Rancho Cordova City Council
April 4, 2022

to address the requirements of SB 743. As such, Kimley-Horn relied heavily on OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA for this analysis.

The requirements to prepare a CEQA transportation VMT analysis apply to all land development projects, except for those that meet at least one of the VMT-related criteria described in OPR’s guidance.

4.10.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The standards of significance to be used in identifying transportation impacts are presented below. The standards are based on OPR guidance. In addition, the methods used to analyze the impacts of the project on the roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems are provided in this section. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, are also presented.

Standards of Significance
The significance criteria used for this analysis were developed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A transportation impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; • Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b); • Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or • Result in inadequate emergency access.

Method of Analysis
Documents referenced to prepare this chapter include a TIA and VMT Evaluation prepared for the project by Kimley-Horn. The methodology used within both documents is summarized below.

Level of Service
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, VMT is the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts to roadway systems within this chapter. However, in order to analyze the proposed project’s compliance with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system as outlined in the General Plan’s Circulation Element, the analysis below will incorporate LOS. LOS of a facility is a qualitative measure used to describe operational conditions. LOS ranges from A (best), which represents minimal delay, to F (worst), which represents heavy delay and a facility that is operating at or near its functional capacity.

The TIA’s analysis of LOS was performed in accordance with the County of Sacramento’s traffic study guidelines and standards established by the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.

The TIA based its conclusions on the following thresholds of significance:
• Roadways/Signalized Intersections: A project is considered to have a significant effect if it would:
o Result in a roadway or a signalized intersection operating at an acceptable LOS to deteriorate to an unacceptable LOS; or
o Increase the V/C ratio by more than 0.05 at a roadway or at a signalized intersection that is operating at an unacceptable LOS without the project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

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

It should be noted that the TIA’s analysis was based on subdivision of the project site into 434 lots. Subsequent to the preparation of the TIA, the applicant modified the project to include six additional lots. A Supplemental Analysis was prepared for the proposed project with the additional six units, which determined that the proposed project’s 440 lots would not compromise or deteriorate LOS to an extent that would alter the conclusions in the TIA. Therefore, the TIA’s analysis remains applicable. Further information on the methodology incorporated as part of the LOS analysis is included in the TIA (see Appendix K).

Project Vehicle Miles Travelled
Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Per Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. While changes to driving conditions that increase intersection delay are an important consideration for traffic operations and management, the method of analysis does not fully describe environmental effects associated with fuel consumption, emissions, and public health. Section 15064.3(3) changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impact to drivers to measuring the impact of driving.

OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA provided recommendations on many aspects of conducting a CEQA transportation analysis using VMT; however, OPR’s guidance was not comprehensive and some key decisions were left for lead agencies to determine. In the absence of formally adopted thresholds and screening criteria, this study followed OPR’s technical advisory to the greatest extent.

For residential development projects requiring a detailed evaluation of the VMT produced by the project, the threshold for determination of a significant VMT impact of 15 percent below the regional average of VMT per capita was applied. Consistent with OPR guidance, residential development projects exceeding the threshold carry a significant impact.

Calculating VMT per Capita
VMT per capita is determined using the City’s adopted TDM, which is a focused version of SACOG’s adopted SACSIM19 regional model. As part of the “SB 743 Implementation Tools Project,” SACOG has two recommended methods for project-specific VMT estimation: Method 1 and Method 2, described above.

The VMT Evaluation for the proposed project used the City’s version of SACOG’s SACSIM19 model with a base year of 2016. A TAZ representing the project area with no other land use was used to isolate the proposed project from all surrounding land uses. The 440 residential units, as planned for the proposed project, were added to the project’s TAZ to represent the project. Using socioeconomic characteristics of developments in the immediate vicinity of the project to develop ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

a profile of the households and persons expected to inhabit the proposed project, a population of 1,333 was estimated.

Using the output trip table from the TDM, automobile trips either starting or ending in the proposed project were selected. These trips were factored based on the auto occupancy; single-occupancy trips were multiplied by one, two-person vehicle trips were multiplied by 0.5, and three-or-moreperson trips were multiplied by 0.3. Each trip was multiplied by the model‐determined distance based on the model’s skim matrix determining the distance between each TAZ during the peak periods to determine the trip’s VMT. Each trip’s VMT was totaled to determine the total internal‐ internal VMT related to the proposed project. External‐internal and internal‐external VMT was calculated based on the methodologies outlined in OPR’s guidance. A script file provided by SACOG and included in SACOG’s model for VMT post‐processing was run, which determined the VMT for trips that either started or ended outside of the model area by TAZ. As the project was separated into its own TAZ, the VMT for the project’s TAZ was added to the internal-internal total VMT to determine the total VMT associated with the proposed project. The total VMT was then divided by the population of the proposed project to determine a VMT per capita associated with the proposed project.

VMT Thresholds
As discussed above, the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA recommends that lead agencies establish project-specific thresholds for VMT analysis. Per Section 15064.3(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project's VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure.

The 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. As detailed in Table 4.10-1, the average VMT per capita in the SACOG region is 23.2. Using the State’s guidance, absent other substantial evidence, thresholds should be set 15 percent below the average VMT per capita.

