affordable” if households do not pay more than 30 percent of income for payment of rent (including utilities) or monthly homeownership costs (including mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance). SACOG adopted their Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) on September 20, 2012, which officially assigns the allocations to cities and counties in the six-county Sacramento region. SACOG’s RHNP covers the planning period from January 1, 2013 through October 31, 2021, and defines the lower income unit categories as follows:
• Very Low-Income Unit: is one that is affordable to a household whose combined gross household income is at or lower than 50 percent of the Sacramento County median income.
• Low-Income Unit: is one that is affordable to a household whose combined gross household income is at or between 50 and 80 percent of the Sacramento County median income.
4 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. November 18, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

On November 21, 2019, the SACOG Board of Directors approved RHNA Methodology Option C for the RHNA Methodology Cycle 6 (2021 through 2029 planning period).5 This action provides the number of total housing units that each jurisdiction in the SACOG region must zone for during the eight-year period. Based on the approved RHNA Methodology Option C, the SACOG region requires a minimum of 38,999 new very low-income units and 23,503 new low-income units for the upcoming planning period.6
The SACOG Board of Directors adopted the 2021-29 RHNP on March 19, 2020.

4.7.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal laws or regulations pertaining to land use and planning/population and housing are not applicable for this analysis. However, the existing State and local laws and regulations are listed below, as applicable.

State Regulations
The following are applicable State regulations related to land use and planning/population and housing.

Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15131
Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15131 provides that economic or social information may be included in an EIR, but those economic or social effects shall not be considered significant effects on the environment. In an EIR, the lead agency is responsible for researching economic or social changes resulting from a project, which may eventually lead to physical changes in the environment. Such economic or social changes can be used to determine the significance of physical changes on the environment.

Regional Housing Needs Plan
California General Plan law requires each city and county to have land zoned to accommodate a fair share of the regional housing need. The share is known as RHNA and is based on a RHNP developed by councils of government. The state-mandated RHNA process (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires SACOG to develop a methodology that determines how to divide and distribute an overall allocation that the region receives from the State.

SB 330
California Senate Bill (SB) 330, “The Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” was signed into law by Governor Newsom on October 9, 2019 and became effective January 1, 2020. The bill establishes a statewide housing emergency to be in effect until January 1, 2025. During the housing emergency period, cities and localities in urban areas, including the City of Rancho Cordova, are generally prohibited from rezoning actions or imposing new development standards that would reduce the zoned capacity for housing, or adopting new design standards that are not objective. In such jurisdictions, the demolition of existing housing units is only permitted if replacement units are provided. The demolition of existing low-income units is only permitted if certain conditions related to affordability and tenant protections are met.
5 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Housing Issues.

Available at: https://www.sacog.org/regional-housing-needs-allocation-rhna. Accessed December 2019. 6 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology Menu.

September 19, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Local Regulations
The following are the local regulations and standards relevant to the CEQA review process with respect to land use and planning/population and housing. Specific goals and policies from the City’s General Plan are listed in Table 4.7-5 at the end of this chapter.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SACOG is responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the MTP/SCS for the region and the corresponding Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP). The MTIP identifies short-term projects (seven-year horizon) in more detail.

Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy The 2020 MTP/SCS was adopted by the SACOG board on November 18, 2019. 7 The MTP/SCS
is a long-range plan for transportation improvements in the region and provides a 20-year transportation vision and corresponding list of projects. The plan is based on projections for growth in population, housing, and jobs. SACOG determines the regional growth projections by evaluating baseline data (existing housing units and employees, jobs/housing ratio, and percent of regional growth share for housing units and employees), historic reference data (based upon five- and ten-year residential building permit averages and historic county-level employment statistics), capacity data (General Plan data for each jurisdiction), and current MTIP data about assumptions used in the most recent MTP/SCS. SACOG staff then meets with each jurisdiction to discuss and incorporate more subjective considerations about planned growth for each area.

Finally, SACOG makes a regional growth forecast for new homes and new jobs, based upon an economic analysis provided by a recognized expert in order to estimate regional growth potential based on market analysis and related economic data, which is incorporated into the MTP/SCS.

4.7.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to land use and planning/ population and housing. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
• Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; or • Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure).

Issues Not Discussed Further
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A) determined that development of the proposed project would result in no impact or a less-than-significant impact related to the following impacts:
7 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. November 18, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

• Physically divide an established community; and
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Method of Analysis
The following section describes the method of analysis used to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project related to land use and planning/population and housing.

Land Use and Planning
This chapter analyzes the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding land uses and compliance of the proposed project with adopted plans and policies. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project are discussed in the respective environmental categories.

This discussion complies with Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that EIRs discuss inconsistencies with adopted local plans as part of the environmental setting. The ultimate determination of consistency rests with the City Council.

Compatibility with Existing Uses
The proposed project is evaluated for compatibility with the existing land uses adjacent to the project site. The evaluation considers the existing and planned type and intensity of uses in the project vicinity and those proposed for the project site. The analysis assumes the construction and implementation of the proposed project within the existing and planned environment to determine if the project is compatible with those existing and planned uses surrounding the project site.

Consistency with the Applicable Land Use Regulations
The proposed project is examined for consistency with the City’s General Plan based on the relevant policies contained therein. The project’s consistency with the City’s Municipal Code is also discussed.

Population and Housing
The level of significance of the impacts related to population and housing is determined by evaluating whether the proposed project, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure), would induce substantial unplanned population growth in the project area.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above.

4.7-1 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than
significant.

The General Plan Guidelines published by the State Office of Planning and Research defines consistency as, “An action, program, or project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” Therefore, the standard for analysis used in this EIR is based on general agreement with the policy language and furtherance of the policy intent (as determined by a review of the policy context). The determination that the project is consistent or inconsistent with the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan policies or other City plans and policies is ultimately the decision of the City Council. Furthermore, although CEQA analysis may identify some areas of general consistency with City policies, the City has the ability to impose additional requirements or conditions of approval on a project, at the time of its approval, to bring a project into more complete conformance with existing policies. A discussion of the project’s general agreement with policy language and furtherance of policy intent is discussed in further detail below.

The General Plan and Zoning Code carry out the policies of the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City, consistent with the General Plan. As noted previously, the project site is located within the Grant Line West Planning Area and is currently assigned the conceptual land use designations of Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density. The site is zoned Agricultural (AG-80) and Industrial Reserve (IR).

The proposed project would change the land use designation of the entire project site to Low Density Residential. The Low Density Residential designation is intended for single-family detached homes at a density of 2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units/acre. In addition, the project would include an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to remove the planned alignment of Centennial Drive in the project vicinity. Within the southern portion of the project site, the project would require a rezone to change a total of 68.42 acres of AG-80 zoned land and 30.48 acres of IR zoned land to Residential District (RD-5), which allows for residential development at a density of between 4.1 and 5.0 dwelling units/acre (see Figure 4.7-1). Table 4.7-4 below provides a comparison of the development potential of the project site under the existing and proposed General Plan land use and zoning designations.

Table 4.7-4
Project Site Development Potential
Scenario
Land Use
Designation Zoning Development Potential
Existing
Natural Resources and
Residential-Mixed
Density
AG-80, IR Four units allowable
Proposed Low Density Residential RD-5 440 units proposed As discussed in Table 4.7-5, City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion, the project would be generally consistent with the applicable policies outlined in the General Plan. It should be noted that while potential inconsistencies with specific policies may indicate a significant physical impact, the inconsistency is not itself an impact. The physical impacts of the project are analyzed throughout Chapters 4.1 through 4.10 of this Draft EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.7-1
Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Approval of the General Plan Amendment and rezone are discretionary actions subject to approval by the City Council. Should the City Council approve the requested entitlements, the project would be rendered consistent with the County’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

From a policy perspective, Table 4.7-5 at the end of this chapter demonstrates that the proposed project would be generally consistent with the policies in the General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (including the policies discussed in Table 4.7-5), and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.7-2 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure).

Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than
significant.

Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including through the elimination of obstacles to growth or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region.

Examples of projects likely to have growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivisions or office complexes in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped. The following sections describe potential effects related to direct and indirect population growth associated with implementation of the proposed project.

Direct Population Growth
The proposed 440-unit single-family residential development would increase the available housing within the City of Rancho Cordova, which would be expected to increase population in the area. Using the 2.81 persons/household average household size for the City (see Table 4.7-3), the project would house an estimated 1,237 residents. However, to provide a more conservative assessment consistent with other technical chapters in this EIR, the analysis in this chapter assumes the proposed project would generate 1,333 residents, as estimated by the VMT analysis prepared for the proposed project.

As noted previously, the City has anticipated buildout of the Grant Line West Planning Area with a total of 3,393 dwelling units, 9,043 residents, 502,893 square feet (sf) of commercial uses, and 143,684 sf of office uses. Currently, the Grant Line West Planning Area is primarily vacant and undeveloped. Thus, population growth associated with the proposed 440-unit subdivision would be within the scope of what ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

has been anticipated for the project area per the General Plan. It should be noted that potential population growth impacts associated with development of the proposed project and other future cumulative development projects in the City, including the Grant Line West Planning Area, are considered in further depth within Impact 4.7-5 below. Furthermore, the SACOG 2020 MTP/SCS has anticipated the addition of 13,421 residential units to the City’s housing stock by 2035. Thus, the proposed 440 units would be consistent with the growth projections included in the 2020 MTP/SCS.

Indirect Population Growth
The proposed project would result in an increase of the permanent population on the project site by approximately 1,333 residents. This new residential population would likely patronize local businesses and services in the area, fostering economic growth.

While construction of the proposed project would result in increased employment opportunities in the construction field, which could potentially result in increased permanent population and demand for housing in the vicinity of the project site, employment patterns of construction workers is such that construction workers would not likely, to any significant degree, relocate their households as a result of the construction-related employment opportunities associated with the proposed project.

Although the project would provide short-term employment opportunities, which would likely be filled from the local employee base, with the possible exception of a few household and landscape maintenance jobs, no permanent jobs would be created by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not result in long-term employment growth in the area. The residential population generated by the proposed project would also result in an increased demand for public services. However, as discussed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, the project’s demand for public services could be accommodated by existing services and would not create a need for new or altered governmental facilities. The utility improvements included in the proposed project would be designed to serve the proposed residences only, and would not induce additional population growth within the Grant Line West Planning Area beyond what has been previously anticipated by the City.

Conclusion
Considering the above, the proposed project would include development that would result in direct on-site population growth. However, population growth resulting from the proposed project would be within the General Plan and SACOG growth estimates for the project area. Furthermore, the infrastructure included in the proposed project would be sized to accommodate only the development that had been previously planned for the project area. As a result, the proposed project would not be considered to induce substantial unplanned population growth, and a less-than-significant impact would result. It should be noted that potential impacts related to growth inducement are discussed further within Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR, consistent with Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Additional detail regarding the cumulative setting for the proposed project is included in Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

4.7-4 Cause a significant cumulative environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

A cumulative analysis of land use is not included because land use plans or policies and zoning generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. The determination of significance for impacts related to such issues is whether the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Such a conflict is site-specific, and, thus, is only addressed on a project-by-project basis. As shown in Table 4.7-5 of this chapter, the proposed project would be generally consistent with relevant policies in the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan.

Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a significant cumulative environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and the cumulative impact would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.7-5 Cumulative unplanned population growth. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Buildout of the City, including the Grant Line West Planning Area, was anticipated to result in population growth through the buildout of urban and rural developments throughout the City. Since approval of the General Plan, the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and Sun Creek Specific Plans have been approved by the City, which resulted in a slight increase in the amount of residential development anticipated for the specific plan areas. In addition, several residential development projects have been completed, are underway, or approved within the City’s planning area. The 2020 MTP/SCS, prepared by the SACOG, provides regional growth projections for the sixcounty Sacramento region, including the City of Rancho Cordova.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

As discussed within Impact 4.7-3 above, the population growth related to implementation of the proposed project has been anticipated for the region by the 2020 MTP/SCS. Concurrently, the 2020 MTP/SCS explicitly anticipates growth within the Developing Communities shown in Figure 3.5 of the MTP/SCS, which include the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and Sun Creek Specific Plan areas within the southeastern portion of the City of Rancho Cordova. Thus, the General Plan anticipated cumulative growth of the plan area, and increased urbanization within the General Plan area has been anticipated by regional planning such as the 2020 MTP/SCS. Because development of the project site and buildout of the City has been anticipated in regional development forecasts, buildout of the proposed project in combination with other approved developments within the project area would not result in a significant cumulative contribution to unplanned population growth within the project area or region.

It should be noted that population growth itself does not constitute a significant physical environmental effect. Rather, the determination of significance is based on whether population growth associated with a project has been previously planned for, and whether such growth could result in indirect impacts from associated development. As such, the cumulative analysis within each technical chapter of this EIR evaluates the physical environmental impacts of cumulative development.

Considering the above, implementation of the proposed project, in combination with future development occurring under buildout of the City’s General Plan, would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to unplanned population growth.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
Policy LU.1.4 Promote high quality, efficient, and cohesive land utilization that minimizes negative impacts (e.g., traffic congestion and visual blight) and environmental hazards (e.g. flood, soil instability) on adjacent neighborhoods and infrastructure and preserve existing and future residential neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible activities and land uses.

Adverse environmental effects and environmental hazards are evaluated throughout the technical chapters of this EIR. For each issue area, this EIR includes mitigation, as necessary, to reduce any identified impacts to the maximum extent feasible. The 185.3 acres of undeveloped land on the northern parcels within the project site would not be included in development of the proposed project, thereby avoiding potential flooding impacts associated with Morrison Creek. Furthermore, the proposed project would be compatible with the existing single-family residential development to the south of the site, as well as the planned Rio Del Oro residential community to the west of the site. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy LU.2.7 Promote sustainable development that reduces the impact of projects on energy, water, and transportation systems.

Encourage sustainable development to occur in ways that complement the built form.

Issues related to energy efficiency are discussed in Chapter 4.1, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, of this EIR.

Policy C.1.2 Seek to maintain operations on all roadways and intersections at Level of Service D or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless maintaining this Level of Service would, in the City's judgment, be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals. Congestion in excess of Level of Service D may be accepted in these cases, provided that provisions are made to improve traffic flow and/or promote nonvehicular transportation as part of a development project or a City-initiated project. Please see Policy C.1.3 for additional policy guidance related to this issue. Examples of system improvements which may be accepted when Level of Service D cannot be maintained include the following, where the improvement or funding is in excess of standard City requirements:
• Development of on- or off-street bicycle or pedestrian circulation (not including sidewalks that are
constructed as part of roadway improvements);
As detailed in Chapter 4.10, Transportation, of this EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s acceptable LOS standard for all City roadways and intersections evaluated as part of the Transportation Impact Analysis, with the exception of the following intersections, during Existing Plus Project conditions:
• SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection under Existing Plus Project conditions;
• Grant Line Road/Raymer Way intersection under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions;
Although, as a result of SB 743, local jurisdictions may no longer rely on LOS and similar measures related to delay as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, the City considers LOS as a matter of General Plan policy consistency. The City maintains full discretion to require a project to ensure General Plan consistency through project conditions of approval.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
• Providing or funding public transportation facilities or services; Other features as determined appropriate by
the City.

Therefore, to address the proposed project’s inconsistency with applicable LOS standards for the above intersections, the City will require the project to comply with the following conditions of approval:
• The applicant shall pay a fair share of required improvements at the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection and cumulative
improvements through payment of City transportation fees; and • The applicant shall convert the Grant Line Road/Raymer Way intersection from side-street-stop-controlled to signalized along the existing Grant Line Road alignment.

Satisfying such conditions of approval would ensure that all intersections identified in the TIA would operate in accordance with General Plan Policy C.1.2 under Existing Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Policy C.1.7 Require the installation of traffic preemption devices for emergency vehicles (police and fire) at all newly constructed intersections and seek to retrofit all existing intersections to incorporate these features.

Per Sections 22.110.040 and 22.110.045 of the City’s Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to design collector streets and minor residential streets to provide rapid and efficient routes of access for emergency vehicles to residential areas. In addition, to ensure consistency with Policy C.1.7, the City will condition the project, if approved, to require installation of traffic preemption devices for emergency vehicles at all applicable intersections. Satisfying such conditions of approval would ensure preemption devices are installed at all applicable intersections in accordance with General Plan Policy C.1.7.

Policy C.1.8 Ensure that where traffic calming devices or techniques are employed, adequate access is provided for police and fire vehicles.

See response to Policy C.1.7 above.

Policy C.1.9 In an effort to reduce automobile traffic and congestion and increase use of other travel modes, support the use of trip reduction programs.

As discussed in Chapter 4.10, Transportation, of this EIR, the project applicant would construct a portion of the regional trail system in the project vicinity and pay a fair share contribution to provide monetary support for the City’s CordoVan regional shuttle service. Such actions would ensure the proposed project is generally consistent with Policy C.1.9, to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy OSPT.1.1 Review all proposals for new residential development to ensure each project complies with the City’s minimum
Per section 22.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to dedicate at least 6.49 acres of parkland based on the inclusion of 440 units within the proposed project. The proposed project would satisfy ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
standards for parkland dedication, and is consistent with Cordova Recreation and Park District goals.
the Municipal Code requirement, as the project would include dedication of two park areas totaling 8.65 acres. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy ISF.2.1 Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.

As discussed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, the proposed project would connect to the existing 10-inch water main within Edington Drive and the existing eight-inch sewer lines within Edington Drive and Thornberg Way. The Sacramento County Water Agency’s water conveyance infrastructure network would provide sufficient water pressure at the proposed residences. Additionally, sewer flows generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by the Sacramento Area Sewer District’s (SASD) downstream wastewater conveyance system, and expansion of existing infrastructure would not be required to serve the project.

The project site would receive natural gas and electricity service from PG&E and SMUD, respectively. The proposed project would connect to existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure located to the south of the site within the neighboring subdivision.

In addition, as required by the General Plan, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees, which would contribute towards the cost of future upgrades to public infrastructure and utilities. Because the proposed project would connect to existing public infrastructure in the project vicinity, and such infrastructure would be sufficient to handle the increase in demand associated with the proposed project, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy ISF.2.1.

Policy ISF.2.7 Minimize visual impacts and physical impediments of utility sites, infrastructure, and equipment.