Thus, the threshold for the SACOG region is 19.7 VMT per capita.

Cumulative VMT Analysis
Increasingly, the comparison of Existing and Existing Plus Project VMT analysis scenarios has been recognized to result in an evaluation of the worst‐case scenario. Such a result is a byproduct of the fact that cumulative analyses include additional developments, which typically have the effect of shortening trips, as the proximity of complementary land uses improves with increasing densities (i.e., houses are closer to shopping opportunities, houses are closer to employment opportunities, etc.). According to State guidelines, when a significant impact is determined under Existing Plus Project conditions, a Cumulative analysis may be required. Therefore, a Cumulative VMT analysis was also performed for the proposed project, the details of which are discussed under Impact 4.10-6.

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

4.10-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

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

The proposed project would include subdivision of the 279.3-acre project site into 440 lots, new entry points along Raymer Way, connection to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision through an extension of Edington Drive, a new connection to Thornburg Way, and associated improvements. The proposed project’s internal circulation system would consist of several drive aisles with circulation to all residences within the subdivision. The project would include construction of five-foot attached sidewalks and three-foot gutters along the majority of internal streets. Sixfoot margins along the sides of each street would allow for street parking. Additionally,

0.45-acre of the project site would be designated green infrastructure which would include enhanced landscaped areas and trails with connection to surrounding parks.

The following discussions evaluate whether the proposed project would result in inconsistencies with the City’s LOS standard or impacts from modifying Centennial Drive or to existing or planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities and services within the project vicinity.

Consistency with LOS Standard
As detailed above, as a result of SB 743, local jurisdictions may no longer rely on vehicle LOS and similar measures related to delay as the basis for determining the significance of transportation impacts under CEQA. However, because the City considers LOS a matter of General Plan policy, a nexus exists for requiring a project to ensure General Plan consistency through project conditions of approval. Per General Plan Policy C.1.2, the City seeks to maintain operations on all roadways and intersections at LOS D or better, including peak travel times, unless maintaining LOS D would, in the City’s judgement, be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals. For the purposes of the TIA’s analysis, inconsistency with applicable LOS standards under Existing Plus Project conditions is determined if a roadway or signalized intersection previously operating at an acceptable LOS deteriorates to an unacceptable level or if the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c ratio) increases as a result of the proposed project by more than 0.05 at a roadway or signalized intersection already operating at unacceptable LOS. For unsignalized intersections, inconsistency with applicable LOS standards is determined if the intersection under Existing Plus Project conditions deteriorates from an acceptable to an unacceptable LOS or if the intersection meets a traffic signal warrant and would have an increase in delay by more than five seconds.

The TIA analyzed 17 roadway segments in the project vicinity and concluded LOS of 15 segments under Existing Plus Project conditions would continue at acceptable conditions. The remaining two roadway segments (Sunrise Boulevard, between Douglas Road and SR 16; and Grant Line Road, between Raymer Way and Douglas Road) already operate below the applicable standard at LOS F and E, respectively.

Under Existing Plus Project conditions, neither segments’ v/c ratio would increase by more than 0.05. Therefore, the TIA determined LOS of all roadway segments following implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with applicable LOS standards.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

However, out of the 22 intersections analyzed in the TIA, two intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS under Existing Plus Project conditions: the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection and the Grant Line Road/Raymer Way intersection (see Table

4.10-2).

Table 4.10-2
Existing Plus Project Unacceptable Intersection LOS
ID Intersection Control
Peak
Hour Delay (sec) LOS
Existing Conditions
17 SR 16/Grant
Line Road Signal AM 90.9 F
PM 108.5 F
20 Grant Line
Road/Raymer
Way
SSSC
AM 2.2 (37 EB) E
PM 0.7 (28.1 EB) D
Existing Plus Project
17 SR 16/Grant
Line Road Signal AM 103.7 F
PM 120.4 F
20 Grant Line
Road/Raymer
Way
SSSC
AM 146.3 (606 EB) F
PM 84.1 (545 EB) F
Source: Kimley-Horn. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Preserve, City of Rancho Cordova, California. November 4, 2020.

Therefore, to ensure the aforementioned intersection’s consistency with the City’s acceptable LOS standard set forth in the General Plan, the City shall require the project, if approved, to implement the following conditions of approval:
• The applicant shall pay a fair share of required improvements to the the SR 16/Grant Line Road intersection 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 all intersections identified in the TIA operate in accordance with General Plan Policy C.1.2 under Existing Plus Project conditions.

Centennial Drive
The Centennial Drive Memorandum prepared for the proposed project assessed the potential impacts that could result from modifying Centennial Drive, a future roadway included in the General Plan and depicted in the Circulation Element’s Circulation Plan with Roadway System and Sizing map (see Figure 4.10-2). If constructed as portrayed, Centennial Drive would consist of four lanes and run through the project site in an east-west direction. As noted in the Circulation Element, the City’s future circulation system, of which Centennial Drive would be a part, has been designed to create a complete transportation network that links together all parts of the City’s Planning Area through a variety of interconnected and overlapping modes and travel options.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

However, as part of the proposed project’s General Plan Amendment (GPA), the stretch of Centennial Drive previously planned to run through the project site would not be constructed. Therefore, the Centennial Drive Memorandum evaluates the potential effects of eliminating the portion of Centennial Drive that would have run through the project site.

As part of analyzing the effects of modifying Centennial Drive, two versions of the City’s TDM were run to predict 2035 traffic volumes along project vicinity roadways, the first version of the model without modifications to Centennial Drive and the second version with the stretch of Centennial Drive between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road removed. The resulting volumes from the two model runs were compared.

The largest daily volume increase as a result of modifying Centennial Drive would occur along White Rock Road, immediately west of Grant Line Road. The largest daily volume decrease would be along the stretch of Centennial Drive that would still be constructed, immediately west of Americanos Boulevard. Minimal daily volume differences would occur along Sunrise Boulevard and Rancho Cordova Parkway. As shown in Figure 4.10-3, volumes are expected to fluctuate between increasing by almost 6,500 daily vehicles along White Rock Road to decreasing by 6,600 daily vehicles along Centennial Drive. However, the Centennial Drive Memorandum concluded the change in daily volumes would not noticeably affect operations along any roadway segment.

Additionally, the Centennial Drive Memorandum included an LOS analysis for select roadways in the vicinity of Centennial Drive, both with and without the Centennial Drive connection between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road. Based on the evaluation, roadways are expected to operate in accordance with applicable LOS standards, both with and without the Centennial Drive connection between Americanos Boulevard and Grant Line Road. The results of the LOS analysis are included in Table 4.10-3. Furthermore, the Centennial Drive Memorandum included a follow-up LOS analysis of previously analyzed roadway segments from the Rio del Oro Specific Plan EIR9 (see Table 4.10-4) to determine to what extent modifying Centennial Drive would affect the previously evaluated roadways’ consistency with applicable LOS standards. The evaluation included analysis of SR 16. Based on the results (see Table 4.10-5), the modification of Centennial Drive would not result in any new inconsistencies with applicable LOS standards from what was previously identified in the Rio del Oro Specific Plan EIR.

Finally, the Centennial Drive Memorandum included a VMT assessment that specifically addresses the impact of modifying Centennial Drive (potential VMT impacts from implementing the proposed project are discussed in further detail under Impact 4.10-2). The assessment included the regional (SACOG) VMT for the model runs with and without the Centennial Drive extension and found that VMT was reduced by 6,820 without the Centennial Drive extension; however, it should be noted that the difference reflects a 0.008‐percent difference in regional VMT. The model used to perform the analysis includes an iterative process for assigning traffic to the model network. As such, an inherent randomness was introduced, and, thus, the difference should be considered as indication that the removal of Centennial Drive would result in a negligible difference to regional VMT.
9 EDAW, Inc. Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final EIR. June 24, 2010.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.10-2
City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Circulation Plan with Roadway System and Sizing Source: City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan. June 26, 2006.