The utility improvements necessary to serve the proposed project would generally be undergrounded, thereby limiting any potential adverse visual affects associated with such infrastructure. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy NR.1.1 Protect rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats in accordance with State and federal law.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2, Biological Resources, of this EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-1, 4.2-2, 4.2-3, 4.2-4, 4.2-5, 4.2- 6, 4.2-7, 4.2-8, 4.2-9, 4.2-10, and 4.2-11 would reduce all potential impacts to special-status species to less-than-significant levels. As described in Impact 4.2-13, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
provisions of the SSHCP. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy NR.1.7 Prior to project approval, the City shall require a biological resources evaluation for private and public development projects in areas identified to contain or possibly contain listed plant and/or wildlife species based upon the City’s biological resource mapping provided in the General Plan EIR or other technical materials.

As discussed in Chapter 4.2, Biological Resources, of this EIR, a Biological Resources Assessment has been prepared for the proposed project by ECORP Consulting, Inc. The Biological Resources Assessment evaluated potential impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species, as well as other biological resources. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy NR.1.9 The City shall require that impacts to riparian habitats be mitigated at a no net loss of existing function and value based on field survey and analysis of the riparian habitat to be impacted. No net loss may be accomplished by avoidance of the habitat, restoration of existing habitat, or creation of new habitat, or through some combination of the above.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-9(a) through 4.2-9(d) would ensure that potential impacts to wetlands and other riparian habitat would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. For example, Mitigation Measure 4.2-9(a) requires that the proposed project replaces, restores, or enhances on a “no net loss” basis (in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board) the acreage of all wetlands and other waters of the U.S. that would be removed, lost, and/or degraded due to project implementation. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy NR.2.1 Require mitigation that provides for “no net loss” of wetlands consistent with current State and federal policies.

See response to Policy NR.1.9 above.

Policy NR.2.2 Ensure that direct and indirect effects to wetland habitats are minimized by environmentally sensitive project siting and design, to the maximum extent feasible.

The 185.3 acres of undeveloped land on the northern parcels within the project site would not be included in the development of the proposed project the proposed project, thereby avoiding potential impacts to any existing wetlands located on such parcels. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy NR.4.1 Conserve native oak and landmark tree resources for their historic, economic, aesthetic, and environmental value.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-11 would require acquisition of a tree removal permit from the City prior to removal of any protected trees, as defined by Chapter 19.12 of the City’s Municipal Code. In addition, Mitigation Measure

4.2-11 requires that existing native tree species are incorporated into the planned landscaping design in public spaces such as open space, parks, and parkways.

Policy NR.4.4 Prior to the approval of any public or private development project in areas identified or assumed to contain trees, the City shall require that a determinate survey of trees species and size be performed. If any native oaks or other native trees six inches or more in diameter at breast height (dbh), multi-trunk As discussed in Chapter 4.2, Biological Resources, of this EIR, the study area contains a total of 149 trees that meet the definition of a Protected Tree as defined in the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The proposed project would include the removal of 140 of the existing protected trees within the study area. The nine protected trees within the Morrison Creek ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
native oaks or native trees of 10 inches or greater dbh, or nonnative trees of 18 inches or greater dbh that have been determined by a certified arborist to be in good health are found to occur, such trees shall be avoided if feasible. If such trees cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall do one of the following: All such trees shall be replaced at an inch- forinch ratio. A replacement tree planting plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect and shall be submitted to the City of Rancho Cordova for approval prior to removal of trees; or, The project applicant shall submit a mitigation plan that provides for complete mitigation of the removal of such trees in coordination with the City of Rancho Cordova. The mitigation plan shall be subject to the approval of the City. If the City of Rancho Cordova adopts a tree preservation ordinance at any time in the future, any future development activities shall be subject to that ordinance instead.

Offsite would be preserved as part of the project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-12 would reduce all potential impacts related to the City’s tree protection standards to less-than-significant levels. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy NR.5.3 Protect surface and ground water from major sources of pollution, including hazardous materials contamination and urban runoff.

As discussed under Impact 4.6-1 in Chapter 4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, the project applicant would be required by the State to comply with the most current Construction General Permit requirements.

Per the requirements, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared for the overall project, which would include the site map, drainage patterns and stormwater collection and discharge points, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and a monitoring and reporting framework for implementation of BMPs, as necessary. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 requires the preparation and submittal of a SWPPP. In addition, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be filed with Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

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) requires the project to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Countermeasure and Control Plan (SPCC) prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities. The SPCC would specify measures and procedures to minimize the potential for, and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
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.

Furthermore, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2 requires the project applicant to submit a detailed BMP and water quality maintenance plan to ensure the standards of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento region, are met by the proposed project during operation.

Compliance with the aforementioned mitigation measures and regulations would ensure the proposed project is consistent with Policy NR.5.3.

Policy NR.5.4 Prevent contamination of the groundwater table and surface water, and remedy existing contamination to the extent
practicable.

See response to Policy NR.5.3 above regarding the proposed project’s prevention of groundwater and surface water contamination. As discussed in Chapter 4.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, groundwater contamination would not pose a substantial risk to workers or residents on the project site. However, the potential UST, unknown underground storage system, and other potential fuel storage vessels located within APNs 073- 0010-011 and 072-0300-008 could pose a risk to workers during project construction. In addition, the soils in the vicinity of the wooden structures located at APN 072-0300-002 and APN 072-0300-008 have the potential to be contaminated with termiticides. However, Mitigation Measures 4.5- 2(a), (b), (d), and (f) require appropriate procedures be followed in the event that soil or groundwater contamination is identified associated with such sufficient to ensure that any contamination would be adequately remedied and risks to people would not occur. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy NR.5.4.

Policy NR.5.5 Minimize erosion to stream channels resulting from new development in urban areas consistent with State law.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 requires preparation and submittal of a SWPPP, which would be designed to control pollutant discharges using BMPs and technology to reduce erosion and discharge of sediments associated with project construction activities. In addition, runoff from impervious surfaces created as part of the proposed project would be routed to two bio-retention basins in the northwest portion of the development area, which would ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
detain and treat runoff prior to discharging treated runoff to a hydromodification basin located in between the two bio-retention basins.

The hydromodification basin would allow for metering of flows discharged to Morrison Creek. The project would also incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) controls such as disconnected pavement, disconnected roof drains, and interceptor trees to help reduce stormwater runoff, thereby ensuring that the project would not result in increased erosion of downstream waterways. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy S.1.5 The City shall require written confirmation from applicable local, regional, state, and federal agencies that known contaminated sites have been deemed remediated to a level appropriate for land uses proposed prior to the City approving site development or provide an approved remediation plan that demonstrates how contamination will be remediated prior to site occupancy. This documentation will specify the extent of development allowed on the remediated site as well as any special conditions and/or restrictions on future land uses.

As noted in the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project, the project site has not been listed as a past or present hazardous materials site. The nearest hazardous materials site is a McDonnell Douglas test site, which is located approximately 0.80-mile from the project site. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) through (f) in this EIR would ensure that all potential impacts associated with existing on-site hazards and hazardous materials would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Thus, the proposed project would be consistent with the policy.

Policy S.3.2 Ensure that new structures are protected from damage caused by geologic and/or soil conditions to the greatest extent feasible.

As discussed under Impact 4.4-3 of this EIR, the project site geological and soil conditions are preliminarily considered suitable for the proposed construction. In addition, the required compliance with the California Building Standards Code would ensure that all proposed structures are designed appropriately. Nonetheless, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, which requires preparation of and compliance with a final geotechnical engineering report, would ensure that new structures are protected from damage cause by geologic and/or soil conditions. As a result, the project would comply with Policy S.3.2.

Policy AQ.1.2 Evaluate projects for compliance with State and federal ambient air quality standards and the Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) thresholds of significance. (Refer to Table AQ-3 in this Element for ambient air quality standards.)
Impacts 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 within this EIR compare project-generated emissions to the SMAQMD’s threshold of significance. As noted therein, the project would not result in emissions which exceed such standards and, therefore, the project would be in compliance with State and federal AAQS.

As a result, the project would comply with Policy AQ.1.2.

Policy AQ.2.5 Utilize the guidelines in the California Air Resources Control Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective when evaluating new development
The EIR includes an evaluation of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions under Impact 4.1-3. As noted therein, the proposed project would not involve any land uses or operations that would be considered major ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.7-5
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Policy Discussion
Policy Project Consistency
requests that either would generate toxic air contaminant emissions near sensitive receptors or locate new sensitive receptors near existing sources of air toxic emissions or order to minimize health hazards, and implement all feasible best available control technology, as required by SMAQMD.
sources of TACs. In addition, consistent with the California Air Resources Control Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, construction of the proposed project would not generate substantial TAC emissions that would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, the project would comply with Policy AQ.2.5.

Policy N.1.2 Ensure that the indoor and outdoor areas of new projects will be located, constructed, and/or shielded from noise sources in compliance with the City’s noise standards to the maximum extent feasible.

Impacts related to noise are addressed in Chapter 4.8 of this EIR. As discussed under Impact 4.8-2, the project is not located in an area subjected to substantial ambient noise. However, exterior traffic noise and park-related noise at the proposed residences could exceed the City’s noise level standards. In order to ensure that the noise levels would be reduced sufficient to comply with the City’s standards, the City will require solid noise barriers to be constructed as a condition of approval. As a result, the project would comply with Policy N.1.2.

Policy N.1.4 Mitigate noise created by proposed non-transportation noise sources to comply with the City’s noise standards to the maximum extent feasible.

As discussed in Chapter 4.8 of this EIR, considering the project primarily consists of single-family residences, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate substantial non-transportation noise. As a result, the project would comply with Policy N.1.4.

Policy N.1.7 To the extent feasible and appropriate, the City shall require the use of temporary construction noise control measures for public and private project that may include the use of
temporary noise barriers, temporary relocation of noisesensitive land uses or other appropriate measures.

Construction-related noise is addressed under Impact 4.8-1 of this EIR. As noted under Impact 4.8-1, construction noise is exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance during allowable hours, which would be enforced through Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. As a result, the use of additional noise control measures is not warranted during construction of the proposed project, and the project would generally comply with Policy N.1.7.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.8 Noise
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.8.1 INTRODUCTION
The Noise chapter of the EIR describes the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, and identifies potential impacts and mitigation measures related to noise and vibration associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The method by which the potential impacts are analyzed is discussed, followed by the identification of potential impacts and the recommended mitigation measures designed to reduce significant noise and vibration impacts to less-than-significant levels, if required. The Noise chapter is primarily based on the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (see Appendix I),1 the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan,2 and the associated EIR.
3 It is noted that the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment was prepared when a prior iteration of the project included only 434 residential units, as compared to the currently-proposed 440 units. Bollard Acoustical Consultants prepared an update memorandum confirming that the changes in noise levels associated with the six additional units would not change the conclusions presented in the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment.4 As a result, all conclusions presented within this chapter remain applicable.

4.8.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Existing Environmental Setting section provides background information on noise and vibration, a discussion of acoustical terminology and the effects of noise on people, existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, existing sources and noise levels in the project vicinity, and groundborne vibration.

Fundamentals of Noise and Vibration
Decibels (dB) are logarithmic units that compare the wide range of sound intensities to which the human ear is sensitive. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the typical range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable and can be approximated by filtering the frequency response of a sound level meter by means of the standardized A-weighting network. A-weighting of sound levels best reflects the human ear’s reduced sensitivity to low frequencies, and the use of A-weighted sound level, expressed as dBA, has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. Noise levels associated with common noise sources are provided in Figure 4.8-1.
1 Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, The Preserve Residential Development. September 3, 2020. 2 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 3 City of Rancho Cordova. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. 2006. 4 Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Changes in noise levels associated with the addition of six (6) units for the proposed Preserve Residential Development in Rancho Cordova, California. January 5, 2021.

4.8 NOISE
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.8-1
Noise Levels Associated with Common Noise Sources
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which can be used to compare the noise level of neighborhoods, is the weighted average noise level over time, presented in dB. Community noise is also commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the overall noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq). The Leq is the foundation of the day-night average noise descriptor, or Ldn, and represents a correlation with community response to noise.

The Ldn is based on the average noise level over a 24-hours, with an additional 10 dB weighting applied to noise that occurs during nighttime hours (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). The 10 dB nighttime penalty is applied to account for the assumption that people are more sensitive to nighttime noise exposures as compared to daytime noise exposures.

Stationary sources of noise, including construction equipment, attenuate at a rate of 6.0 to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance from the source depending on ground absorption. Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls, increase the efficacy of noise attenuation that occurs by distance alone.

Vibration is similar to noise in that both involve a source, a transmission path, and a receiver.

However, while noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, vibration is usually associated with transmission through the ground or structures. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency.

A person’s perception to the vibration depends on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration levels in terms of peak particle velocities (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec). Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Existing Sensitive Receptors
Certain land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure time and shielding from noise sources) and the type of activities typically involved. Noise sensitive land uses typically include residences, schools, child care centers, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, convalescent centers, retirement homes, and recreation areas. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include the single-family residential subdivision located directly south of the site and the existing single-family residence located within the northern portion of the project site. The nearest residence is approximately 25 feet south of the project site boundary.

Existing Noise Sources and Ambient Noise Levels
Per the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, the existing ambient noise environment within the project area is defined primarily by noise from traffic on Grant Line Road and Raymer Way. To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, Bollard Acoustical Consultants conducted two long-term (48-hour) ambient noise surveys from July 10 to 12, 2019 and one short-term (15-minute) ambient noise survey on July 10, 2019. The results of the longterm and short-term noise measurements are summarized in Table 4.8-1 and Table 4.8-2, respectively. The locations of the noise measurement sites are shown in Figure 4.8-2.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.8-2
Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultant, Inc. (2020).

Proposed
Development Area
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-1
Long-Term Noise Level Measurement Results1
Site2 Description Date Ldn
Average Measured Hourly
Noise Levels, dB
Daytime3 Nighttime4
Leq Lmax Leq Lmax
LT-1
Centrally located on project
site, near terminus of
Edington Drive
7/10-7/11 47 45 62 40 51
7/11-7/12 47 45 60 39 53
LT-2
Eastern end of project site,
approximately 90 feet from
centerline of Raymer Way
7/10-7/11 55 50 69 49 65
7/11-7/12 55 51 72 48 65
Notes: 1 Detailed summaries of the noise monitoring results are provided in Appendices D and E of the project-specific Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment (Appendix I of this EIR). 2 Noise monitoring locations are identified in Figure 4.8-2. 3 Daytime hours: 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM. 4 Nighttime hours: 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Traffic volumes for existing conditions were obtained from the traffic study prepared for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. The traffic noise levels at 100 feet away from the roadway centerline were calculated based on the traffic volume data and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Model. For this analysis, 88 roadway segments were evaluated. Modeled noise levels at 100 feet from each roadway centerline ranged between 37 and 72 Ldn. The modeled traffic noises for each roadway segment are summarized in Table 1 of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment.

Factors such as roadway curvature, roadway grade, shielding from local topography or structures, elevated roadways, or elevated receivers may affect actual sound propagation. In addition, existing sensitive receptors within the project vicinity are located varying distances from the roadway centerline. Nonetheless, the 100-foot reference distance is used for the purposed of this analysis to provide a reference position for comparisons between existing and anticipated future traffic noise levels with and without implementation of the proposed project.

Existing Ambient Vibration Levels
To quantify existing vibration levels at the project site, Bollard Acoustical Consultants conducted short-term (15 minute) vibration measurements at the project site on July 10, 2019. The measured Table 4.8-2
Short-Term Noise Level Measurement Results
Site1 Description
Time of
Day
Measured Noise Levels, dB
Leq Lmax
ST-1 Southwestern end of the project site 12:23 PM 42 58 Notes: 1 Noise monitoring location is identified in Figure 4.8-2.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

average vibration levels within the project area were less than 0.001 in/sec PPV, as shown in Table 4.8-3.

Table 4.8-3
Ambient Vibration Monitoring Results – July 10, 2019
Site1 Description Time
Average Measured
Vibration Level, PPV
(in. sec)
V-1 Eastern end of the project site 11:36 AM <0.001
V-2 Centrally located on the project site 12:23 PM <0.001 V-3 Southwestern end of the project site 12:58 PM <0.001 Notes: 1 Noise monitoring location is identified in Figure 4.8-2.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

4.8.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
In order to limit exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging noise levels, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the State have established standards and ordinances to control noise. Applicable federal laws or regulations pertaining to noise or vibration do not exist. The following provides a general overview of the existing State and local regulations that are relevant to the proposed project.

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to noise.

California State Building Codes
The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR), establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family dwellings.

Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room. Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noisesensitive uses to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental goals and policies relevant to noise.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The relevant goals and policies from the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan related to noise are presented below.

Goal N.1. Ensure that all new development will be free of noise disturbances.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy N.1.1 Establish standards and policies consistent with those in Table

4.8-4 and Table 4.8-5 [General Plan Tables N-1 and N-2] to govern maximum sound levels in new development.

Table 4.8-4
City Noise Standards:

Noise Level Performance Standards for New Projects Affected by or Including Non-Transportation Noise Sources
Stationary Noise Sources
Noise Level
Descriptor
Daytime
Maximum
(7 AM to 10 PM)
Nighttime
Maximum
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Typical Hourly, Leq, dB 55 45
Tonal, impulsive, repetitive or
consist primarily of speech or
music
Hourly, Leq, dB 50 40
Note: The City may impose noise level standards which are more or less restrictive than those specified above based upon determination of existing low or high ambient noise levels.

Source: Rancho Cordova General Plan, June 2006.

Table 4.8-5
Maximum Transportation Noise Exposure
Land Use
Outdoor
Activity Areas1
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Interior Spaces
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB2
Residential 603 45 --
Residential subject to noise from railroad
tracks, aircraft overflights, or similar noise
sources with produce clearly identifiable
discrete noise events (e.g., the passing
of a single train)
603 405 --
Transient lodging 604 45 --
Hospitals, nursing homes 603 45 --
Theaters, auditoriums -- -- 35
Churches, meeting halls 603 -- 40
Office buildings -- -- 45
Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks 70 -- --
Notes: 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the outdoor activity area. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best-available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. 4 In the case of hotel/motel facilities or other transient lodging, outdoor activity areas such as pool areas may not be included in the project design. In these cases, only the interior noise level criterion will apply. 5 The intent of this noise standard is to provide increased protection against sleep disturbance for residences located near railroad tracks.

Source: Rancho Cordova General Plan, June 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy N.1.2 Ensure that the indoor and outdoor areas of new projects will be located, constructed, and/or shielded from noise sources in compliance with the City’s noise standards to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy N.1.4 Mitigate noise created by proposed non-transportation noise sources to comply with the City’s noise standards to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy N.1.5 Mitigate noise created by the construction of new transportation noise sources to the maximum extent feasible to comply with the City’s standards.

Policy N.1.6 Ensure that comfortable noise levels and adequate privacy are maintained in higher density development.

Policy N.1.7 To the extent feasible and appropriate, the City shall require the use of temporary construction noise control measures for public and private project that may include the use of temporary noise barriers, temporary relocation of noise-sensitive land uses or other appropriate measures.

Rancho Cordova Noise Ordinance
Chapter 6.68 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code establishes interior and exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive receptors. The purpose of the Noise Ordinance is to assess complaints of noises alleged to exceed the ambient noise levels. Relevant provisions of the Noise Ordinance are presented below.

6.68.070 Exterior noise standards.

A. The following noise standards [see Table 4.8-6], unless otherwise specifically indicated in this chapter, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise area:

Table 4.8-6
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Exterior Noise
Standards
Noise
Area City Zoning Districts Time Period
Exterior
Noise
1 RE-1, RD-1, RE-2, RD-2,
RE-3, RD-3, RD-4, R-1-A,
RD-5, R-2, RD-10, R-2A,
RD-20, R-3, RD-30, RD-40,
RM-1, RM-2, A-1-B, AR-1,
A-2, AR-2, AR-5
7:00 AM – 10:00 PM 55 dBA
10:00 PM – 7:00 AM 50 dBA
Source: Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, Chapter 6.68, Code Section 6.68.070(A).

B. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise which causes the noise levels on an affected property, when measured in the designated noise area, to exceed for the duration of time set forth following, the specified exterior noise standards in any one hour by [see Table 4.8-7]:

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-7
Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Allowable
Duration of Intrusive Sound
Cumulative Duration of the Intrusive Sound Allowable Decibels Cumulative period of 30 minutes per hour 0
Cumulative period of 15 minutes per hour +5
Cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour +10
Cumulative period of 1 minute per hour +15
Level not to be exceeded for any time per hour +20
Source: Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, Chapter 6.68, Code Section 6.68.070(B).

C. Each of the noise limits specified in subsection (B) of this section shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulsive or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music.

D. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the first four noise-limit categories specified in subsection (B) of this section, the allowable noise limit shall be increased in 5 dBA increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level.

If the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise level category, the maximum ambient noise level shall be the noise limit for that category.

6.68.090 Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

E. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8:00 PM through and including 7:00 AM on Saturday, Saturdays commencing at 8:00 PM through and including 7:00 AM on the next following Sunday, and on each Sunday after the hour of 8:00 PM; provided, however when an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a construction project and the nature of the project necessitates that work in process be continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed to continue work after 8:00 PM, and to operate machinery and equipment necessary until completion of the specific work in progress can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner.

As shown above, the maximum allowable exterior noise level for residential districts is 55 dB between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM, and 50 dB between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Construction noise is exempt from the Noise Ordinance if construction activities occur between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends.

4.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to noise and vibration. In addition, a discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Impacts of the environment on a project (as opposed to impacts of a project on the environment) are beyond the scope of required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

significant effects of the environment on the project.” (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473 (Ballona).) The impacts discussed in this section of the EIR relate both to noise that may be caused by the proposed project (e.g. construction noise and operational traffic added to surrounding streets) as well as effects of existing environmental noise sources on future residents of the project (e.g. background traffic on surrounding streets).

The California Supreme Court recently held that “CEQA does not generally require an agency to consider the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future users or residents. What CEQA does mandate… is an analysis of how a project might exacerbate existing environmental hazards.” (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 392; see also Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 197 [“identifying the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmental setting is neither consistent with CEQA's legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes”], quoting Ballona, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 474.) Therefore, for the purposes of the CEQA analysis, the relevant inquiry is not whether the proposed project’s future residents will be exposed to preexisting environmental noise-related hazards, but instead whether project-generated noise will exacerbate the pre-existing conditions.

Nonetheless, for informational purposes, this chapter considers the proposed project’s contribution to the existing noise environment on both existing sensitive receptors and future residents of the proposed project.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they would result in a significant adverse impact on the environment. For the purposes of this EIR, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or • Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Issues Dismissed in the Initial Study
The nearest airport to the project site is the Mather Airport, located approximately five miles to the west of the project site. Therefore, the following impact was dismissed in the Initial Study (Appendix A):
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Accordingly, the above impact is not analyzed further in this EIR.

Summary of Applicable Noise Standards
Applicable noise level standards related to noise and vibration are summarized below.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Applicable Non-Transportation Noise Criteria
The Noise Element of the General Plan sets forth performance standards for non-transportation sources, as represented in Table 4.8-4. The proposed project would be required to comply with the noise standards presented therein. As such, noise generated by typical stationary noise sources shall not exceed 55 dB Leq during daytime hours or 45 dB Leq during nighttime hours, and noise generated by speech or music sources shall not exceed 50 dB Leq during daytime hours or 40 dB Leq during nighttime hours. In addition, Table 4.8-6 presents the Municipal Code noise standards for areas zoned residential. Considering the nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are residential land uses, the proposed project must not generate noise that would exceed 55 dBA during daytime hours or 50 dBA during nighttime hours at the nearby residences.

Applicable Transportation Noise Criteria
The proposed project would be subject to the Residential Land Use transportation noise exposure limits set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan. As noted therein, and as shown in Table

4.8-5, the maximum transportation noise at the closest residences must be limited to 60 dB Ldn at outdoor activity spaces and 45 dB Ldn at indoor spaces.

Substantial Increase Criteria
Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if the project will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to measurably severe noise levels. In practice, a noise impact may be considered significant if the project would generate noise that would conflict with local project criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise sensitive land uses. The potential increase in transportation noise associated with the proposed project is a factor in determining significance.

The City of Rancho Cordova does not have an adopted policy for assessing noise impacts associated with increases in ambient noise levels from project-generated traffic within the project vicinity. As a result, the federal noise criteria established by the Federal Interagency Commission on Noise (FICON) was applied to the project. Table 4.8-8 was developed by FICON as a means of developing thresholds for identifying project-related noise level increases. The rationale for the graduated scales is that test subject’s reactions to increases in noise levels vary depending on the starting level of noise. Specifically, in lower ambient noise environments, such as those below 60 dB Ldn, a larger increase in noise levels was required to achieve a negative reaction as compared to the change in noise levels that was necessary in environments where noise levels were already elevated. The approach to assessing the significance of increases in off-site traffic noise is consistent with other local EIRs and is considered to be the industry-standard approach.

Table 4.8-8
Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure
Ambient Noise Level Without Project, dB
Increase Required for Significant
Impact
<60 +5.0 dB or more
60-65 +3.0 dB or more
>65 +1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON).

Vibration
The City of Rancho Cordova does not have specific policies or standards pertaining to vibration levels. However, vibration levels associated with construction activities and project operations are ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

addressed as potential vibration impacts associated with project implementation. Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events.

Construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Table

4.8-9 indicates that, per California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards, the threshold for vibration damage to new residential structures is 1.00 in/sec PPV for transient sources and 0.50 in/sec PPV for continuous sources. For older residential structures, the threshold for damage is 0.50 in/sec PPV for transient sources and 0.30 in/sec PPV for continuous sources.

In addition, as shown in Table 4.8-10, humans are able to perceive vibrations from transient sources at a threshold of 0.40 in/sec PPV and from continuous sources at a threshold of 0.01 in/sec PPV. Transient sources of vibrations of 0.25 in/sec PPV, or greater, and continuous vibrations of 0.04 in/sec PPV, would likely cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.

Method of Analysis
Below are descriptions of the methodologies utilized to measure background and ambient noise and estimate future traffic noise, construction noise, and vibration associated with the project.

Further modeling details and calculations are provided in Appendix I to this EIR. The results of the noise and vibration impact analyses were compared to the standards of significance discussed above in order to determine the associated level of impact.

To predict existing noise levels due to traffic, Bollard Acoustical Consultants used the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) to develop existing noise contours expressed in terms of Ldn for the major roadways within the project vicinity. The FHWA model is based upon the noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle Table 4.8-9
Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (inches/second)
Transient Sources
Continuous/ Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings,
ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls.

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site.

The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions.

To predict Ldn/CNEL values, determination of the day/night distribution of traffic and adjustment of the traffic volume input data is necessary to yield an equivalent hourly traffic volume. The FHWA model was used in conjunction with traffic volumes provided by Kimley-Horn & Associates to analyze the potential impact of the proposed project and project-generated traffic under Existing Plus Project conditions and future Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used to conduct the noise level measurement surveys on the project site. The meters were calibrated before use with an LDL Model CA200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements, and the equipment met all specifications of the American National Standards Institute requirements for Type 1 sound level meters. An LDL Model LxT precision integrating sound level meter equipped with a vibration transducer was used to complete the ambient vibration measurements.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the baseline and standards of significance identified above.

4.8-1 Generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project, including off-site improvements, would require the use of numerous pieces of noise-generating equipment, such as excavating machinery (e.g., backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, front loaders) and other construction equipment (e.g., compactors, scrapers, graders).

Table 4.8-10
Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response
Maximum PPV (inches/second)
Transient Sources
Continuous/ Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.40 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.00 0.40
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls.

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2013).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Construction worker traffic and construction-related material haul trips could result in temporary noise level increases along local haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used.

The noise levels generated by construction equipment vary depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction. Table 4.8-11 presents typical maximum noise levels for commonly-used construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. In addition, the table presents the anticipated maximum noise levels that would be experienced by the nearest sensitive receptors, which are located approximately 25 feet away.

Table 4.8-11
Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Type
Maximum Noise Level
at 50 Feet (dBA)
Predicted Maximum Noise
Levels at 25 Feet (dBA)
Air compressor 80 86
Backhoe 80 86
Compactor 82 88
Concrete mixer 85 91
Crane, mobile 83 89
Dozer 85 91
Excavator 85 91
Generator 82 88
Grader 85 91
Loader 80 86
Paver 85 91
Pneumatic tool 85 91
Pump 77 83
Saw 76 82
Scraper 85 91
Shovel 82 88
Truck 84 90
Source: Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

As shown in Table 4.8-11, maximum noise levels generated by various types of construction equipment can range from 82 to 91 dBA at 25 feet. Considering the nearest noise-sensitive receptors are located approximately 25 feet away from the proposed development area, such receptors could be exposed to noise levels ranging from approximately 82 dB to 91 dB, which would exceed the applicable Rancho Cordova General Plan noise level limits (see Table 4.8-4).

Given that construction equipment would operate at various portions of the project site at any one time and most construction activity would occur farther than 25 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors, project construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors would likely be lower than the reference levels presented in Table 4.8-11. In addition, on-site construction activities would be temporary in nature and would be limited to the following time periods per Section 6.68.090 of the City’s Municipal Code:
between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekends.

Per Section 6.68.090 of the Municipal Code, construction noise that occurs during ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

such hours is exempt from the noise level standards included in the City’s Noise Ordinance.

Nonetheless, if construction activities were to occur outside of the exempted hours, construction activity would generate noise levels that would exceed the noise standards set forth in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. As such, implementation of the project could result in the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, and a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.8-1 The following criteria shall be noted on project Improvement Plans.

Improvement Plans shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department for review and approval.
• Consistent with Section 6.68.090 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekends.

4.8-2 Generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The primary noise sources associated with development of the proposed 440-unit single-family subdivision would be noise associated with use of the proposed on-site public park areas and traffic noise associated with increased traffic volumes on the local roadway network. Both noise sources are discussed below with respect to future noise levels at the proposed residences and at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Noise Levels at the Proposed Residences
As noted previously, CEQA does not require an analysis of the environment’s impact on the project; however, noise-related impacts to future residents of the proposed project is evaluated for informational purposes and to consider consistency with the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan.

Park Noise at the Proposed Residences
The proposed project would include development of two public parks adjacent to the proposed residences in the northern portion of the development area, next to Morrison Creek. Noise generated by park activities would primarily consist of human speech (i.e., shouting and cheering during activities) and, thus, would be subject to the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

General Plan’s more restrictive noise standards (see Table 4.8-4). For this analysis, it is assumed that public park use would be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM). In addition, to provide a conservative estimate of park noise, this analysis assumed that the proposed public parks would have active uses (i.e., play structures, playing fields) rather than passive uses (i.e., picnic tables, sitting areas).

According to the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, parks consisting of active uses/playing fields typically generate noise levels between 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at a distance of 100 feet. The nearest proposed residential uses would be located approximately 70 feet from the center of the park areas. Based on the reference noise levels and standard noise attenuation, park activity noise exposure at the nearest proposed residences was calculated to be approximately 53 dB Leq, which would exceed the applicable Rancho Cordova General Plan daytime hourly average noise level standard of 50 dB Leq for tonal, speech, or music noise sources.

Exterior Traffic Noise at the Project Site
The FHWA Model was used with future traffic data to predict future exterior traffic noise levels at the proposed residential and park uses. The future (Cumulative Plus Project) average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for Grant Line Road and Raymer Way were calculated using data provided in the project traffic impact analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. By using traffic data from Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, as opposed to Existing Plus Project Conditions, this analysis presents a worst-case scenario. The predicted future Grant Line Road and Raymer Way traffic noise levels at the nearest proposed residential and park uses are summarized in Table 4.8-12.

As indicated in Table 4.8-12, predicted future combined Grant Line Road and Raymer Way traffic noise level exposure at the nearest proposed park use would satisfy the applicable Ranch Cordova General Plan exterior noise level standard of 70 dB Ldn for playgrounds and neighborhood park uses. However, at the nearest residential backyards, future combined traffic noise level exposure is predicted to exceed the General Plan exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn for residential uses.

Interior Traffic Noise at the Project Site
With regard to interior noise levels, modern construction typically provides a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction with windows closed and a 15 dB reduction with windows open. The 25 dB level of noise reduction would be adequate to reduce future traffic noise levels within all proposed residences to below the City’s General Plan interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn. Therefore, additional interior noise control measures would not be required in order to reduce traffic noise exposure.

Noise Level Increases at Existing Sensitive Receptors
Traffic data for the Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions in the project area were obtained from the project-specific Transportation Impact Analysis completed by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Traffic noise levels under Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions are summarized in Table 4.8-13 below.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-12
Future Traffic Noise Levels at Proposed Uses1
Roadway2 Location
Distance
from
Centerline
(ft)3
Future
Exterior
Ldn (dB)4
Grant Line Road
Nearest park (Park 1) 1,080 57
Nearest residential backyards 1,050 57
Nearest first-floor residential facades 1,060 57
Nearest upper-floor residential facades 1,060 59
Raymer Way
Nearest park (Park 1) 450 53
Nearest residential backyards 110 63
Nearest first-floor residential facades 120 62
Nearest upper-floor residential facades 120 64
Combined Roadways
Nearest park (Park 1) -- 59
Nearest residential backyards -- 64
Nearest first-floor residential facades -- 63
Nearest upper-floor residential facades -- 65
Notes: 1 A complete listing of FHWA Model inputs and results are provided in Appendix G of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment (see Appendix I to this EIR). 2 Locations of proposed uses are shown on Figure 4.8-2. 3 Distances measured from said locations to the roadway centerline. 4 A +2 dB offset was applied to upper-floor facades for reduced ground absorption of sound at elevated locations.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

Table 4.8-13
Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Segment Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 100 feet, dB
(Ldn)
Existing
Existing +
Project Change
1 1- Mather Field Rd/
US 50 WB Ramp
North 67.6 67.6 0.0
2 South 68.8 68.8 0.0
3 East 70.1 70.1 0.0
4 West 63.6 63.6 0.0
5 2- Mather Field Rd/
US 50 EB Ramp
North 68.8 68.8 0.0
6 South 69.7 69.7 0.0
7 East 65.0 65.0 0.0
8 West 69.8 69.8 0.0
9 3- Mather Field Rd/
International Dr
North -- -- --
10 South 60.4 63.0 2.6
11 East 66.8 66.8 0.0
12 West 68.4 69.7 1.3
13 4- Zinfandel Dr/
US 50 WB Ramp
North 68.5 68.5 0.0
14 South 70.0 70.0 0.0
15 East 71.1 71.2 0.1
16 West 64.4 64.4 0.0
17 5- Zinfandel Dr/ North 70.1 70.1 0.0
(Continued on next page)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-13
Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Segment Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 100 feet, dB
(Ldn)
Existing
Existing +
Project Change
18 US 50 EB Ramp South 70.3 70.3 0.0
19 East 69.5 69.5 0.0
20 West 71.0 71.0 0.0
21 6- Zinfandel Dr/
White Rock Rd
North 70.3 70.3 0.0
22 South 67.9 67.9 0.0
23 East 65.2 65.4 0.2
24 West 64.8 64.8 0.0
25 7- Zinfandel Dr/
International Dr
North 67.0 67.0 0.0
26 South 66.6 66.6 0.0
27 East 65.0 65.0 0.0
28 West 65.8 65.8 0.0
29 8- Sunrise Blvd/
Zinfandel Dr
North 71.4 71.5 0.1
30 South 71.6 71.6 0.0
31 East 52.6 52.6 0.0
32 West 59.6 59.6 0.0
33 9- Sunrise Blvd/
US 50 WB Ramp
North 71.6 71.6 0.0
34 South 70.8 70.8 0.0
35 East 68.5 68.5 0.0
36 West 69.1 69.1 0.0
37 10- Sunrise Blvd/
US 50 EB Ramp
North 70.8 70.9 0.1
38 South 70.2 70.3 0.1
39 East 64.3 64.3 0.0
40 West 70.9 70.9 0.0
41 11- Sunrise Blvd/
Folsom Blvd
North 70.2 70.2 0.0
42 South 69.7 69.7 0.0
43 East 65.2 65.3 0.1
44 West 65.1 65.1 0.0
45 12- Sunrise Blvd/ White
Rock Rd
North 68.6 68.6 0.0
46 South 68.5 68.5 0.0
47 East 65.5 65.8 0.3
48 West 65.7 65.9 0.2
49 13- Zinfandel Dr/
Douglas Rd
North 65.3 65.3 0.0
50 South 58.8 58.8 0.0
51 East 65.3 65.3 0.0
52 West 63.7 63.7 0.0
53 14- Sunrise Blvd/
Douglas Rd
North 68.3 68.2 -0.1
54 South 69.5 69.5 0.0
55 East 64.2 64.2 0.0
56 West 65.3 65.3 0.0
57 15- Americanos Blvd/
Douglas Rd
North 53.4 54.2 0.8
58 South -- -- --
59 East 60.0 60.0 0.0
(Continued on next page)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-13
Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
Segment Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 100 feet, dB
(Ldn)
Existing
Existing +
Project Change
60 West 61.3 61.5 0.2
61 16- Sunrise Blvd/
Jackson Rd/SR 16
North 68.8 68.8 0.0
62 South 67.6 67.6 0.0
63 East 66.4 66.4 0.0
64 West 64.9 64.9 0.0
65 17- Grant Line Rd/
Jackson Rd/SR 16
North 64.9 65.2 0.3
66 South 64.2 64.5 0.3
67 East 66.5 66.5 0.0
68 West 66.5 66.5 0.0
69 18- Grant Line Rd/
Keifer Blvd
North 65.8 66.1 0.3
70 South 64.9 65.2 0.3
71 East 57.5 57.9 0.4
72 West 37.5 37.5 0.0
73 19- Grant Line Rd/
Douglas Rd
North 66.4 66.7 0.3
74 South 65.7 66.0 0.3
75 East -- -- --
76 West 60.1 60.1 0.0
77 20- Grant Line Rd/
Raymer Wy
North 67.6 67.8 0.2
78 South 66.7 67.0 0.3
79 East -- -- --
80 West 56.1 57.7 1.6
81 21- Grant Line Rd/
White Rock Rd
North 68.4 68.7 0.3
82 South 67.0 67.8 0.8
83 East -- -- --
84 West 61.3 62.2 0.9
85 22- Prairie City Rd/
White Rock Rd
North 65.6 66.0 0.4
56 South -- -- --
87 East 64.6 64.8 0.2
88 West 66.3 66.6 0.3
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

Based on the FICON standards described above, where ambient noise conditions are between 60 and 65 dB, a three dB increase is considered to be the applicable standard of significance. In areas where ambient noise levels are less than 60 dB, a five dB increase is considered the threshold applicable threshold of significance. As shown in Table 4.8-13, the largest change in noise levels between the Existing and Existing Plus Project conditions would be 2.6 dB. All other changes in noise levels would be less than 2.6 dB, with the majority being less than one dB.