Centennial
Drive Within
Project Site
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4.10-3
2035 Daily Volume Change Without Centennial Drive
Eliminated
Portion of
Centennial
Drive
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.10-3
2035 Centennial Drive Modification LOS Analysis
ID Roadway Segment Daily Volume V/C Ratio LOS
With Centennial Drive
1 Douglas Road Mather Blvd. to Sunrise Blvd. 36,880 0.68 B 2 Douglas Road Rancho Cordova Pkwy. to Americanos Blvd. 17,550 0.49 A 3 Douglas Road Americanos Blvd. to Grant Line Road 15,770 0.44 A 4 White Rock Road Sunrise Blvd. to Rancho Cordova Pkwy. 31,510 0.58 A 5 White Rock Road Americanos Blvd. to Grant Line Road 22,940 0.42 A 6 White Rock Road Grant Line Road to Prairie City Road 59,900 0.83 D 7 Sunrise Blvd. White Rock Road to Douglas Road 47,780 0.88 C 8 Grant Line Road White Rock Road to Douglas Road 48,230 0.67 B 9 Rancho Cordova Pkwy. White Rock Road to Rio Del Oro Pkwy. 33,170 0.61 B 10 Rancho Cordova Pkwy. Rio Del Oro Pkwy. To Douglas Road 17,680 0.49 A 11 Americanos Blvd. International Road to Centennial Drive 11,170 0.62 B 12 Americanos Blvd. Centennial Drive to Douglas Road 10,070 0.56 A Without Centennial Drive
1 Douglas Road Mather Blvd. to Sunrise Blvd. 36,840 0.68 B 2 Douglas Road Rancho Cordova Pkwy. to Americanos Blvd. 18,230 0.51 A 3 Douglas Road Americanos Blvd. to Grant Line Road 17,250 0.48 A 4 White Rock Road Sunrise Blvd. to Rancho Cordova Pkwy. 32,080 0.59 A 5 White Rock Road Americanos Blvd. to Grant Line Road 27,500 0.51 A 6 White Rock Road Grant Line Road to Prairie City Road 52,540 0.73 C 7 Sunrise Blvd. White Rock Road to Douglas Road 47,760 0.88 C 8 Grant Line Road White Rock Road to Douglas Road 51,600 0.72 C 9 Rancho Cordova Pkwy. White Rock Road to Rio Del Oro Pkwy. 33,170 0.61 B 10 Rancho Cordova Pkwy. Rio Del Oro Pkwy. To Douglas Road 17,790 0.49 A 11 Americanos Blvd. International Road to Centennial Drive 8,330 0.46 A 12 Americanos Blvd. Centennial Drive to Douglas Road 10,240 0.57 A Source: Kimley-Horn. Memorandum: The Preserve Centennial Drive Considerations. August 16, 2021.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.10-4
LOS of Rio del Oro Specific Plan EIR Roadways Without Modification to Centennial Drive ID Roadway From To Lanes
Daily
Volume
LOS
Standard V/C Ratio LOS
LOS
Standard
1 SR 16 Excelsior Rd. Eagles Nest Road 2 12,900 18,000 0.72 C D 2 SR 16 Sunrise Blvd. Grant Line Road 2 17,500 18,000 0.97 E E 3 Kiefer Blvd. Grant Line Rd. SR 16 2 2,100 17,000 0.12 B E 4 Mather Blvd. Femoyer St. Douglas Road 2 20,500 18,000 1.14 F D 5 Douglas Rd. Mather Blvd. Sunrise Blvd. 2 25,400 18,000 1.41 F D 7 International Dr. White Rock Rd. Zinfandel Dr. 4 17,800 36,000 0.49 A D 8 International Dr. Zinfandel Dr. Kilgore Road 4 14,200 36,000 0.39 A D 9 White Rock Rd. Zinfandel Dr. Sunrise Blvd. 6 45,100 54,000 0.84 D D 10 White Rock Rd. Sunrise Blvd. Grant Line Road 2 20,900 18,000 1.16 F D 11 Zinfandel Dr. White Rock Rd. International Dr. 6 23,200 54,000 0.43 A D 12 Sunrise Blvd. Gold Country Blvd. Coloma Rd. 6 92,500 54,000 1.71 F D 13 Sunrise Blvd. Coloma Rd. US 50 6 102,500 54,000 1.90 F D 14 Sunrise Blvd. US 50 Folsom Blvd. 6 82,900 54,000 1.54 F D 15 Sunrise Blvd. Folsom Blvd. White Rock Rd. 6 77,300 54,000 1.43 F D 16 Sunrise Blvd. White Rock Rd. Douglas Road 4 65,600 36,000 1.82 F D 18 Sunrise Blvd. SR 16 Grant Line Road 2 22,400 18,000 1.24 F E 19 Grant Line Road White Rock Rd. Douglas Road 2 10,500 18,000 0.58 A D 20 Grant Line Road Douglas Rd. SR 16 2 7,800 18,000 0.43 A D 21 Grant Line Road SR 16 Sunrise Blvd. 2 6,200 18,000 0.34 A E 22 Douglas Rd. Sunrise Blvd. Jaeger Rd. 4 29,700 36,000 0.83 D D 23 Douglas Rd. Americanos Blvd. Grant Line Road 2 6,500 18,000 0.36 A D 24 Sunrise Blvd. Douglas Rd. Keifer Blvd. 4 39,900 36,000 1.11 F D 25 Sunrise Blvd. Keifer Blvd. SR 16 4 33,800 36,000 0.94 E D Source: Kimley-Horn. Memorandum: The Preserve Centennial Drive Considerations. August 16, 2021.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 4.10-5
LOS of Rio del Oro Specific Plan EIR Roadways with Modification to Centennial Drive ID Roadway From To Lanes
Daily
Volume
Volume
Difference V/C Ratio LOS
LOS
Standard
1 SR 16 Excelsior Rd. Eagles Nest Road 2 12,950 50 0.72 C D 2 SR 16 Sunrise Blvd. Grant Line Road 2 17,550 50 0.98 E E 3 Kiefer Blvd. Grant Line Rd. SR 16 2 2,100 0 0.12 B E
4 Mather Blvd. Femoyer St. Douglas Road 2 20,590 90 1.14 F D 5 Douglas Rd. Mather Blvd. Sunrise Blvd. 2 25,350 -50 1.41 F D 7 International Dr. White Rock Rd. Zinfandel Dr. 4 14,800 -3,000 0.41 A D 8 International Dr. Zinfandel Dr. Kilgore Road 4 13,700 -500 0.38 A D 9 White Rock Rd. Zinfandel Dr. Sunrise Blvd. 6 45,500 400 0.84 D D 10 White Rock Rd. Sunrise Blvd. Grant Line Road 2 27,370 6,470 1.52 F D 11 Zinfandel Dr. White Rock Rd. International Dr. 6 22,700 -500 0.42 A D 12 Sunrise Blvd. Gold Country Blvd. Coloma Rd. 6 92,440 -60 1.71 F D 13 Sunrise Blvd. Coloma Rd. US 50 6 102,470 -30 1.90 F D 14 Sunrise Blvd. US 50 Folsom Blvd. 6 82,960 60 1.54 F D 15 Sunrise Blvd. Folsom Blvd. White Rock Rd. 6 77,450 150 1.43 F D 16 Sunrise Blvd. White Rock Rd. Douglas Road 4 65,540 -60 1.82 F D 18 Sunrise Blvd. SR 16 Grant Line Road 2 22,450 50 1.25 F E 19 Grant Line Road White Rock Rd. Douglas Road 2 15,290 4,790 0.85 D D 20 Grant Line Road Douglas Rd. SR 16 2 8,100 300 0.45 A D 21 Grant Line Road SR 16 Sunrise Blvd. 2 6,210 10 0.35 A E 22 Douglas Rd. Sunrise Blvd. Jaeger Rd. 4 30,500 800 0.85 D D 23 Douglas Rd. Americanos Blvd. Grant Line Road 2 9,020 2,520 0.50 A D 24 Sunrise Blvd. Douglas Rd. Keifer Blvd. 4 40,020 120 1.11 F D 25 Sunrise Blvd. Keifer Blvd. SR 16 4 33,870 70 0.94 E D Source: Kimley-Horn. Memorandum: The Preserve Centennial Drive Considerations. August, 2021.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Based on the above information, the modification of Centennial Drive as depicted in the General Plan’s Circulation Element would not significantly impact the roadway network. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities
Due to the rural nature of the project site, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities are minimal in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Raymer Way does not include bike lanes or sidewalks. The small stretch of Americanos Boulevard that connects to Edington Drive south of the project site includes bike lanes along both sides of the roadway and also features a sidewalk on the northbound side. Nevertheless, the proposed project includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities, consistent with policies contained in the General Plan’s Circulation Element. The proposed project would also implement the Morrison Creek Trail, which was identified in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan as a future improvement in the project vicinity and would generally be located to the north of the project site, where the Bicycle Master Plan previously planned for a Class I Bike Path to be located. The Morrison Creek Trail would start at Grant Line Road and generally proceed in an east-to-west direction along Raymer Way before connecting to the north of the project site’s neighborhood parks, where the trail would then shift in a southern direction and end at the project site’s southwestern corner. As previously discussed, the project site’s internal street would also include sidewalks, consistent with applicable standards.

Transit services would not be available within the project site; however, from the proposed project’s extension of the Edington Drive stub street, the nearest SRT bus stop would be only 1.5 miles to the southeast, near the Borderlands Drive/Canyonlands Drive intersection, providing residents of the proposed project access to SRT Route 175.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not conflict with any programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Conclusion
Based on the above information, the aforementioned conditions of approval would ensure the proposed project is consistent with applicable LOS standards; the modification of Centennial Drive as depicted in the General Plan’s Circulation Element would not create inconsistencies with the roadway network LOS standards; and the proposed project’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan’s Circulation Element and the long-range vision depicted in the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Additionally, the proposed project would be located only 1.5 miles from the nearest SRT bus stop. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.10-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) under Existing Plus Project
conditions. Based on the analysis below, even with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is significant and unavoidable.

Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines states that generally, VMT is the most appropriate measure for evaluating the transportation impacts of a project. Per Section 15064.3(b), VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. As mentioned above, for residential development projects requiring a detailed evaluation of the VMT produced by the project, consistent with OPR guidance, this study established the threshold for determination of a significant VMT impact as 15 percent below the regional average VMT per capita, which is 19.7 VMT per capita for the project region. Residential development projects exceeding the threshold would be considered to result in a significant impact. According to the VMT Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, implementation of the project’s 440 residential units would result in a VMT per capita of 23.3 (see Table 4.10-6). Thus, the proposed project would exceed the applicable threshold of 19.7.

Table 4.10-6
Project VMT Per Capita
Trip Type Internal VMT External VMT Total VMT
Origin 15,157 610 15,767
Destination 14,677 604 15,281
Total 29,834 1,214 31,048
Total Population 1,333
VMT Per Capita 23.3
Threshold 19.7
Exceeds Threshold? Yes
Source: Kimley-Horn. The Preserve, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation. August 16, 2021.

As detailed in the VMT Evaluation, mitigation strategies were considered to reduce the project’s VMT per capita below the applicable threshold. However, as the project site is located in a developing area with only vacant land and other residential communities, the area offers only limited alternatives to driving for work or shopping needs and restrictions are not placed on parking. In addition, the area’s limited access to transit and the inability to implement strategies related to employment and commuting further restricts the proposed project’s ability to reduce VMT per capita.

Without sufficient mitigation, the impact would be considered significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

4.10-2(a) Prior to approval of Improvement Plans, the project applicant shall include in the Improvement Plan submittal a Trail System Plan detailing the applicant’s construction of a portion of the regional trail system in the vicinity of the project site. The Trail System Plan shall be subject to ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

review and approval by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department.

4.10-2(b) Prior to the recording of a Final Map, the project applicant shall pay a fair share contribution to provide monetary support for the City’s transportation services, as determined by the City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department. The charges for residential and non-residential development will fund these transportation services as determined appropriate by the City Council. Supplemental transportation services may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Transit Shuttle – shuttle for residents and/or employees between residential areas, employment centers, shopping and service centers and light rail stations and/or other public transit options;
• Guaranteed Ride Home – free taxi rides and rental cars for ride sharers in case of an emergency;
• Transit Subsidies – financial assistance to encourage residents and employees to use transit or other alternative transportation measures;
• Transportation Plans for employers and/or resident groups – plans which guide employers and resident groups on the
implementation of trip reduction programs, such as ride share matching or other similar programs;
• Education Programs – various programs such as education of transit options, home office set up, alternative commute opportunities;
• Infrastructure Support – additional bike racks and lockers, transportation alternative and ride share informational boards/kiosks, and transit facilities;
• Transportation Coordinator Training and Support – instruction in mobility (transportation alternatives) for residential groups and work site coordinators; and
• Bicycle and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentives – incentives for purchasing new bicycles or alternative fuel vehicles.