All project-related traffic noise increases would be below the applicable FICON thresholds shown in Table 4.8-8. Thus, project traffic noise level increases at existing ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

sensitive receptors under the Existing Plus Project conditions would be less than significant.

Park Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors
According to the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, parks consisting of active uses/playing fields typically generate noise levels between 50 dB Leq and 70 dB Lmax at a distance of 100 feet. Because public park use is typically limited to daytime hours, the General Plan daytime hourly average noise level standard of 50 dB Leq was applied at the nearest residences. Based on the aforementioned reference noise levels and standard spherical noise attenuation, park activity noise exposure at the nearest existing single-family residences was calculated and is presented in Table 4.8-

14. Table 4.8-14
Predicted Public Park Activity Noise Levels at Nearest
Existing Noise-Sensitive Uses
Noise-Sensitive
Receptor1
Nearest
Park2
Distance
(ft)3
Predicted
Noise
Levels,
Leq (dB)4
General Plan
Daytime Noise
Standard, Leq
(dB)
Residences in
Subdivision – South Park 2 1,000 <20
50 Residence on Ag.

Property – Northwest Park 2 1,300 28
Notes: 1 Locations of existing noise-sensitive receptors are shown on Figure 1 of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment. 2 Locations of proposed park areas are shown on Figure 2 of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment. 3 Distances measured from center of nearest park area to receptors. 4 Predicted park activity noise levels at the nearest residences in the subdivision to the south of the project take into consideration the shielding that would be provided by proposed intervening structures of the development (residences), have been conservatively adjusted by -15 dB to account for this screening.

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

As shown in the table, park noise at the existing sensitive receptors would comply with the City’s 50 dB Leq daytime noise standard. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the above, exterior traffic noise and park-related noise at the proposed residences could exceed the City’s noise level standards. However, such an effect would not be considered an impact under CEQA. In order to address this concern, the City would require the following condition of approval to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan noise levels standards:
• Prior to building permit issuance for proposed residential lots, the Improvement Plans shall show that solid noise barriers measuring a minimum of six feet in height (relative to backyard elevation) shall be constructed. The noise barriers ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

may take the form of masonry wall, earthen berm, or a combination of the two, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Other materials may be acceptable but should be reviewed by an acoustical consultant prior to use. The locations of the required noise barriers shall be consistent with alignments shown in Figure 4.8-3 of this EIR.

Existing sensitive receptors would not experience traffic-related or park-related noise levels in excess of the City’s applicable noise level standards. Therefore, a less-thansignificant impact would occur related to generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.8-3 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

During project construction, heavy equipment would be used for grading, excavation, paving, and building construction, which would generate localized vibration in the immediate vicinity of the construction activities. Project construction would utilize typical construction equipment and would not require significant sources of vibration such as pile driving or blasting. Table 4.8-15 below shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

Table 4.8-15
Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels
Equipment Type
Maximum PPV (inches/second)
Maximum PPV at 25
Feet1
Predicted PPV at 30
Feet1
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.068
Hoe ram 0.089 0.068
Caisson drilling 0.089 0.068
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.058
Backhoe 0.051 0.039
Excavator 0.051 0.039
Grader 0.051 0.039
Loader 0.051 0.039
Jackhammer 0.035 0.027
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.002
Notes: 1 Reference vibration level obtained from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018).

Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.8-3
Noise Barrier Locations
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

As shown in the table, vibration levels generated from on-site construction activities at the nearest existing residence located approximately 25 feet away are predicted to be below the Caltrans thresholds for human annoyance (0.1 in/sec PPV) and damage to residential structures (0.2 in/sec PPV) (see Table 4.8-9).

In addition, the majority of construction activities would occur farther than 25 feet from the nearest receptors, and the average construction-generated groundborne vibration levels at the existing residences would be lower than the levels presented in the table above. Furthermore, construction activities would be temporary in nature. Therefore, construction vibrations associated with the project are not predicted to cause damage to existing buildings or cause annoyance to sensitive receptors.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

4.8-4 Generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels associated with cumulative development of the proposed project in combination with future buildout of the General Plan. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Future development projects within the City of Rancho Cordova, including the proposed project, would incrementally affect the future cumulative ambient noise environment. As part of the Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, cumulative traffic noise impacts due to traffic increases on the local roadway network were evaluated for Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The resulting noise levels are summarized in Table 4.8-16.

As shown in Table 4.8-16, the addition of project traffic to Cumulative (no project) traffic volumes would result in noise level increases of 0.3 dB or less along the study roadway segments. Thus, project-generated traffic would not result in a substantial increase in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network relative to the FICON significance criteria identified in Table 4.8-8. Therefore, under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions, ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Accordingly, the cumulative traffic noise impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Table 4.8-16
Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Cumulative vs. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Segment Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 100 feet, dB
(Ldn)
Cumulative
Cumulative
+ Project Change
1 1- Mather Field Rd/
US 50 WB Ramp
North 69.5 69.5 0.0
2 South 70.8 70.8 0.0
3 East 72.0 72.0 0.0
4 West 65.9 65.9 0.0
5 2- Mather Field Rd/
US 50 EB Ramp
North 70.4 70.4 0.0
6 South 71.2 71.2 0.0
7 East 66.0 66.0 0.0
8 West 70.5 70.5 0.0
9 3- Mather Field Rd/
International Dr
North -- -- --
10 South 62.0 62.0 0.0
11 East 70.6 70.6 0.0
12 West 71.4 71.4 0.0
13 4- Zinfandel Dr/
US 50 WB Ramp
North 69.5 69.5 0.0
14 South 71.1 71.1 0.0
15 East 72.5 72.5 0.0
16 West 64.8 64.8 0.0
17 5- Zinfandel Dr/
US 50 EB Ramp
North 70.8 70.8 0.0
18 South 71.0 71.0 0.0
19 East 69.9 69.9 0.0
20 West 71.9 72.0 0.1
21 6- Zinfandel Dr/
White Rock Rd
North 71.4 71.4 0.0
22 South 69.3 69.3 0.0
23 East 66.7 66.8 0.1
24 West 65.8 65.8 0.0
25 7- Zinfandel Dr/
International Dr
North 69.8 69.8 0.0
26 South 70.9 70.9 0.0
27 East 69.7 69.7 0.0
28 West 70.7 70.7 0.0
29 8- Sunrise Blvd/
Zinfandel Dr
North 72.3 72.3 0.0
30 South 72.4 72.5 0.1
31 East 53.2 53.2 0.0
32 West 60.1 60.1 0.0
33 9- Sunrise Blvd/
US 50 WB Ramp
North 72.4 72.4 0.0
34 South 71.8 71.7 -0.1
(Continued on next page)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-16
Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Cumulative vs. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Segment Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 100 feet, dB
(Ldn)
Cumulative
Cumulative
+ Project Change
35 East 69.5 69.0 -0.5
36 West 69.6 69.6 0.0
37 10- Sunrise Blvd/
US 50 EB Ramp
North 71.7 71.7 0.0
38 South 71.3 71.3 0.0
39 East 65.2 65.2 0.0
40 West 71.0 71.0 0.0
41 11- Sunrise Blvd/
Folsom Blvd
North 70.7 70.7 0.0
42 South 70.3 70.3 0.0
43 East 66.3 66.3 0.0
44 West 66.4 66.4 0.0
45 12- Sunrise Blvd/
White Rock Rd
North 69.5 69.5 0.0
46 South 69.4 69.4 0.0
47 East 68.6 68.7 0.1
48 West 68.2 68.3 0.1
49 13- Zinfandel Dr/
Douglas Rd
North 69.6 69.6 0.0
50 South 65.6 65.6 0.0
51 East 69.3 69.3 0.0
52 West 66.7 66.7 0.0
53 14- Sunrise Blvd/
Douglas Rd
North 70.8 70.8 0.0
54 South 71.8 71.8 0.0
55 East 68.3 68.3 0.0
56 West 69.2 69.2 0.0
57 15- Americanos Blvd/
Douglas Rd
North 61.5 61.8 0.3
58 South 60.2 60.2 0.0
59 East 65.2 65.2 0.0
60 West 65.8 66.0 0.2
61 16- Sunrise Blvd/
Jackson Rd/SR 16
North 72.1 72.1 0.0
62 South 71.0 71.0 0.0
63 East 69.0 69.0 0.0
64 West 69.0 69.0 0.0
65 17- Grant Line Rd/
Jackson Rd/SR 16
North 70.2 70.3 0.1
66 South 68.7 68.7 0.0
67 East 68.8 68.8 0.0
68 West 69.0 69.0 0.0
69 18- Grant Line Rd/
Keifer Blvd
North 70.1 70.1 0.0
70 South 69.7 69.8 0.1
71 East 59.1 59.1 0.0
72 West 58.2 58.3 0.1
73 19- Grant Line Rd/
Douglas Rd
North 71.0 71.2 0.2
74 South 70.7 70.8 0.1
75 East 59.4 59.7 0.3
76 West 65.3 65.3 0.0
(Continued on next page)
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.8-16
Traffic Noise Modeling Results
Cumulative vs. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
Segment Intersection Direction
Traffic Noise Level at 100 feet, dB
(Ldn)
Cumulative
Cumulative
+ Project Change
77 20- Grant Line Rd/
Raymer Wy
North 72.2 72.4 0.2
78 South 71.4 71.6 0.2
79 East 60.6 60.6 0.0
80 West 61.0 62.3 1.3
81 21- Grant Line Rd/
White Rock Rd
North 73.4 73.4 0.0
82 South 72.2 72.4 0.2
83 East -- -- --
84 West 68.1 68.3 0.2
85 22- Prairie City Rd/
White Rock Rd
North 69.7 69.7 0.0
56 South -- -- --
87 East 70.2 70.3 0.1
88 West 71.3 71.4 0.1
Source: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (2020).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.9 Public Services and Utilities
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.9.1 INTRODUCTION
The Public Services and Utilities chapter summarizes the existing setting related to public services and utilities and identifies potential new demands resulting from the proposed project on fire and police protection services, schools, water supply, wastewater systems, solid waste disposal, and gas, electric, and telecommunications infrastructure. Information for this section was drawn primarily from the Water Study1 and Sewer Study2 prepared for the proposed project by RuggeriJensen-Azar & Associates, as well as the Unit Count Increase Memorandum prepared by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates in January 2021 (see Appendix J). 3 This section also draws
on Sacramento County Water Agency’s (SCWA) 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), 4 the Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan,
5 and the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan6 and
associated EIR.
7 4.9.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following section describes the existing fire and police protection services, schools, and other public facilities in the area, as well as existing utilities, including water supply, wastewater conveyance and treatment, solid waste, and gas, electric, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Fire Protection
The project site is currently located within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (SMFD). The SMFD provides fire suppression, inspection, plan checking, emergency transportation and medical services, public education, advanced life support, and rescue services in the City of Rancho Cordova. SMFD serves a population of 745,000 in a 359 square mile area in the southern portion of Sacramento County. SMFD operates 42 fire stations with approximately 700 paid personnel on staff. The SMFD includes 39 engine companies, 5 truck companies, 12 medic transportation units, eight historical fire apparatus, five crash/rescue units, and various watercraft response units.8 Within Rancho Cordova, the SMFD has seven fire stations. Station 68, at 4381 Anatolia Drive, is the closest station to the project site, located 2.8 miles southwest of the project site.

The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Division oversees the SMFD’s emergency related services and personnel, including EMT-Paramedics. The SMFD deploys ten 24-hour Advanced Life Support ambulances. The majority of the fire stations within Rancho Cordova are equipped with an ambulance and paramedic combination.
1 Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Water Study for The Preserve. September 2018. 2 Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Sewer Study for The Preserve. June 2020. 3 Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. The Preserve – Unit Count Increase on Sewer and Water Studies. January 2021. 4 Sacramento County Water Agency. Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2016. 5 Sacramento County Water Agency. Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan. February 2005. 6 City of Ranch Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan. June 26, 2006. 7 City of Ranch Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report. June 2006. 8 Ibid.

4.9 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The Insurance Services Office (ISO) rating is the recognized classification for a fire department or district’s ability to defend against major fires. According to the ISO, newly developing urban areas should have a fire station opened within 2.5 miles from all residential development when build-out exceeds 20 percent of the City. A rating of ten generally indicates inadequate protection, while an ISO rating of one indicates high firefighting capability. The SMFD has an ISO rating of three for areas containing water flow and established hydrants, and class eight for areas lacking water sources and hydrants. The SMFD has established a goal for a response time of five minutes or less for 80 percent of the time in the urbanized portions of the City. Currently, the SMFD has a response time of five minutes for emergency calls, where staffing levels are adequate.9 The SMFD is funded through property taxes and grant funding. The funding and expenditures for the SMFD are facilitated through the Capital Improvement Program. In addition, development impact fees account for a portion of funding for the SMFD. The Capital Fire Facilities Fee was established through Assembly Bill 1600, which provides the authority for SMFD to fund the full cost of providing new fire services and facilities through fees levied on new development within the SMFD service area.

Police Protection
The City of Rancho Cordova Police Department (RCPD) is contracted through the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department (SCSD) Patrol Services. The SCSD is staffed with 2,332 people, consisting of 1,789 officers and 543 nonsworn members. The SCSD also has a reserve force of 168 officers and approximately 621 community volunteers.10 The RCPD is comprised of 55 sworn officers and seven non-sworn staff.11 The Rancho Cordova Police Station is located at 2897 Kilgore Road in the City of Rancho Cordova, approximately 6.7 miles from the project site by way of White Rock Road. The City’s goal for staffing standards is one officer per 1,000 residents and one support staff member for every three officers. The RCPD’s goal is also to maintain an average response time for Priority One calls for service of five minutes or less. A Priority One call is defined as a call regarding violent crime or requiring immediate lifesaving response.

The RCPD is organized into three components:
• Administration Services Bureau: The Administration Services Bureau includes the budget coordinator, equipment manager, and volunteer coordinator. • Investigations and Community Services Bureau: The Investigations and Community Services Bureau includes the detective unit, problem-oriented police unit, traffic enforcement, and crime prevention center.
• Patrol Operations Bureau: The Patrol Operations Bureau provides first-line emergency response to crimes in progress, accidents, and tactical situations.

The SCSD and the RCPD are funded through Sacramento County tax revenues and special Federal and local grants. The SCSD and the City of Rancho Cordova have agreed that funding for the RCPD will occur using revenues from the City’s General Fund, which is the primary source of revenue for law enforcement services.
9 AECOM, Inc. SunCreek Specific Plan Project DEIR/DEIS. October 2012. 10 City of Ranch Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report. June 2006. 11 Ranch Cordova Police Department. About Us. Available at: https://www.ranchocordovapd.com/about-us.

Accessed September 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Schools
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD), which encompasses approximately 98 square miles in eastern Sacramento County, including the City of Folsom and the majority of the City of Rancho Cordova. The FCUSD is comprised of two preschools, 23 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and eight high schools.

The closest schools to the project site are Navigator Elementary School, located 4.5 miles west of the project site, W.E. Mitchell Middle School, located 4.7 miles northwest of the site, and Cordova High School, located six miles west of the site. Table 4.9-1 below presents the existing school enrollment and facility capacity of the schools in the project vicinity. The City of Rancho Cordova falls within the School Facilities Improvement District 1 (SFID 1).

Table 4.9-1
Project Vicinity Schools Enrollment and Optimal Loading School Facility 2019-2020 Enrollment1
District Optimal
Loading Capacity2
Navigator
Elementary School 374 558
W.E. Mitchell
Middle School 885 843
Cordova High School 1,851 1,951
Sources: 1 California Department of Education. District Profile: Folsom-Cordova Unified. Available at:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=34673300000000. Accessed March 2021. 2 Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Facility Master Plan. November 2013.

Water Supply
The City of Rancho Cordova is not a water provider, but contracts with four water purveyors to provide water service to residences within the City. The City uses two private water companies, Golden State Water and California American Water, and two public agencies, SCWA and City of Folsom Water District. The project site would be served by the SCWA through the Zone 40 conjunctive-use water supply system (see Figure 4.9-1).

Zone 40 was formed as a result of SCWA Resolution No. 663, which established exact zone boundaries and set goals for future water service projects. SCWA has engaged in a long-term water supply planning process through participation in the regional Water Forum planning process and the adoption of the 2015 UWMP and the Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan (WSMP).

The Zone 40 WSMP was prepared by the SCWA in 2005 to ensure provision of a reliable and safe water supply to the region’s economic health and planned development through the year 2030, and to preserve the fishery, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic values of the lower American River. The Zone 40 WSMP states that water supply sources within the City include groundwater, surface water, and purchased recycled water. The use of each is discussed in further detail below.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.9-1
Zone 40 Water Distribution Area
Project Site
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Groundwater
Three groundwater sub-basins exist under Sacramento County; Zone 40 lies entirely within the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Basin (Central Basin) (see Figure 4.9-2). The Central Basin is considered a shallow aquifer zone, and extends approximately 200 to 300 feet below the ground surface. Recharge to the aquifer system occurs along active river and stream channels, particularly along the American, Cosumnes, and Sacramento River channels. Additional recharge occurs from the percolation of precipitation and applied surface water. Groundwater from the Central Basin is generally high quality, and is treated for the removal of iron, manganese, arsenic, and radon.