4.10-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). Based on the
analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would include new entry points along Raymer Way, connection to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision through an extension of Edington Drive, a new connection to Thornburg Way, and associated improvements.

The proposed project’s internal circulation system would consist of several drive aisles with circulation to all residences within the subdivision. The project would include construction of sidewalks and gutters per applicable standards along the internal streets. Six-foot margins along the sides of each street would allow for street parking.

Additionally, 0.45-acre of the project site would be designated green infrastructure ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

which would include enhanced landscaped areas and trails with connection to surrounding parks.

The proposed project’s street frontage, roadways, and access points would be designed in accordance with all applicable standards established in the City’s Municipal Code. Such standards would include, but not be limited to, Section

12.03.020, which includes requirements related to street improvements; Section

12.12.010 and Section 12.12.020, which pertain to prohibited obstructions at private driveways, public streets, and public street intersections; Section 22.25.050, which establishes provisions for filing a complete application for a tentative map; Section

22.110.040 and Section 22.110.045, which include design standards for primary and minor residential streets; and Section 23.141.020, which pertains to major design review requirements for single-family subdivisions. As such, all designs of the proposed project related to transportation would be required to meet City regulations, which would ensure the proposed project does not substantially increase danger from hazardous roadway design features.

Additionally, the proposed project, through the City’s approval of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone, would be compatible with land uses surrounding the site. As such, the project would not be anticipated to increase hazards through incompatible uses. While equipment and vehicles related to construction activities would be present during the construction period of the project, such vehicles and equipment would only be temporarily on-site and would be clearly marked by warning signs and barriers to prevent hazardous interactions with members of the public.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not conflict with any design standards protecting against transportation-related hazards, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.10-4 Result in inadequate emergency access. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

As mentioned above, the proposed project’s street frontage, roadways, and access points would be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable standards established in the City’s Municipal Code. Such standards would include, but not be limited to, Section 22.110.040 and Section 22.110.045, which include standards related to street design of primary and minor residential streets such that emergency vehicles and police patrol would not be compromised from adequately accessing a residential subdivision. As such, all designs of the proposed project related to transportation and emergency access would be required to meet City standards and regulations.

The proposed project would include two entry points from Raymer Way, as well as connection to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision by way of an extension of Edington Drive and a new connection to Thornburg Way. The streets would be between 32 and 50 feet wide (curb to curb), which would allow for emergency ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

vehicle access within the minimum 20-foot street width requirement. The internal circulation system would consist of several drive aisles with circulation to all residences within the subdivision.

Concerns brought forth in the comment letters and verbal comments on the scope of the EIR during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) public review period included concerns related to an increase in emergency response times due to increased traffic delays and congestion as a result of implementation of the proposed project. As discussed under Impact 4.10-1 and Impact 4.10-5, the project applicant, through City-required conditions of approval, would be required to construct improvements to various intersections in the project vicinity as part of the proposed project that would ensure all intersections identified in the TIA operate in accordance with General Plan Policy C.1.2. Furthermore, as discussed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, under Impact 4.9-1, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (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 the project site to Station 68, located 2.8 miles southwest of the project site. Additionally, as discussed under Impact

4.9-2 of this EIR, 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 Rancho Cordova Police Department have confirmed that, given payment of applicable development impact fees, impacts related to police protection are not anticipated. Finally, as previously mentioned, the project applicant would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to ensure that emergency vehicles and police patrol would not be compromised from adequately accessing a residential subdivision. Altogether, the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access or an increase in emergency response times due to increased traffic delays and congestion.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not hinder emergency access to the site to the extent that access would be deemed inadequate, and a lessthan-significant 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.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

4.10-5 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) under Cumulative Plus Project
conditions. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

As cumulative development occurs within the City of Rancho Cordova in accordance with the City’s General Plan, traffic volumes along local roadways would increase relative to existing conditions, potentially resulting in impacts to roadway facilities along US 50 and City intersections. However, as the proximity of complementary land uses improves through increased density, shortened trips typically result as a byproduct. The VMT Evaluation prepared for the proposed project included a VMT per capita analysis of Cumulative Plus Project conditions. As shown in Table 4.10-7, the proposed project would result in a VMT per capita of 17.1 under such conditions, which is below the applicable threshold of 19.7 VMT per capita. Thus, the proposed project would not exceed the applicable threshold under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.

Table 4.10-7
Cumulative Project VMT Per Capita
Trip Type Internal VMT External VMT Total VMT
Origin 10,943 532 11,475
Destination 10,816 528 11,343
Total 21,759 1,059 22,828
Total Population 1,333
VMT Per Capita 17.1
Threshold 19.7
Exceeds Threshold? No
Source: Kimley-Horn. The Preserve, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation. November 4, 2020.

Based on the above information, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) under Cumulative Plus Project conditions, and the proposed project’s cumulative impact would be lessthan-significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

5. Statutorily Required Sections
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The Statutorily Required Sections chapter of the EIR includes discussions regarding those topics that are required to be included in an EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2. The chapter includes a discussion of the proposed project’s potential to result in growth-inducing impacts; the cumulative setting analyzed in this EIR; significant irreversible environmental changes; and significant and unavoidable impacts caused by the proposed project.

5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) requires an EIR to evaluate the potential growthinducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, an EIR must discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or by encouraging and/or facilitating other activities that could induce growth. Examples of projects likely to have growthinducing 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 CEQA Guidelines are clear that while an analysis of growth-inducing effects is required, it should not be assumed that induced growth is necessarily significant or adverse. This analysis examines the following potential growth-inducing impacts related to implementation of the proposed project and assesses whether these effects are significant and adverse (see CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2[d]):

1. Foster population and economic growth and construction of housing.

2. Eliminate obstacles to population growth.

3. Affect service levels, facility capacity, or infrastructure demand.

4. Encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.

Foster Population and Economic Growth and Construction of Housing As discussed in Chapter 4.7, Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing, of this EIR, development of the site with 440 single-family residential units would increase the available housing within the Rancho Cordova area, which would be expected to increase population in the area. Based on socioeconomic characteristics of developments in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the proposed project is projected to result in a potential population increase of 1,333 residents. 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. Given that the Grant Line West Planning Area is primarily vacant, the population growth resulting from the proposed project would be within the Grant Line West Planning Area population estimates. As noted on page 4.7-15 of Chapter 4.7, the proposed project would be included within the growth projections of the City of Rancho Cordova conducted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation

5. STATUTORILY REQUIRED SECTIONS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Because buildout of the City, including the proposed project, has been anticipated in regional development forecasts, implementation of the proposed project would not result in unplanned population growth within the project area.

Furthermore, the infrastructure included in the proposed project would be sized to accommodate buildout of the proposed project.

While construction of the proposed project would result in increased construction employment opportunities, 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 proposed 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, permanent jobs would not be created by the proposed project.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in long-term employment growth in the area.

Appendix G of CEQA Guidelines has been recently amended to clarify that unplanned population growth would be considered a potentially significant impact. However, growth that is planned, and the environmental effects of which have been analyzed in connection with a land use plan or a regional plan, should not by itself be considered an impact. Consequently, the proposed project would result in population growth of the Grant Line West Planning Area, but such growth would be within the buildout projections for the Grant Line West Planning Area, and within growth projections for unincorporated areas within the City of Rancho Cordova. Thus, while the project would foster population and economic growth, such growth would be similar to what has been previously anticipated for the project region, and a less-than-significant impact related to population and economic growth would occur.

Eliminate Obstacles to Population Growth
The elimination of either physical or regulatory obstacles to growth is considered to be a growthinducing effect. A physical obstacle to growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. The extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that are not currently provided with these services, would be expected to support new development. Similarly, the elimination or change to a regulatory obstacle, including existing growth and development policies, could result in new growth.

As discussed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, the proposed project would include connection of new eight-inch water mains to an existing 10-inch water main located within Edington Drive, and new or expanded regional infrastructure would not be required. Water conveyance systems needed for the proposed project would be constructed on-site, and would be financed by the project applicant. Consequently, the construction of on-site water infrastructure would not be anticipated to result in elimination of obstacles to population growth.

As also discussed in Chapter 4.9 of this EIR, the proposed project would include two new on-site sewer connections to the existing eight-inch sewer lines within Edington Drive and Thornberg Way. The existing sewer lines connect to the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) interceptor system, which carries wastewater directly to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP). Per the Sewer Study prepared for the proposed project, wastewater generated from the proposed project (0.136 million gallons per day) would constitute ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

only 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 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. Because City wastewater conveyance facilities currently exist in the project area and would not require the construction of new or expanded infrastructure due to development of the proposed project, the proposed project would not eliminate obstacles to growth that were not previously anticipated for the area.

In regard to roadway improvements, the proposed project would eliminate the possibility of an east-west extension of Centennial Drive through the project site, which is depicted in the Circulation Element of the City’s Circulation Plan. The removal of this planned roadway improvement could constitute an obstacle to population growth; however, the proposed project would also include several roadway improvements, including the development of new entry points along Raymer Way, an extension of Edington Drive, a new connection to Thornburg Way, and several new drive aisles which would provide internal circulation with access to all residences within the proposed subdivision. While the proposed roadway extensions would eliminate physical obstacles to undeveloped areas, the areas are already planned for development. As discussed in Chapter 4.7, Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing, of this EIR, 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 sf of commercial uses, and 143,684 sf of office uses. In addition, the SACOG 2020 MTP/SCS has anticipated the addition of 13,421 residential units to the City’s housing stock by 2035. Because the surrounding area would result in population growth with or without the proposed project, the extension and construction of the roadways proposed as part of the project would not be considered the elimination of an obstacle to population growth.

Based on the above, the roadway and utility improvements included as part of the proposed project have been generally anticipated by the City and planned for based on regional growth estimates provided by SACOG. Thus, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact in regard to eliminating obstacles to population growth.