The groundwater in the Central Basin is managed by the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA), which was formed in 2006 through an agreement signed by the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento. The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted in 2006, establishes a framework for maintaining sustainable groundwater resources in the Central Basin. This framework includes specific goals, objectives, and an action plan to manage the basin.

The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan also prescribes a well protection program to protect existing private domestic well and agricultural well owners from declining groundwater levels resulting from increased groundwater pumping due to new development in the basin.

Groundwater is supplied by SCWA’s system of groundwater wells and remediated groundwater that is extracted by others. Groundwater pumping was developed to provide sufficient capacity to meet projected maximum day demands and meet conjunctive use objectives. SCWA is obligated to provide groundwater to Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) in dry and critically dry years. Groundwater is considered to be the last priority in meeting water demands after surface water entitlements and surface water treatment capacity are used. Variability in groundwater use is a result of the conjunctive use program, dry year deliveries to SMUD, and the variability in the availability of surface water supplies. Based on the average of the five years presented within the SCWA’s 2015 UWMP, the SCWA pumps approximately 29,230 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater. In 2015, groundwater supplies accounted for approximately 73 percent of total SCWA water supplies.

SCWA also has a remediated groundwater supply of approximately 8,900 AFY per the 2010 agreement, “Agreement between Sacramento County, SCWA, and Aerojet-General Corporation with Respect to Transfer of GET Water.” The remediated groundwater is pumped from the northern portion of the South American Subbasin and discharged into the American River from Aerojet’s Groundwater Extraction and Treatment (GET) facilities, located in the Rancho Cordova area.

Surface Water
Surface water is defined by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as self-supplied water that is drawn from streams, lakes, and reservoirs. SCWA has an appropriative water supply consisting of self-supplied surface water that is drawn from the American and Sacramento rivers.

In February 2008, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) approved SCWA’s appropriate right permit application to divert water from the American and Sacramento rivers. The amount of appropriated water for use could range up to 71,000 AFY in wet years, primarily during the winter months. Because SCWA’s demands are low in the winter months, the potential exists for not all of the supply to be utilized.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.9-2
Groundwater Basins in Sacramento County
Source: Sacramento County Water Agency, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan [pg 64], May 2016.

Project Site
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Surface water is diverted at the Freeport diversion on the Sacramento River, and at or near the mouth of the American River. Water quality at these sources is considered good, and the water is treated with conventional filtration processes. SCWA relies on two sources of purchased surface water, as described below.

Central Valley Project
A majority of SCWA’s water supplies are provided to the City of Rancho Cordova by the Central Valley Project (CVP), in accordance with an agreement between SCWA and SMUD. SCWA has entered into two three-party agreements with the City of Sacramento and SMUD for the assignment to SCWA of a total of 30,000 AFY of water from SMUD’s existing contract.12 In 1999, SCWA entered into a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for 22,000 AFY of CVP supplies from the American River, pursuant to Public Law 101-514. The contract, often referred to as “Fazio Water,” requires that 7,000 AFY be subcontracted to the City of Folsom for diversion from Folsom Lake, with 15,000 FY available for SCWA through the Freeport diversion or Franklin intertie. Most of the CVP water is diverted at the Freeport diversion on the Sacramento River and treated at the Vineyard Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP).

SCWA’s total CVP supply is subject to reductions in dry years. The water supply allocations are defined by the Bureau of Reclamation on a year-to-year basis and are expressed as a percentage of either the contract amount or amount of average use.

City of Sacramento’s American River Place of Use
Part of Zone 40 falls within Sacramento’s American River Place of Use (POU), which refers to an area where the City of Sacramento has water rights. The amount of water available to serve the POU within Zone 40 is approximately 9,300 AFY. However, when American River flows are less than applicable requirements (Hodge Flow Criteria), POU water is not available to SCWA. Given the uncertainty of the availability of POU water during dry years, the SCWA 2015 UWMP allocates zero percent water supply from the POU during dry years.

Recycled Water
Recycled water use within the City is a component of tertiary treated wastewater for non-potable use. The uses are primarily landscape irrigation at parks, schools, and rights-of-way. Recycled water is purchased by SCWA from the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).

Recycled water is not currently used within the project area.

Water Use
The UWMP has identified regional water demand in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years in five-year increments. The projections are based on buildout of the Zone 40 area per the City’s General Plan land use designations, with full buildout of Zone 40 anticipated to occur after the year 2040. The projected retail water demands for the project area are based on the projections included in the Zone 40 Water System Infrastructure Plan Update (WSIP). 13 It should be noted
that, per the anticipated land use at buildout, the project site would be agriculture on the western half and non-irrigated on the eastern half. As such, water demand from buildout of the proposed project would not have been accounted for in the WSIP.
12 Sacramento County Water Agency. Draft 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2016. 13 Sacramento County Water Agency. Zone 40 Water System Infrastructure Plan Update. September 2016.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.9-2 and Table 4.9-3 show the projected water supply and demand totals during a normal year and during a single dry year, respectively. Table 4.9-4 shows the projected supply and demand totals under multiple dry year conditions for the first, second, and third years. The multiple dry year scenario mimics the water supply conditions of 2013 to 2015 when CVP allocations were 100 percent, 75 percent, and 25 percent of the average use of supplies during the previous three years. The demands presented in this table are the same as the normal year demands, but the second- and third-year demands might be lower if demand reduction mandates are imposed by the State. Determining the amount of CVP supplies available in the dry years requires first a projection of the use of the CVP supply in normal years. The CVP dry year allocation is determined based on a percentage of the previous three years of use. During dry years SCWA would seek to supplement its reduced CVP supplies with the use of other surface water supplies Table 4.9-2
Supply and Demand Assessment: Normal Year (AFY)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply totals 82,900 82,900 87,900 97,900 97,900
Demand totals 48,121 55,490 63,288 71,143 79,278
Difference 34,779 27,410 24,612 26,757 18,622
Source: Sacramento County Water Agency, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, May 2016.

Table 4.9-4
Supply and Demand Assessment: Multiple Dry Years (AFY)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
1st Year
Supply Totals 77,900 77,900 81,900 90,900 90,900
Demand Totals 48,121 55,490 63,288 71,143 79,278
Difference 29,779 22,410 18,612 19,757 11,622
2nd Year
Supply Totals 77,900 77,900 81,900 90,900 90,900
Demand Totals 48,121 55,490 63,288 71,143 79,278
Difference 29,779 22,410 18,612 17,757 11,622
3rd Year
Supply Totals 70,200 70,500 74,600 83,600 83,800
Demand Totals 48,121 55,490 63,288 71,143 79,278
Difference 22,079 15,010 11,312 12,457 4,522
Note: Per the UWMP, based on the selected base years, the first year would be normal year supplies, the second year is based on a 75 percent allocation of CVP water, and the third year is the same as the single dry year with a 25 percent CVP allocation.

Source: Sacramento County Water Agency, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, May 2016.

Wastewater
Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and SRCSD; SASD operates and maintains the main line pipes for wastewater conveyance and collection from the source to the regional interceptors, and SRCSD is Table 4.9-3
Supply and Demand Assessment: Single Dry Year (AFY)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply totals 70,200 70,500 74,600 83,600 83,800
Demand totals 48,121 55,490 63,288 71,143 79,278
Difference 22,079 15,010 11,312 12,457 4,522
Source: Sacramento County Water Agency, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, May 2016.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

responsible for collection by interceptors and for wastewater treatment in Sacramento County.

The SRCSD owns, operates, and is responsible for the collection, trunk, and interceptor sewer systems throughout Sacramento County, as well as the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) located near Elk Grove. The City of Rancho Cordova Planning Area falls within County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1).

Within the SASD’s sewer system, sewage from customers’ homes and businesses enter the system through sewage collecting pipes 10-inches or smaller in diameter. Once in the main line, sewage flows into a system of larger pipes called trunk lines, which are 12-inches or larger in diameter. Trunk lines function as conveyance facilities to transport collected wastewater flows to the SRCSD interceptor system, which carries wastewater directly to the SRWTP. As of 2010, the SRWTP receives and treats an average of 141 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, and, under NPDES NO. CA0077682, is permitted to treat 181 mgd average dry weather flow. 14 The SRCSD evaluated the environmental impacts of constructing turn and interceptor sewers that would serve the Sacramento region at a program level in the EIR for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor Master Plan.
15 In addition, the SRCSD developed the
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 2020 Master Plan in order to provide a phased program of recommended wastewater treatment facilities and management programs to accommodate planned growth and to meet existing and anticipated regulatory requirements through the year 2020. The 2020 Master Plan addresses both public and health and environmental protection issues while ensuring reliable service at affordable rates for SRCSD customers. The key goals of the 2020 Master Plan are to provide sufficient capacity to meet growth projections and an orderly expansion of SRWTP facilities, to comply with applicable water quality standards, and to provide for the most cost-effective facilities and programs from a watershed perspective.

Solid Waste
The City of Rancho Cordova’s residential solid waste and recycling services are provided by Republic Services, Inc. Sacramento County owns and operates the Kiefer Landfill, which is the primary solid waste disposal facility that would be used to service the project site. The Kiefer Landfill is located at 12701 Keifer Boulevard, approximately four miles south of the project site.

Kiefer Landfill is classified as a Class III municipal solid waste landfill facility and is permitted to accept general residential, commercial, and industrial refuse for disposal, including municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, green materials, agricultural debris, and other nonhazardous designated debris.

The landfill is permitted to accept a maximum of 10,815 tons per day of solid waste, with a maximum capacity of 117,400,000 cubic yards. As of 2020, the Kiefer Landfill has a remaining capacity of 112,900,000 cubic yards, and is therefore operating below permitted capacity. The estimated closure date of the Kiefer Landfill is anticipated to be 2064.16 Per the CalRecycle Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary for Rancho Cordova, the most recent (2018) annual per capita disposal rate is 4.2 pounds per day (PPD) per resident. 14 De Novo Planning Group. Environmental Impact Report for The Ranch Project (SCH: 2018072011) [pg. 3.14-3].

August 2019. 15 Sacramento County. Environmental Impact Report for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor Master Plan 2002 (SCH: 1995012061). November 2002. 16 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). SWIS Facility Detail: Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer) (34-AA-0001). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2070?siteID=2507. Accessed October 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Electricity and Natural Gas
The City of Rancho Cordova receives electricity from SMUD and natural gas services from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). SMUD has provided electricity throughout Sacramento County since 1946, and is responsible for the combination of resources used to generate electricity for its customers. For example, SMUD is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy within its energy portfolio. PG&E owns and operates approximately 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines throughout California.17 PG&E would provide natural gas to the project site through underground transmission lines. Existing electricity and natural gas infrastructure is undergrounded to the south of the project site.

Telecommunications
Residents in the City of Rancho Cordova subscribe to a mix of wireline providers and resellers including AT&T of California, Consolidated Communications, Frontier, Xfinity, T-Mobile, and more. Cable internet fibers are generally co-located and installed concurrently with other utility infrastructure. Within new development projects, such infrastructure is primarily installed underground. Telephone facilities in the City’s Planning Area include both aerial and underground fiber and copper transmission lines. Most of the underground and aerial telephone transmission lines are generally co-located with other utilities on poles or underground trenches and are constructed in public and roadway rights-of-way.

4.9.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following discussion contains a summary review of regulatory controls pertaining to public services and utilities, including federal, State, and local laws and ordinances.

Federal Regulations
The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to public services and utilities.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
The federal SDWA, which was enacted in 1974, gives the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to set standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. The EPA was required to establish primary regulations for the control of contaminants that affected public health and secondary regulations for compounds that affect the taste, odor, and aesthetics of drinking water. Accordingly, the EPA set a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique for each of the 83 contaminants in drinking water listed in the SDWA. Under the provisions of SDWA, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) has the primary enforcement responsibility.

Title 22 of the California Administrative Code establishes DHS authority, and stipulates State drinking water quality and monitoring standards.

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to public services and utilities.
17 Pacific Gas and Electric. Company Profile. Available at: https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/companyinformation/profile/profile.page. Accessed October 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

California Fire Code
The California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction, maintenance, and use of buildings. Topics addressed in the California Fire Code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The Fire Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety.

California Health and Safety Code
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, include regulations for building standards (as also set forth in the California Building Standards Code [CBSC]), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

Senate Bill 610
The California Water Code requires coordination between land use lead agencies and public water purveyors. The purpose of this coordination is to ensure that prudent water supply planning has been conducted and that planned water supplies are adequate to meet both existing demands and the demands of planned development.

Water Code Sections 10910 – 10915 (inclusive), sometimes referred to as Senate Bill (SB) 610, require land use lead agencies: 1) to identify the responsible public water purveyor for a proposed development project, and 2) to request from the responsible purveyor, a “Water Supply Assessment” (WSA). The purposes of the WSA are (a) to describe the sufficiency of the purveyors’ water supplies to satisfy the water demands of the proposed development project, while still meeting the current and projected water demands of customers, and, (b) in the absence of a currently sufficient supply to describe the purveyor’s plans for acquiring additional water.

Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915 delineate the specific information that must be included in the WSA.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15155, which reflects SB 610 requirements, any development with water demand exceeding the equivalent demand associated with 500 dwelling units is considered a “water-demand project” and is required to prepare a WSA. The proposed project would include development of 440 single-family lots and, thus, preparation of a WSA is not required for the proposed project.

Water Conservation in Landscaping Act
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 1881) enacts many, but not all of the recommendations reported to the Governor and Legislature in December 2005 by the California Urban Water Conservation Council Landscape Task Force. AB 1881 requires DWR, not later than January 1, 2009, by regulation, to update the model ordinance in accordance with specified requirements, reflecting the provisions of AB 2717. AB 1881 requires local agencies, not later than January 1, 2010, to adopt the updated model ordinance or equivalent or it will be automatically adopted by statute. The bill also requires the Energy Commission, in consultation with the department, to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

devices, and valves to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), adopted in 2014, requires the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) that must assess conditions in their local water basins and adopt locally-based management plans. The SGMA provides substantial time (20 years) for GSAs to implement plans and achieve long-term groundwater sustainability. The DWR and the SWRCB are the two lead State agencies implementing the SGMA. The responsibilities required under the SGMA include the following:
1) Developing regulations to revise groundwater basin boundaries; 2) Adopting regulations for evaluating and implementing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) and coordination agreements;
3) Identifying basins subject to critical conditions of overdraft; 4) Identifying water available for groundwater replenishment; and 5) Publishing best management practices for the sustainable management of groundwater.

California Integrated Waste Management Act
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation (i.e., recycling) and land disposal, the State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s AB 939 plan will be integrated within the respective county plan. The plans must promote (in order of priority) source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

Cities and counties that do not meet this mandate are subject to $10,000-per-day fines.

Senate Bill 1016
In 2007, SB 1016 amended portions of AB 939, which allows the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to use per capita disposal as an indicator in evaluating compliance with the requirements of AB 939. Jurisdictions track and report their per capita disposal rates to CalRecycle.

Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act
The Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327) requires jurisdictions to adopt ordinances requiring development projects to provide adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials.

Local Regulations and Policies
The following are applicable local regulations relevant to public services and utilities.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
Goals and policies from the City’s General Plan related to public services and utilities are presented below.

Goal NR.8: Promote waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting efforts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy NR.8.5: Meet state mandates for solid waste reduction and recycling.

Increase recycling efforts beyond those required by state law through supporting businesses that buy and sell re-used materials, such as materials exchange centers.

Policy NR.8.7: Maintain contact with Sacramento County and Allied Waste (or its successor) regarding the capacity projections of Kiefer Landfill and Lockwood Landfill to ensure an adequate capacity in their disposal facilities for the long-term disposal needs of Rancho Cordova.

Goal NR.5: Protect the quantity and quality of the City’s water resources.

Policy NR.5.1: Promote water conservation within existing and future urban uses.

Policy NR.5.3: Protect surface and ground water from major sources of pollution, including hazardous materials contamination and urban runoff.

Policy NR.5.4: Prevent contamination of the groundwater table and surface water, and remedy existing contamination to the extent
practicable.

Policy NR.5.5: Minimize erosion to stream channels resulting from new development in urban areas consistent with State law.

Policy NR.5.6: Incorporate Storm Water, Urban Runoff, and Wetland Mosquito Management Guidelines and Best Management Practices into the design of water retention structures, drainage ditches, swales, and the construction of mitigated wetlands in order to reduce the potential for mosquito-borne disease transmission.

Policy NR.5.8: The City shall require groundwater impact evaluations be conducted for the Grant Line West, Westborough, Aerojet, Glenborough, Mather and Jackson Planning Areas to determine whether urbanization of these areas would adversely impact groundwater remediation activities associated with Mather and Aerojet prior to the approval of largescale development. Should an adverse impact be determined, a mitigation program shall be developed in consultation with applicable local, state, and federal agencies to ensure remediation activities are not impacted. This may include the provision of land areas for groundwater remediation facilities, installation/extension of necessary infrastructure, or other appropriate measures.

Goal ISF.2: Ensure the development of quality infrastructure to meet community needs at the time they are needed.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy ISF.2.1: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.

Policy ISF.2.3: Ensure that adequate funding is available for all infrastructure and public facilities, and make certain that the cost of improvements is equitably distributed.

Policy ISF.2.4: Ensure the development of public infrastructure that meets the long-term needs of residents and ensure infrastructure is available at the time such facilities are needed.

Policy ISF.2.6: Ensure that sewage conveyance and treatment capacity are available in time to meet the demand created by new
development, or are guaranteed to be built by bonds or other sureties.

Goal S.7: Design neighborhoods and buildings in a manner that prevents crime and provides security and safety for people and property.

Policy S.7.1: Use Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles in the design of projects and buildings.

Goal S.9: Reduce the probability of fire damage to all of the City’s structures.

Policy S.9.2: Provide infill development with adequate off-site improvements to meet onsite fire flow requirements.

Urban Water Management Plan
In 2016, the SCWA prepared the 2015 UWMP as required by the Urban Water Management Planning Act of 1983. The UWMP serves as a long-term planning document for sustainable water supply, and includes a description of water sources, historical and projected water use, and a comparison of water supply and demand during normal and dry years. The UWMP was prepared in compliance with California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610 through 10656, which requires every urban water supplier that provides water to over 3,000 connections to adopt and submit a management plan every five years to the DWR. The UWMP also discusses the conservation and efficient use of water in the service area, and the development and implementation of plans to assure reliable water service in the future. The UWMP contains projections for future water use, discusses the reliability of the SCWA’s water supply, describes the SCWA’s water treatment system, and contains a water shortage contingency plan. In addition, the UWMP contains best management practices for efficient water use.

City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code standards related to public services and utilities that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

Title 6: Health and Sanitation
Chapter 6.32, Sanitary Sewage Systems, requires that a drainage system connect to a public sanitary sewer in every building where persons reside, congregate, or are employed. A permit is ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

required in order to construct, alter, or relocate a sewage disposal system in the City. Section

6.32.170 mandates that,
“The city council shall establish a special revolving fund to be designated as the sewage connection fund. Payments shall be made out of the fund upon the demand of the director of public works to defray the costs and expenses which may be incurred by the city in doing or causing to be done the necessary work for sewage connections.” Title 15: Water and Sewers
Chapter 15.04, Sewer Use, sets standards to control the quantity and quality of wastewater that enters the public system and assure efficient operation and maintenance of sewerage facilities.

The chapter also includes regulations for what discharge types are allowable in sanitary sewers.

Public sewer cannot be used until a connection permit is acquired.

Title 16: Buildings and Construction
Chapter 16.83, Development Impact Fees to Finance Cost of Public Facilities, requires that development fees be charges to fund the cost of certain public facilities, such as those related to roadways, transit, parks, and libraries.

Chapter 16.92, Construction and Demolition Debris, declares the following:
“1. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each local jurisdiction in the state to divert a minimum of 50 percent of discarded materials away from disposal in landfills.

2. CALGreen requires, as part of the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, that 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition (C&D) debris be diverted. The diversion requirement imposed by CALGreen is subject to change.

3. AB 939 requires jurisdictions to submit an annual report summarizing their progress in diverting solid waste from disposal.

4. Senate Bill 1374 requires the annual report to include a summary of progress made in the diversion of C&D debris.

5. C&D debris accounts for a significant portion of the waste stream generated in the city.

These materials have significant potential for waste reduction and recycling.

6. The reuse and recycling of C&D debris will reduce the amount of waste transported for disposal in landfills and return these materials into the economic mainstream, thereby conserving natural resources and stimulating markets for recycled and salvage materials.”
In compliance with Chapter 16.92, projects must establish recycling requirements for construction debris in an effort to reduce landfill waste. Developers are required to complete and submit a Waste Management Plan and pay an applicant fee to the City’s Building and Safety Division.

Title 17: Fire Prevention
Chapter 17.04 of the Municipal Code establishes and adopts the Fire Code, which is included in the 2019 CBSC, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9 (California Fire Code), incorporating the International Fire Code, 2015 Edition, with errata. The Chapter mandates that, “all construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, and use of any building or structure within the City shall be made in conformance with the state code and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, including the IFC and the appendix.” The SMFD has authority to enforce the Code and issue citations for any violations.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Title 22: Land Development
Chapter 22.40, Park and Recreation Dedication and Fees, mandates that a certain area of parkland shall be dedicated per number of dwelling units. The area of dedicated parkland is equal the number of dwelling units multiplied by a conversion factor that varies per dwelling type. The multiplication factor for single-family dwelling units, such as those proposed by the project, is equal to 0.01475.

If a project does not meet the parkland ratio, the developer shall be required to pay an in-lieu fee equal to the amount of land (acres) required for dedication multiplied by the fair market value (dollars/acre) of the subject property.

4.9.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The section below describes the standards of significance and methodology utilized to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential project-specific impacts related to public services and utilities. In addition, a discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to public services and utilities is considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
o Fire protection;
o Police protection;
o Schools;
o Parks; or
o Other public facilities.
• Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
• Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years; • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
• Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or • Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Impacts related to storm drainage facilities are addressed in Chapter 4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Issues Dismissed in the Initial Study
The Initial Study prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A) determined that development of the proposed project would result in no impact or a less-than-significant impact related to resulting in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for the following public services:
• Parks; and
• Other public facilities.

For the reasons cited in the Initial Study, such impacts are not analyzed further in this EIR.

Method of Analysis
The following sections describe the methodologies employed in the Water Study and Sewer Study prepared for the proposed project by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates, as well as the methods used to analyze impacts related to electricity, natural gas, telecommunications facilities, and solid waste. Impacts to public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, and schools) were based primarily on the City’s General Plan EIR.

Water Supplies
The Water Study prepared for the proposed project evaluated the availability of existing water supply conveyance infrastructure in the project area to serve the original 434-unit count proposed by the project. In addition, the Water Study prepared modeling to demonstrate what sized system would appropriately accommodate the resulting flows and pressures that are anticipated for the proposed project. The water system design criteria used for the model were determined using the Zone 40 Water System Infrastructure Plan Update (WSIP), which considers of the following components: water demand, peaking factors, water system materials and sizes, and water system performance criteria.

The Zone 40 WSIP determined that the average daily water demand per single-family residence in Zone 40 is 490 gallons per day (gpd)/connection. Based on the WSIP demand factors, the average daily water demand for the proposed project was estimated to by approximately 212,688 gpd (490 gpd/connection X 434 connections = 212,688 gpd), or 148 gallons per minute (gpm).

Such water demand values were split and applied throughout the nodes in the model as the Average Day Demand (ADD). Based on the information presented within the WSIP, a Maximum Day Demand (MDD) peaking factor of 2.0 ADD and Peak Hour Demand peaking factor of 2.0 MDD was applied to the model.

The Sacramento County Water Agency’s 2018 Improvement Standards specify that water distribution pipes be made of cement-lined pipe, polyvinyl chloride pipe, or ductile iron pipe. As such, the aforementioned materials were used for the modeling conducted in the Water Study.

The minimum size for all distribution pipes was assumed to be eight inches in diameter.

The full water distribution system, shown in Figure 4.9-3, was modeled using Bentley WaterCAD V8i software, and the modeled outputs were compared to the County’s water distribution performance goals.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.9-3
Proposed Water Distribution System Layout
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Existing pipelines that were modeled to be connected to the new system included the distribution mains in Edington Way, Thornberg Way, and Raymer Way. Water pressures were modeled at ground level, and building heights were not considered.

Wastewater
The Sewer Study prepared for the proposed project evaluated the wastewater generation associated with the project, as well as the capacity of downstream wastewater conveyance infrastructure.

The proposed project is located within the BR East Rancho Area 1 Trunk Shed area, and would receive wastewater treatment services from the Aerojet Interceptor Section 2S. The 185.3 acres of open space were not incorporated in the study because the land is not anticipated to be developed.

The project would include two points of connection to the existing wastewater system, and offsite upstream areas that would contribute to the flows produced by the proposed project do not exist.

As part of the Sewer Study, a detailed collection system was established, the major sewer sheds were defined, and the major sewer sheds were split into sub-sheds to define that areas that would contribute flows to specific nodes in the collection system. To estimate sewage flows, the area of land to be developed was multiplied by the average number of Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling Units (ESDs) per acre. The predicted volume of wastewater flows per land use area is used to determine the total number of ESDs entering each pipe system.

Sewage flows used in the model were estimated per the 2019 Sacramento Area Sewer District Standards and Specifications methodology. The model used a minimum plan density of RD-6 to assume approval of the General Plan Amendment (GPA)/Rezone. The assumptions applied in the model are presented in Table 4.9-5.

Table 4.9-5
Sewer Study Design Criteria
Category Conditions
Development Density Planned Development Density
Flow Generation 310 gpd/ESD
Peaking Factor 3.5 - 1.8Qa0.05
Velocity Criteria Minimum 2 fps at Peak Wet Weather Flow Hydraulic Grade Line Maximum HGL at crown of pipe, Peak Wet Weather Flow Friction Factor N = 0.013
Minimum Depth 6.3’ at periphery of plan

6.3’ minimum depth at last line manhole
Minimum Slope 0.007
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Sewer Study for The Preserve. June 2020.

Solid Waste
Solid waste generated by the proposed project was estimated and considered with respect to the anticipated capacity at the solid waste facilities that would serve the proposed project. Sources of solid waste generation for the proposed project include demolition waste, construction material waste, and waste associated with long-term operations of the proposed residences. The U.S.

EPA’s report, Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts, ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

was used to calculate solid waste generation associated with construction and demolition of the proposed project.18 Operational solid waste generation was calculated using the 2018 CalRecycle Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary for Rancho Cordova. 19 Natural Gas and Electricity
The natural gas and electricity discussion evaluates whether new or expanded natural gas and electrical infrastructure would be necessary to serve the proposed project. Gas and electricity demand for the project are estimated and provided separately in Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

4.9-1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for fire protection services. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would include the development of 440 single-family residences and various associated improvements including, but not limited to, parks, landscaping, circulation improvements, and utility installation. By introducing new residences to the project area, the proposed project could increase the demand for fire protection services within the City.

The relevant CEQA threshold is whether new or physically altered stations are needed to meet response times or other performance objectives, the construction of which could cause environmental impacts. As noted previously, Rancho Cordova is serviced by the SMFD. The nearest station is Station 68, located 2.8 miles southwest of the project site. The ISO recommends that new urban developments have a fire station within 2.5 miles from residential projects when build-out exceeds 20 percent of the City. Thus, the distance between the proposed development and Station 68 would only slightly exceed the ISO-recommended distance. The SMFD has a response time goal of five minutes or less for 80 percent of calls in the City. The SMFD currently meets this goal, and the response time goal is anticipated to be feasible for servicing the proposed project given the proximity of project site to the nearest fire stations.

All structures constructed as part of the proposed project would be designed in compliance with Title 17 of the Municipal Code and all applicable provisions of the California Fire Code. Buildings would be required to include features such as smoke 18 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 2009. 19 CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (2007 – Current). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2006. Accessed October 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

alarms, fire hydrants, and fire department access to reduce potential fire hazards. The SMFD has authority to enforce the California Fire Code and issue citations for any violations. Compliance with the aforementioned standards would reduce the demand for fire protection services associated with the proposed development.

The SMFD is currently funded through development impact fees, taxes, and grants from the Capital Improvement Program. The proposed project would be subject to payment of the SMFD’s Capital Fire Facilities Fee, which was established through AB 1600. The Capital Fire Facilities Fee provides the authority for SMFD to fund the full cost of providing new fire services and facilities to new development within the SMFD service area. Required payment to the SMFD would ensure that adequate fire protection facilities are available to serve the project.

For the above-discussed reasons, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse physical effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Thus, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9-2 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for police protection services. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Police protection for the project site would be provided by the RCPD, which is headquartered approximately 4.3 miles northwest of the project site. As noted previously, the project is expected to generate approximately 1,333 new residents, which could, in turn, increase demand for police protection services. The project applicant would be required to pay the City’s applicable Community Facility Fees, which are used to fund new and expanded public service facilities, including police facilities, within the City’s Planning Area. Payment of the Community Facility Fees would ensure that adequate police protection facilities are available to serve the project. Staff at the RCPD have confirmed that, given payment of applicable development impact fees, impacts related to police protection are not anticipated.20 Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan. Policy S.7.1 requires that neighborhoods use CPTED principles to provide security and safety for people and property. CPTED principles include strategies such as natural surveillance and access control, which are implemented by using: adequate outdoor lighting, door and windows that look out onto streets, distinguishing property lines, including window licks and dead bolts, etc. 20 Jeff Rodrigues, Crime Analyst, Rancho Cordova Police Department. Personal communication [phone] with Joe Baucum, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. May 11, 2021 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The inclusion of the aforementioned design features would help to reduce the project’s demand on police services.

Because the proposed development would be designed in compliance with Policy S.7.1 and would include payment of the applicable development impact fees, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects associated with for the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9-3 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for schools. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The project site falls within the boundaries of the FCUSD, which is comprised of two preschools, 23 elementary schools, nine middle schools, and eight high schools. As of the 2018-2019 school year, the total enrollment is 20,487 students across the FCUSD.21 Based on the 2019 School Facility Needs Analysis, the FCUSD has a current capacity of 25,529 students.22
The proposed project would include residential development, and, thus, would increase the number of students attending local school facilities. The student generation estimates presented in Table 4.9-6 are based on the rates provided in the FCUSD’s School Facility Needs Analysis.23
Table 4.9-6
Student Generation Estimates
Housing
Type
# of
Units
K-5 Students 6-8 Students 9-12 Students
Rate
New
Students Rate
New
Students Rate
New
Students
Single
Family 440 0.33 145 0.14 62 0.17 75
Total New Students 282
Source: Folsom Cordova Unified School District Department of Facilities and Planning, 2019 School Facility Needs Analysis [pg 9], April 2019.
21 Department of Education, California School Dashboard. District Performance Overview: Folsom-Cordova Unified. 2019. 22 Folsom Cordova Unified School District Department of Facilities and Planning. 2019 School Facility Needs Analysis. April 2019. 23 Folsom Cordova Unified School District Department of Facilities and Planning. 2019 School Facility Needs Analysis [pg 9]. April 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

As shown in the table, the proposed project is expected to result in 282 new students, which would bring the total enrollment in the FCUSD to 20,769 students (20,487 + 282 = 20,769).

The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR concluded that the, FCUSD is operating at or near capacity for elementary and high schools, and that the school district has experienced considerable growth in the past few years. However, according to more recent data, the district is currently operating at 80.2 percent capacity, and implementation of the proposed project would bring enrollment up to 81.3 percent capacity. As such, the FCUSD has the capacity to support the increase in students resulting from the proposed project.

The project applicant would be subject to required payment of the FCUSD’s development impact fees, which are used to fund new and expanded school facilities.
24 Proposition 1A/SB 50 prohibits local agencies from using the inadequacy of school facilities as a basis for denying or conditioning approvals of any “[…] legislative or adjudicative act…involving …the planning, use, or development of real property” (Government Code 65996(b)). Satisfaction of the Proposition 1A/SB 50 statutory requirements by a developer is deemed to be “full and complete mitigation.” Based on the above, the proposed project would not be likely to result in new capacity exceedances within FCUSD schools. In addition, the project would be subject to payment of applicable development impact fees for school facilities. Thus, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9-4 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The following sections describe the water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities improvements that would be necessary to serve the proposed project.

Water Conveyance Infrastructure
The proposed project would include connection of new eight-inch water mains to an existing 10-inch water main located within Edington Drive. The new water lines would 24 Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Development Impact Fees. Available at:
https://www.fcusd.org/Page/2291. Accessed October 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

run throughout the drive aisles with the proposed residential development and would service all units.

The design of the new water lines would be required to comply with all Sacramento County Water Agency’s 2018 Improvement Standards. Sacramento County sets performance standards for water distribution systems, presented in Table 4.9-7 below.

As part of the Water Study, the proposed project was modeled to evaluate the ability of the existing and proposed water conveyance infrastructure to serve the proposed project. As shown in Table 3 of the Water Study (see Appendix J), all of the County’s operating goals would be met throughout the water distribution system under all conditions that were tested.

Table 4.9-7
Performance Goals for SCWA Water Distribution Systems
Operating Goal Requirement
Peak Hour Minimum Pressure 35 pounds per square inch (psi) Peak Hour Maximum Pressure 65 psi
Average Day Maximum Velocity 5 foot-pound-second (fps)
Peak Hour Maximum Velocity 7 fps
Peak Hour Maximum Unit Headloss 3 ft/1,000 ft
Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow
Minimum Pressure 20 psi
Maximum Day Demand + Fire Flow
Maximum Velocity 10 fps
Source: Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates, Water Study, September 2018.

The modeling results demonstrate that the water conveyance infrastructure network would provide sufficient water pressure at the proposed residences. Although the Water Study primarily analyzed the water distribution system using the original unit count of 434, Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates determined that an additional six lots (a 1.4 percent increase in unit count) would have a negligible impact on the water model; therefore, the water distribution system would continue to have sufficient water pressure even with the six-unit increase, and the conclusion remains applicable.

Wastewater Infrastructure
The proposed project would include new eight-inch sanitary sewer connections to the existing eight-inch sewer lines within Edington Drive and Thornberg Way.

As part of the Sewer Study (see Appendix J), the proposed project was modeled to evaluate the ability of the existing and proposed wastewater conveyance infrastructure to serve the proposed project. Per the Sewer Study, the proposed project is expected to generate approximately 310 gpd of wastewater per dwelling unit and result in a combined Peak Wet Weather Flow of 0.365 mgd. Upstream sewer sheds do not exist.

Per the modeling conducted as part of the Sewer Study, 0.210 mgd would leave the site at Node WP/MH-1, 0.155 mgd would leave the site at Node WP-6/MH-26A, and all wastewater would ultimately flow through Node DR-4 in Douglas Road. Node DR4 has a capacity of 6.697 mgd. The proposed project would increase flows at Node DR-4 from 5.442 mgd to 5.927 mgd. As such, the wastewater generated by the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

proposed project could be adequately accommodated by the existing sewer infrastructure.

Based on the results of the modeling, sewer flows generated by the proposed project would be accommodated by the downstream wastewater conveyance system, and expansion of existing infrastructure would not be required to serve the proposed project.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project site would receive natural gas and electric service from PG&E and SMUD, respectively. The proposed project would connect to existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure located to the south of the site within the neighboring subdivision.

Although the proposed project would increase the demand for natural gas service on the project site, the increase in demand would be relatively small in comparison to overall demand within the City of Rancho Cordova, and PG&E is anticipated to have adequate capacity to handle the increase in natural gas demand resulting from the proposed project. Furthermore, pursuant to the 2019 CBSC, the proposed residences would be required to include on-site renewable energy systems sufficient to meet 100 percent of the project’s electricity demands; thus, any increase in electricity demand is anticipated to be met by on-site sources of electricity.

Several purveyors provide internet, telephone and other cable-related services to the City. While implementation of the proposed project would result in population growth and require the expansion of these services, most of the underground and aerial telecommunication transmission lines are generally co-located with other utilities on poles or underground trenches. As such, the existing telecommunication infrastructure would be sufficient to serve the proposed project and a need to upsize or upgrade the existing dry utilities is not anticipated.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. In addition, as required by the General Plan, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which would contribute towards the cost of future upgrades to public infrastructure and utilities. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.9-5 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Development of the proposed residential subdivision would result in increased demand for water supplies relative to existing conditions. As noted previously, per the WSIP and the 2015 UWMP, the SCWA has not previously anticipated domestic water demands associated with the project site, given that the City’s General Plan designates the site for agricultural uses.

Based on the Water Study, the proposed project is expected to result in an overall maximum day domestic water demand of 212.688 gpd, or 148 gpm, which is equivalent to approximately 239 AFY. As shown in Table 4.9-2, Table 4.9-3, and Table

4.9-4 above, per the 2015 UWMP, the SCWA has projected a surplus of at least 4,522 AFY for average year, single dry year, and multiple dry year conditions. Given the SCWA’s surplus of at least 4,522 AFY, the proposed project’s estimated increase in water demand, even with an additional six units included in the water model, could be accommodated by the SCWA’s water supplies without new or expanded entitlements.

Based on the above, sufficient water supply would exist to serve the proposed project’s operational water demand and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. In addition, as required by the General Plan, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which would contribute towards the cost of future upgrades to public infrastructure and utilities, including water supply systems. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9-6 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than
significant.

Wastewater services for the proposed project would be provided by CSD-1 of the SRCSD, and wastewater from the project would be treated at the SRWTP. Based on the Sewer Study, the proposed project is expected to generate an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) of 0.136 mgd (310 gpd/unit x 440 units = 136,540 gpd) and a combined Peak Wet Weather Flow of 0.365 mgd. The existing permitted capacity at the SRWTP is 181 mgd ADWF.25 Per the SRWTP’s NPDES Permit (No. CA0077682), adopted in April of 2016, the ADWF at that time was approximately 120 mgd.26 As 25 Sacramento Regional Community Services District. Final Executive Summary: Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant [pg 7]. May 2008. 26 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Order No. R5-2016-0020-01 NPDES No.

CA0077682 [pg I-7]. April 2016.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

such, the SRWTP was operating at approximately 63 percent of permitted capacity.

Therefore, adequate capacity exists to treat the additional 0.136 mgd of ADWF that would be generated by the proposed project.

Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to pay sewer impact fees to the City, which would contribute towards the cost of future upgrades of the City’s wastewater conveyance system and the SRWTP. Impact fees are intended to fund system improvements and maintenance, and new residential projects are required to pay a connection fee.27 Required payment of sewer impact fees would ensure that the SRWTP receives adequate funding for necessary future improvements.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. In addition, as required by the General Plan, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which would contribute towards the cost of future upgrades to public infrastructure and utilities, including wastewater treatment systems. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required

4.9-7 Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, or conflict with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than
significant.

Solid waste generated from the proposed project would be disposed of at the Kiefer Road Landfill. The landfill is located at 12701 Kiefer Boulevard, near the intersection of Kiefer Boulevard and Grant Line Road. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Kiefer Road Landfill has a total capacity of 117 million cubic yards and is permitted to accept a maximum of 10,815 tons per day, or 3.9 million tons per year, of solid waste. The Kiefer Road Landfill is operating below permitted capacity and has a current anticipated closure date of 2064.

The proposed project would require demolition of the two on-site single-family residences and associated outbuildings in the southern portion of the project site. Such structures total approximately 12,000 square feet (sf). According to the U.S. EPA’s report, Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts, residential demolition results in an average of 127 pounds of waste per sf.28 Considering the project would require demolition of 12,000 sf, the demolition activities 27 City of Rancho Cordova. Development Related Processes and Fees. May 2018. 28 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 2009.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

would generate approximately 1,524,000 lbs of solid waste. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of approximately 781,200 sf of single-family residential uses. Per the same report from the U.S. EPA, residential construction activities generate an average of 4.39 lbs/sf of waste. As such, the proposed construction activities would produce approximately 3,429,468 lbs of waste. In total, construction and demolition would generate approximately 2,406 tons of solid waste.

The construction debris estimate presented above represents a conservative analysis of the maximum potential waste production from the construction process. Under Sections 4.408 and 5.408 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, applicable projects to divert at least 65 percent of all construction and demolition debris through recycling, reuse and/or waste reduction. As such, a minimum of 1,564 tons of waste would be diverted away from landfill disposal during construction.

Waste generated by the construction process would be spread over approximately two years. However, in order to provide a conservative analysis, the total estimated waste that would be generated by construction was assumed to occur during only one year.

Therefore, the project’s anticipated total construction waste of 600 tons was compared to the Kiefer Road Landfill’s total yearly capacity and remaining yearly capacity. With the conservative assumption that construction waste occurs in a single year, the estimated waste generation would equal approximately 0.02 percent (600 tons/3,947,475 tons X 100 = 0.015) of the Landfill’s total remaining annual capacity.

Thus, construction waste associated with the proposed project could be accommodated by the Kiefer Road Landfill.

Once constructed, the proposed residences would generate solid waste. Per the CalRecycle Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary for Rancho Cordova, the most recent (2018) annual per capita disposal rate is 4.2 PPD per resident. Given that the proposed project would house approximately 1,333 future residents, operation of the proposed project would generate approximately 5,599 lbs of waste per day (2.8 tons).

Operational waste generation of 2.8 tons per day would equal approximately 0.03 percent (2.8 tons/10,815 tons X 100 = 0.0237) of the Kiefer Road Landfill’s remaining daily capacity. Therefore, the proposed project’s operational waste generation could be accommodated by the existing capacity of the Kiefer Road Landfill.

It should be noted that in 2016, California achieved a Statewide residential waste diversion rate of 61 percent.29 The diversion rate represents the percentage of the State’s solid waste stream that is diverted from landfills and recycled or composted.

Assuming a similar diversion rate for the City of Rancho Cordova, approximately 623.42 tons of waste (1,022 tons X 0.61 diversion rate = 623.42 tons) generated by operation of the proposed project would be diverted from the Kiefer Road Landfill annually.
29 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). California’s Estimated Statewide Diversion Rates Since 1989. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/goalmeasure/disposalrate/Graphs/EstDiversion.htm. Accessed July 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Based on the above, the proposed project would not exceed the permitted capacity of the Kiefer Road Landfill in the project’s construction and/or operational phases.

Additionally, the proposed project would be required to abide by all aforementioned local, State, and federal regulations. As a result, the proposed project would be serviced by a landfill with adequate capacity and would not violate any relevant statutes related to solid waste disposal. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in combination with other proposed and pending projects in the region. Refer to Chapter 5, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR for more detail.

4.9-8 Cumulative impacts to fire and police protection services.

Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would be provided police protection services by the RCPD, and fire protection services by SMFD. The environmental effects of construction of fire and police facilities in the planning area have been considered in the technical analyses of the General Plan EIR as part of overall development of the Planning Area. The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the City of Rancho Cordova would result in a lessthan-significant impact related to increased demand on fire protection services, provided that the proposed project complies with all existing SMFD and Sacramento County standards and guidelines. With regard to police protection services, impacts were similarly determined to be less than significant.

The proposed project would have the potential to result in increased demands for fire and police protection services at the project site. However, as discussed under Impacts 4.9-1 and 4.9-2 above, although new or physically altered facilities are not anticipated to be required, the proposed project would be subject to the payment of development impact fees to ensure that any required expansion of facilities or staffing numbers can occur. The proposed structures would be designed in compliance with all applicable provisions of the California Fire Code and would include features, such as smoke alarms, to reduce potential fire hazards. In addition, the proposed project would be designed in accordance with the safety element of the City’s General Plan.

Policy S.7.1 requires that certain design features be included in building and neighborhood designs to prevent crime and provide safety and security. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to payment of the City’s applicable Community Facility Fees to support adequate provision of fire and police facilities and equipment.

Similar to the proposed project, other future development projects within the City would be required by the City to pay their fair-share fees toward the provision of adequate public services and facilities.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Based on the above, a less than cumulatively considerable impact would occur related to resulting in a need for new or expanded fire and police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9-9 Cumulative impacts to public schools. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than cumulatively
considerable.

Buildout of the project area would result in an increase in population and a subsequent increase in demand for public schools. As noted in the Ranch Cordova General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan in combination with other reasonably foreseeable regional developments proposed in eastern Sacramento County would result in a cumulative increase in student enrollment. In order to accommodate the increase in student enrollment, the FCUSD would require additional schools and related facilities.

However, SB 50 funding would partially mitigate impacts to public schools. In addition, the existing funding mechanisms, bond measures within the school district, and implementation of the Sacramento County General Plan and proposed Rancho Cordova General Plan policies and associated action items would reduce the cumulative impacts on public school facilities. Additionally, pursuant to State law, payment of statutory impact fees represents full and complete school facilities mitigation. As such, although cumulative regional development would result in an increased demand for public schools, payment of impact fees and implementation of General Plan policies would ensure that impacts would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, a less than cumulatively considerable impact would occur related to a need for new or expanded public school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9-10 Cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems. Based on the analysis below, the project’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively
considerable.

A discussion of potential cumulative impacts on utility systems is provided below.

Water Supply
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR analyzed cumulative impacts to water supply and water conveyance infrastructure under Impact 4.12.3.2. As noted therein, the land uses associated with buildout of the Rancho Cordova General Plan would require considerable modifications and improvements to the existing water supply delivery ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

system to meet the projected water demands. Additional water treatment, storage capacity, and the extension of the existing water system, including pipelines and other transmission and conveyance infrastructure, would be required to meet the demand for the General Plan growth and other anticipated regional growth. The General Plan concluded that impacts related to water supply utilities would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

According to the WSIP, the Zone 40 service area would be fully built out in the year 2052. At full buildout, the water demand for Zone 40 would be 102,400 AFY.

According to WSIP Table 4-3, Zone 40 has a long-term average water supply of 121,418 AFY, which would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand. Even after three dry years, the SCWA would have approximately 11,800 AFY excess water supply after meeting the demand from cumulative buildout of the service area. As such, sufficient water supplied exist to meet the demand of the proposed project in conjunction with cumulative buildout of the region.

The WSIP identifies a Capital Improvement Plan to provide the necessary infrastructure improvements throughout Zone 40 as buildout occurs. Implementation of the Capital Improvement Plan may result in environmental impacts. However, the Water Study concluded that the proposed project would not adversely affect the downstream system, and the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project. As such, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Based on the above, the water conveyance infrastructure is adequately sized to accommodate cumulative development within the SCWA service area, including the proposed project, and sufficient water supplies are available to serve such cumulative development. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts related to water conveyance and water supplies would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Wastewater
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR analyzed cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment capacity and conveyance infrastructure under Impact 4.12.4.2.

Development under the General Plan and other development planned in Sacramento County and SRCSD’s service area would substantially increase cumulative demands for wastewater services and related facilities. While planned improvements to the wastewater infrastructure network have been analyzed in the General Plan EIR, future growth may require modification and expansion of currently planned wastewater facility improvements. Overall, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to cumulative wastewater service demands are less than cumulatively considerable, but impacts related to infrastructure/facility expansion are cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

As discussed under Impact 4.9-4 above, wastewater generation associated with buildout of the project site was modeled by Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Based on the results of the modeling in the Sewer Study, implementation of the proposed project would not adversely affect the downstream sewage system, and the existing infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project. The Sewer Study considered ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

cumulative development in the area, and noted that future upstream areas would not be served through the project site. Therefore, considering the wastewater conveyance system can adequately accommodate flows from the proposed project, and future upstream areas would not be served through the same conveyance system, it follows that the wastewater conveyance system would be able to accommodate cumulative development in the area. Any new additional development upstream of the proposed project would be subject to subsequent environmental review. Overall, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The SRWTP currently has a permitted capacity of 181 mgd for ADWF and 400 mgd of Average Wet Weather Flows (AWWF). The SRCSD is in the process of expanding the SRWTP to accommodate 250 ADWF and maintain the 400 mgd for AWWF.30 Per the City’s General Plan EIR, projected wastewater generation rates by year 2030 are estimated to be 36.5 mgd and under buildout conditions 42.2 mgd. As such, wastewater generated from the proposed project (0.136 mgd) would constitute 0.3 percent of the wastewater treatment demand at buildout of the City’s planning area.

The wastewater treatment projections used in the General Plan, presented above, were determined based on population growth estimates, and land use designations were not considered. As such, even though the proposed project includes a change in land use designation, the project would be included as part of the City’s planned regional growth estimated. Therefore, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities have been anticipated in the General Plan EIR. While the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to infrastructure/facility expansion would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable, the proposed project would be subject to payment of development fees to fund the planned Capital Improvement Program, and the project’s increment contribution to the impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Solid Waste
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR analyzed cumulative impacts related to solid waste under Impact 4.12.5.2. Using the per capita solid waste generation identified and assuming implementation of mandatory reduction and diversion programs, cumulative development associated with the General Plan would generate approximately 111,804 tons of solid waste per year. The Kiefer Landfill, the Forward Landfill in Manteca, and the Lockwood Regional Landfill in Nevada would accommodate the City’s Planning Area solid waste disposal demands. Such landfills would have adequate capacity to accommodate projected population growth and subsequent solid waste generation in the City’s Planning Area at buildout under the General Plan. As such, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Rancho Cordova General Plan would not require additional landfill capacity, and impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project would contribute construction, demolition, and operational waste to the Kiefer Landfill. As discussed above, numerous State and federal regulations exist regarding the composition and volume of solid waste being directed to landfills, as well as the amount of solid waste being diverted for recycling or reuse programs.

The Kiefer Landfill currently has remaining capacity of 112 million cubic yards, and the 30 City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report [pg 4.12-47]. June 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

current permitted capacity is anticipated to allow operation of the landfill to continue until the year 2064. The solid waste attributable to the proposed project would not be considered substantial considering the landfill’s existing capacity of 800 tons per day and the remaining capacity of 112 million cubic yards. Therefore, the proposed project in combination with future buildout of the City’s Planning Area would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to solid waste.

Energy, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR analyzed cumulative impacts related to electrical, telephone, and cable services under Impact 4.12.8.2. As noted therein, the local Cosumnes Power Plant and Upper American River Project would ensure a guaranteed and adequate long-term energy supply to meet buildout conditions in the City’s Planning Area. In addition, PG&E has also indicated that it has adequate natural gas supply and would extend infrastructure, as needed, to serve the growth anticipated under cumulative conditions. Overall, the General Plan EIR concluded that impacts related to energy, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than cumulatively considerable.

The project would receive electricity from SMUD and natural gas from PG&E. Energy use associated with operation of the proposed project would be typical of residential uses requiring electricity and natural gas for interior and exterior building lighting, heating, ventilation, and air condition (HVAC), electronic equipment, machinery, appliances, security systems, and more.

The 2019 CBSC requires that new single-family residences include solar panels sufficient to generate 100 percent of the residents’ electricity demand. As such, the operational demand for grid energy from SMUD associated with the proposed project would be zero kWh/hr. Thus, the project would not result in a net increase in electricity demand, and would not contribute to electricity demand associated with cumulative development under the General Plan.

Based on the air quality modeling prepared as part of Chapter 4.1, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, of this EIR, the project’s natural gas consumption would total approximately 10,654,300 kBTU/yr, or 106,568 therms. The Countywide consumption of natural gas in 2018 was 194 million therms.31 Thus, the project would account for less than one percent of the County’s total usage. Because the proposed project would increase natural gas demand by a relatively nominal percentage, the proposed project’s incremental increase in natural gas consumption would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in demand in combination with future buildout of the City.

While cumulative development within the City of Rancho Cordova would increase demand on the City’s telecommunications service providers (i.e., Comcast, AT&T, etc.), such services are readily scalable and would be expanded as necessary to accommodate future growth. Thus, cumulative impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant. 31 California Energy Commission. Gas Consumption by County: Sacramento County, Residential Sector, Year 2018.

Available at: https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 24, 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Conclusion
The proposed project, in conjunction with buildout of the City’s Planning Area, would increase demand on utilities in the area and have the potential to result in a significant cumulative impact. However, this analysis has demonstrated that the proposed project’s incremental contribution to this cumulative impact would be considered less than cumulatively considerable.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.10 Transportation
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.10.1 INTRODUCTION
The Transportation chapter of the EIR addresses the existing and cumulative transportation conditions associated with the development of the proposed project. The analysis includes consideration of vehicle traffic impacts on roadway capacity, circulation, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, as well as vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Where development of the proposed project would conflict with applicable policies or guidelines, mitigation measures are identified.

The information contained within this chapter is primarily based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),
1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation,2 Supplemental Analysis,3 and The Preserve Centennial Drive Considerations Memorandum (Centennial Drive Memorandum)4 prepared for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn (see Appendix K), as well as the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan,5 and the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR. 6 4.10.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following setting information provides an overview of the existing conditions of the project site and surrounding area in relation to the existing transportation system within the project region, including the roadway network, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Regional Setting
The project region is primarily characterized by a rural setting. The region includes agricultural areas, grasslands, wetlands, and valley oaks. Surrounding land uses include the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision directly to the south, vacant agricultural lands and a Teichert Aggregates Aggregate/Asphaltic Concrete site across Grant Line Road to the east, two single-family residences and industrial/open space to the north, and vacant land approved for the development of the Rio Del Oro residential community immediately adjacent to the west.

Regional access to the project area is provided by U.S. Route 50 (US 50). The portion of US 50 that runs through the City of Rancho Cordova connects to the City of Sacramento to the west and the County of El Dorado to the east.

Project Setting
Currently, the 279.3-acre project site contains two single-family residences and associated outbuildings on the southern portion of the site. An orchard is located within the northeastern portion of the site. A third single-family residence and associated outbuildings is located in the northwestern portion of the site. The remainder of the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, with scattered trees located in the vicinity of the existing residences and associated access roads.

The site is characterized by moderate rolling hills and flatlands interspersed with seasonal 1 Kimley-Horn. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Preserve, City of Rancho Cordova, California. November 4, 2020. 2 Kimley-Horn. The Preserve, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation. August 16, 2021. 3 Kimley-Horn. Supplemental Analysis for Six Additional Units. February 8, 2021. 4 Kimley-Horn. Memorandum: The Preserve Centennial Drive Considerations. August 16, 2021. 5 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 6 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report. June 2006

4.10 TRANSPORTATION
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

drainage corridors and wetlands. Additionally, Morrison Creek runs northeast to southwest through the project site. The elevation of the site ranges from 210 to 250 feet above mean sea level.

Access to the project site is provided by way of Raymer Way and the neighborhood roadways associated with the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision directly to the south. The following are descriptions of the primary roadways in the vicinity of the project site.

United States Route 50
US 50 is an east‐west interstate facility located approximately five miles from the proposed project. US 50 connects the City of Rancho Cordova to the City of Sacramento to the west and the County of El Dorado to the east. Primary access to the project site from US 50 is provided at the Sunrise Boulevard, Zinfandel Drive and Mather Field Road interchanges. Near Zinfandel Drive, US 50 carries approximately 180,000 vehicles per day with five lanes in each direction and a speed limit of 65 miles per hour (mph) within the project vicinity.

State Route 16
State Route (SR) 16 is an expressway connecting the County of Amador and County of Sacramento, along the southern edge of the City of Rancho Cordova limits and connects with US 50 west of the project site. The expressway is also designated as Jackson Road in the project vicinity; however, for the purposes of this chapter, the roadway is cited as SR 16. South of the project site, between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant Line Road, SR 16 carries approximately 13,000 vehicles per day with one lane in each direction and a speed limit of 55 mph within the project vicinity.

Sunrise Boulevard
Sunrise Boulevard is a north-south arterial, connecting the project site to north Rancho Cordova and the County of Placer. Sunrise Boulevard is a six-lane roadway with a speed limit of 45 mph within the project vicinity.

Zinfandel Drive
Zinfandel Drive is a north-south arterial, connecting the project site to US 50, as well as the commercial, industrial, and residential areas northwest of the project site. Zinfandel Drive is a four-lane roadway with a speed limit of 45 mph within the project vicinity.

Raymer Way
Raymer Way is a local roadway adjacent to the project site and provides access to Grant Line Road to the east. Raymer Way is a two-lane roadway.

Americanos Boulevard
Americanos Boulevard is a local roadway that would provide access to the project site from the south. The roadway is a two-lane roadway that would serve as a connection between the project site and Douglas Road.

Study Area
The following intersections and roadway segments were selected for analysis in the TIA based on the project location, estimates of project-generated traffic, and locations of planned roadways in the project vicinity (see Figure 4.10-1).

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.10-1
Study Area
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Intersections

1. Mather Field Road/US 50 Westbound Ramps;

2. Mather Field Road/US 50 Eastbound Ramps;

3. Mather Field Road/International Drive;

4. Zinfandel Drive/US 50 Westbound Ramps;

5. Zinfandel Drive/US 50 Eastbound Ramps;

6. Zinfandel Drive/White Rock Road;

7. Zinfandel Drive/International Drive;

8. Sunrise Boulevard/Zinfandel Drive;

9. Sunrise Boulevard/US 50 Westbound Ramps;

10. Sunrise Boulevard/US 50 Eastbound Ramps;

11. Sunrise Boulevard/Folsom Boulevard;

12. Sunrise Boulevard/White Rock Road;

13. Douglas Road/Zinfandel Drive;

14. Douglas Road/Sunrise Boulevard;

15. Douglas Road/Americanos Boulevard;

16. SR 16/Sunrise Boulevard;

17. SR 16/Grant Line Road;

18. Grant Line Road/Kiefer Boulevard;

19. Grant Line Road/Douglas Road;

20. Grant Line Road/Raymer Way;

21. Grant Line Road/White Rock Road; and

22. White Rock Road/Prairie City Road.

Roadway Segments

1. Mather Field Road, between Folsom Boulevard and US 50 Westbound Ramps;

2. Mather Field Road, between US 50 Eastbound Ramps and International Drive;

3. Zinfandel Drive, between Folsom Boulevard and US 50 Westbound Ramps;

4. Zinfandel Drive, between White Rock Road and International Drive;

5. Zinfandel Drive, between International Drive and Douglas Road;

6. Mather Boulevard, between Femoyer Street and Douglas Road;

7. Sunrise Boulevard, between Folsom Boulevard and White Rock Road;

8. Sunrise Boulevard, between White Rock Road and Douglas Road;

9. Sunrise Boulevard, between Douglas Road and SR 16;

10. White Rock Road, between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard;

11. White Rock Road, between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant Line Road;

12. White Rock Road, between Grant Line Road and Prairie City Road;

13. Grant Line Road, between Raymer Way and Douglas Road;

14. Grant Line Road, between Douglas Road and SR 16;

15. Douglas Road, between Mather Boulevard and Sunrise Boulevard;

16. Douglas Road, between Sunrise Boulevard and Grant Line Road; and

17. Grant Line Road, between White Rock Road and Raymer Way.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Per the CEQA Guidelines, VMT is the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts under CEQA. VMT is a measure of the total amount of vehicle travel occurring on a given roadway system.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

In 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was passed to amend Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4 of the Government Code, amend Sections 21181, 21183, 21186, 21187, 21189.1, and 21189.3 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), to add Section 21155.4 to the PRC, to add Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 21099) to Division 13 of the PRC, to add and repeal Section 21168.6.6 of the PRC, and to repeal and add Section 21185 of the PRC, relating to environmental quality.

As a result of SB 743, as discussed in further detail below, local jurisdictions may no longer rely on vehicle level of service (LOS) and similar measures related to delay as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. Thus, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, VMT is the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts to roadway systems within this chapter.

For residential development projects requiring a detailed evaluation of VMT, this analysis relied on guidance from the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish the threshold for determination of a significant VMT impact as 15 percent below the regional average VMT per capita. The VMT analysis prepared for the proposed project included the existing average VMT per capita for the entire Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) region. The existing VMT per capita average for the SACOG region was calculated using the same methodology used to calculate the proposed project’s average VMT per capita, which is discussed in the Method of Analysis section. As shown Table 4.10-1, the existing average VMT per capita in the SACOG region is 23.2.

Table 4.10-1
Existing VMT per Capita in 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
Total Population 2,376,311
VMT per Capita 23.2
Source: Kimley-Horn. The Preserve, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation. August 16, 2021.

Transit System
Sacramento Regional Transit (SRT) offers multiple transit services with stops in the City of Rancho Cordova. SRT’s Light Rail trains begin operation at 4:00 AM with service every 15 minutes during the day Monday through Friday and every 30 minutes in the evening and weekends. SRT has four stops in the City on the Gold Line, which runs along Folsom Boulevard Folsom to Downtown Sacramento and connects with the Green and Blue lines for easy access to other areas in the Sacramento region. The Gold and Blue lines operate until midnight on weekdays, and 10:30 PM on weekends. The Green Line only operates Monday through Friday.

SRT’s Bus Service also runs through the City and includes five bus routes. The routes connect to the cities of Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights, and Rosemont. All bus routes connect with light rail stops. The routes nearest to the project site include Route 175, running along Douglas Road and Sunrise Boulevard; Route 176, running along Rancho Cordova Parkway, Kiefer Boulevard, and Sunrise Boulevard; and Route 177, running along Zinfandel Drive.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Bicycle and Pedestrian System
Per the City of Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan,7 the City has 235 miles of roadways, 17 miles of on-street bikeways, and 14 miles of off-street paths. Key regional connections include the American River Parkway Bicycle Trail that runs along the river at the north edge of the City, extending 31 miles from the Discovery Park in Sacramento to the Folsom Reservoir.

The Bicycle Master Plan classifies bike paths throughout the City into three types:
8 • Class I – Off-street facilities dedicated exclusively for use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and in some cases, equestrians and other non-motorized travel such as roller skating and skateboarding;
• Class II – Delineated bike lanes, which comprise a portion of a street and are meant for bicyclists; and
• Class III – Bike routes, where the travel lane is shared by drivers and bicyclists and are generally designated on roadways with low levels of motor vehicle traffic where bicyclists may share the travel lane.

Due to the rural nature of the project site, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are minimal in the immediate vicinity of the site. US 50 does not offer paths designed to accommodate bikes or pedestrians, as the roadway’s purpose is to serve high-speed vehicular travel. SR 16 includes shoulders on both sides of the expressway that could accommodate bicyclists; however, the expressway is not officially designated as a bike path in the Bicycle Master Plan. Sunrise Boulevard features sidewalk paths on both sides for pedestrian use; however, the roadway does not include officially designated bike paths. Within the stretch of roadway inside the City limits, Zinfandel Drive serves as a Class II bike path and offers shoulders outside the City limits that could accommodate bicyclists. Raymer Way does not include bike paths or sidewalks. The small stretch of Americanos Boulevard that connects to Edington Drive includes bike paths along both sides of the roadway, and the roadway also includes a sidewalk on the northbound side.

4.10.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the review of transportation under the CEQA process.

Federal Regulations
Federal regulations applicable to transportation within the project area do not exist.

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to transportation.

California Department of Transportation
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining all State-owned roadways in Sacramento County. 7 City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=11416. Accessed January 2021. 8 While not described in the City of Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan, a Class IV Bikeway, or a separated bikeway or cycle track, is a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation between bicycles and vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the State highway system within the County need to be approved by Caltrans.

The County does not have the ability to unilaterally make improvements to the State highway system. The Caltrans Traffic Analysis Framework and Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide outlines when a VMT impact study is needed and what should be included in the scope of the study. US 50 and SR 16 are the facilities within the project vicinity that are under the oversight of Caltrans.

Caltrans has completed transportation or route concept reports for a number of State freeways and highways in the County. The reports identify long-range improvements for specific State freeway and highway corridors and establish the “concept,” or desired, LOS for specific corridor segments. The reports also identify long-range improvements needed to bring an existing facility up to expected standards needed to adequately serve 20-year traffic forecasts. Additionally, the reports identify the ultimate design concept for conditions beyond the immediate 20-year design period.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743 (Stats. 2013, ch. 386) requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of the metric beyond TPAs. In response, OPR released the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which identified VMT as the preferred transportation impact metric. OPR applied their discretion to require the use of VMT statewide. SB 743 requires that as of April 27, 2019, vehicle LOS and similar measures related to delay shall not be used as the sole basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts. Determination of impacts based on VMT is required Statewide as of July 1, 2020.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines was added in 2018 to address the requirements of SB 743 and the OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Section 15064.3 states the following:
(a) Purpose.

This section describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts. Generally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, “vehicle miles traveled” refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel. Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project's effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.
(b) Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts.
(1) Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
(2) Transportation Projects. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may tier from that analysis as provided in Section 15152.
(3) Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the project's vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, etc. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
(4) Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project's vehicle miles traveled, and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section. (c) Applicability.

The provisions of this section shall apply prospectively as described in section 15007.

A lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately.

Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.

Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA The OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA includes potential significance thresholds for different types of land use projects and transportation projects. Distinct threshold recommendations are provided for residential, office, and retail projects. Such uses tend to have the greatest influence on VMT. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In developing thresholds for other project types, the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA directs lead agencies to consider the purposes described in Section 21099 of the PRC and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7). The Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA suggests that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts using project size, map-based approaches to low-VMT areas, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing.

Local Regulations
The following are the regulatory agencies and regulations pertinent to the proposed project on a local level.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Sacramento Area Council of Governments VMT Threshold
SACOG has two recommended methods for developing a project-specific VMT estimation:
• Method 1: Use of a “regional” transportation model, either by running the model directly to estimate VMT with and without the project (for large projects) or through use of screening methodologies (for small projects). The transportation model used for VMT estimation could either be the SACOG regional model (SACSIM19) or one of the many variants of the regional model developed by local agencies to provide more detailed analysis within their jurisdictions. If one of the local models is used, it should be sufficiently documented and maintained; or
• Method 2: Use of a customized spreadsheet or web-based tool for a specific study area or jurisdiction that uses information from a regional transportation model to provide VMT analysis.

VMT per capita includes all vehicle “tours” (both work/commute vehicle tours and non-work vehicle tours) that start and end at residential units. The VMT from these tours are grouped and summed to the home location of those tours. The VMT for each home is then summed for all homes in a particular area and divided by the total population of that area to arrive at VMT per capita.

SACSIM19 model is a “tour-based” Travel Demand Model (TDM). The vehicle tours estimated by SACSIM19 that begin and end at home include intermediate stops. For example, a work/commute vehicle tour could include stops on the way to work to drop a child at school and get coffee and a stop on the way home to go to a gym or get groceries. A non-work vehicle tour that begins and ends at home can also include more than one stop. The VMT from these tours must include the full mileage of the entire round-trip tour including all stops based on the City’s focused version of the SACSIM19 model, both for Method 1 or Method 2 described above.

Tours made by a household resident that do not begin or end at home (called “business tours”) are not included in the VMT per capita estimate. Such tours that begin and end at a work site can include trips for lunch or personal business but also job-related tours, such as deliveries, business meetings etc. These “business tours” are not included for the following reasons:
• The amount of business tours made by individuals can vary more based on their job type than their residential location. In the regional model, the number and length of those tours can vary greatly;
• Including business tours would require that all projects, including small to medium size residential projects, be evaluated using SACSIM19. Excluding business tours from VMT per capita allows use of Method 2 described above. Such methods can involve use of typical Institute of Transportation Engineers-based trip generation estimates (adjusted for relevant factors) along with full tour lengths from SACSIM19 that can be provided by the City for traffic analysis zone (TAZ); and
• The trip generation aspect of the selected method is equivalent to use of only “homebased trips,” which is recommended by the OPR Technical Advisory when the regional model is “trip-based”. However, by using the full length of home-based tours from SACSIM19, the selected method provides a more accurate estimate of VMT.

Using the State’s guidance, absent other substantial evidence, thresholds should be set to 15 percent below the average VMT per capita. Per the VMT Evaluation prepared for the proposed ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

project, the average VMT per capita in the SACOG region, calculated using the same methodology used to determine the project’s average VMT per capita, is 23.2. Therefore, the applicable threshold for project-specific VMT within the SACOG region would be 19.7 VMT per capita.

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The following goals and policies related to transportation are applicable to the proposed project:

Goal C.1 Develop a roadway system that accommodates future land uses at the City’s desired level of service, provides multiple options for travel routes, protects residential areas from excessive traffic, coexists with other travel modes, and contributes to the quality of the City’s residential, commercial, office, and industrial areas.

Policy C.1.1 Implement the Circulation Plan with the Roadway System and Sizing Diagram, shown as Figure C-1 (in the General Plan), as a modified grid network.

Policy C.1.2 Seek to maintain operations on all roadways and intersections at Level of Service D or better at all times, including peak travel times, unless maintaining this Level of Service would, in the City's judgment, be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals. Congestion in excess of Level of Service D may be accepted in these cases, provided that provisions are made to improve traffic flow and/or promote non-vehicular transportation as part of a development project or a City-initiated project.

Policy C.1.3 Recognize that regional traffic beyond the City’s control, as well as circulation system decisions made prior to incorporation or by other agencies, will make it infeasible to achieve the City’s desired Level of Service on all roadways. Subject development projects which affect these roadways to the provisions of Policy C.1.2 to provide offsetting improvements to the vehicular and/or non-vehicular transportation system.

Policy C.1.4 Discourage the creation of private roadways, except when the roadways are constructed to public roadway standards and private maintenance is assured, or are used in an affordable residential development.

Policy C.1.5 Design the circulation system serving the City’s industrial areas to safely accommodate heavy truck traffic.

Policy C.1.6 Strongly discourage the use of cul-de-sacs on local roads, except where they are necessary due to site-specific concerns, such as habitat areas, that preclude construction of through routes. When cul-de-sacs are used, they should include bicycle and pedestrian connections to trail systems or adjacent major or connector streets.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Policy C.1.7 Require the installation of traffic pre-emption devices for emergency vehicles (police and fire) at all newly constructed intersections and seek to retrofit all existing intersections to incorporate these features.

Policy C.1.8 Ensure that where traffic calming devices or techniques are employed, adequate access is provided for police and fire vehicles.

Policy C.1.9 In an effort to reduce automobile traffic and congestion and increase use of other travel modes, support the use of trip reduction programs.

Policy C.1.10 Encourage maximum block lengths that provide multiple vehicular paths and increase pedestrian circulation around the City at the neighborhood level. The City’s preferred block length is less than 600 feet. Block lengths between 600 and 800 feet may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis, and block lengths greater than 800 feet are generally considered unacceptable.

Goal C.2 Establish an extensive, complete, smooth, interconnected, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle network that is a safe and attractive option for local or regional trips or recreation and that connects to the City’s neighborhoods, parks and schools, employment areas, and retail centers.

Policy C.2.1 Create a system of on- and off-street trails and multi-use paths, as generally illustrated on Figure C-2 (in the General Plan), that are used for walking and bicycling and that are attractive, natural, and safe transportation corridors.

Policy C.2.3 In designing development projects, design for the pedestrian first.

Policy C.2.4 Provide sidewalks throughout the City. Meandering sidewalks are discouraged, except where necessary to accommodate sitespecific features such as trees or habitat.

Policy C.2.5 Provide safe and convenient bicycle access to all parts of the community.

Policy C.2.6 Provide on-street bike lanes along all connector roadways and on local and major roadways when necessary to provide for
interconnected routes. On-street bike routes may be provided on local, connector, and major roadways as deemed necessary by the City.

Policy C.2.8 Promote bicycling and walking as a safe and attractive activity.

Educate all road users to share the road and interact safely.

Policy C.2.10 Create safe and efficient at-grade crossings of roadways for pedestrian and bicyclists.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Goal C.3 Establish a viable transit system that connects all parts of the City and links with regional destinations.

Policy C.3.1 Advocate and develop transit services which meet the needs of residents and employees in Rancho Cordova.

Policy C.3.2 Maintain and improve access and mobility for seniors, youth, and the disabled with programs that meet their mobility needs.

Policy C.3.3 Promote the integration of transit facilities into new development.

Goal C.5 Fund the circulation system adequately to provide all desired services.

Policy C.5.2 Require proposed new development projects to analyze their contribution to increased traffic and to implement improvements necessary to address their impact on facilities not covered by a fee program.

Policy C.5.3 Assess fees sufficient to cover the fair share portion of all new development impacts on the local and regional transportation system.

Goal C.6 Provide a circulation system that is properly maintained and maximizes safety for all users.

Policy C.6.1 Maintain and repair streets, trails, and other circulation components according to priorities established on an annual basis.

City of Rancho Cordova Capital Improvement Plan
The 2019-2024 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) represents the fiscal year (FY) 2019-2020 and FY 2020-2021 Capital Improvement Budgets and the three-year plan for FY 2021-2022 to FY 2023-2024. The CIP provides program summary information for the City’s various capital improvement funding programs, as well as project summary information (revenue and expenditures) for the specific projects selected for implementation during the CIP period.

The currently adopted CIP allocated a total of $98.483 million in FY 2019-2020 and $35.455 million in FY 2020-2021. The amounts consist of new funding and reallocated funds for existing projects that are crossing fiscal years. Some of the funding allocated to FY 2018-2019 is expected to be needed to be reallocated (rolled over) to FY 2019-2020 as capital projects usually cross fiscal years. The reallocation of prior funding is to the same projects previously approved. Some of the projects are currently under construction and estimates have been made as to how much will be carried over to the next fiscal year. Funding for current planned projects from FY 2019/20 through Post FY 2023/24 total $495.568 million.

City of Rancho Cordova Transportation Impact Guidelines The City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines document establishes protocol for transportation impact studies and reports. At the time of this study, the City had not formally revised its guidelines ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4