Affect Service Levels, Facility Capacity, or Infrastructure Demand Increases in population that would occur as a result of a proposed project may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts. As discussed in Chapter 4.9, Public Services and Utilities, of this EIR, increased demands for fire and police protection services attributable to the proposed project would necessitate the need for additional resources for the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District and the Rancho Cordova Police Department. However, the project applicant would be subject to payment of development fees and contribution to tax revenue funds, including the Capital Fire Facilities Fee and the City’s applicable Community Facilities Fee. As such, impacts to fire and law enforcement services would be considered fully mitigated with payment of such fees. In addition, wastewater generated by the proposed project could be accommodated by existing wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure, and existing water supply infrastructure exists to accommodate the domestic and fire flow demands associated with the proposed project.

The landfill that would serve the proposed project has adequate capacity to manage the solid waste generated as a result of the project. Furthermore, mitigation measures set forth in Chapter

4.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR would ensure that the proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the City’s stormwater drainage ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

systems. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase population such that service levels, facility capacity, or infrastructure demand would require construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts.

Encourage or Facilitate other Activities That Could Significantly Affect the Environment
This EIR provides a comprehensive assessment of the potential for environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Please refer to Chapters 4.1 through

4.10, of this EIR, as well as the attached Initial Study (see Appendix A), which evaluate the potential for impacts from urban development on the project site.

5.3 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 requires that an EIR discuss the cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed project that adversely affect the environment. “Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). “[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, subd. [a]). “The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355, subd. [b]).

The need for cumulative impact assessment reflects the fact that, although a project may cause an “individually limited” or “individually minor” incremental impact that, by itself, is not significant, the increment may be “cumulatively considerable,” and, thus, significant, when viewed together with environmental changes anticipated from past, present, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, subd. [h(1)], Section 15065, subd. [c], and Section 15355, subd. [b]).

Accordingly, particular impacts may be less than significant on a project-specific basis but significant on a cumulative basis if their small incremental contribution, viewed against the larger backdrop, is cumulatively considerable. However, it should be noted that CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064, Subdivision (h)(5) states, “[…]the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.” Therefore, even where cumulative impacts are significant, any level of incremental contribution is not necessarily deemed cumulatively considerable.

Section 15130(b) of CEQA Guidelines indicates that the level of detail of the cumulative analysis need not be as great as for the project impact analyses, but that analysis should reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, and that the analysis should be focused, practical, and reasonable. To be adequate, a discussion of cumulative effects must include the following elements:
(1) Either (a) a list of past, present and probable future projects, including, if necessary, those outside the agency’s control, or (b) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior certified EIR, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact, provide that such documents are reference and made available for public inspection at a specified location;
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

(2) A summary of the individual projects’ environmental effects, with specific reference to additional information and stating where such information is available; and (3) A reasonable analysis of all of the relevant projects’ cumulative impacts, with an examination of reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to such effects (Section 15130[b]).

For some projects, the only feasible mitigation measures will involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations, rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis (Section 15130[c]). Section 15130(a)(3) states that an EIR may determine that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if a project is required to implement or fund the project’s fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. A discussion of cumulative impacts is provided within in each of the technical chapters of this EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130.

Cumulative Setting
The lead agency should define the relevant geographic area of inquiry for each impact category (id., Section 15130, subd. [b][3]), and should then identify the universe of “past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts” relevant to the various categories, either through the preparation of a “list” of such projects or through the use of “a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact” (id., subd. [b][1]).

As discussed above, two approaches to identifying cumulative projects and their associated impacts can be used. The “list” approach identifies individual projects known to be occurring or proposed in the surrounding area in order to identify potential cumulative impacts. The “projection” approach uses a summary of projections in adopted General Plans or related planning documents to identify potential cumulative impacts. This EIR uses the projection approach for the cumulative analysis and considers the development anticipated to occur upon buildout of the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan. Buildout of the General Plan would include development of several longrange projects, including, but not limited to, the following: the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan, the Sunridge Specific Plan, the Arboretum Specific Plan, the Suncreek Specific Plan, and the Westborough Specific Plan.

Limited situations exist where the geographic setting differs for the analysis of various resource areas. For example, the cumulative geographic setting for the air quality analysis is the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, which is the air basin that the proposed project is located within.

Global climate change is, by nature, a cumulative impact. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contribute, on a cumulative basis, to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change (e.g., sea level rise, impacts to water supply and water quality, public health impacts, impacts to ecosystems, impacts to agriculture, and other environmental impacts). A single project could not generate enough GHG emissions to contribute noticeably to a change in the global average temperature. However, the combination of GHG emissions from a project in combination with other past, present, and future projects could contribute substantially to the world-wide phenomenon of global climate change and the associated environmental impacts.

Although the geographical context for global climate change is the Earth, for analysis purposes under CEQA, and due to the regulatory context pertaining to GHG emissions and global climate ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

change applicable to the proposed project, the geographical context for global climate change in this EIR is limited to the State of California.

In addition, as discussed in Chapter 4.10, Transportation, of this EIR, the cumulative traffic analysis relied on the County of Sacramento’s traffic study guidelines and standards established by the Circulation Element of the City of Rancho Cordova’s General Plan. Based on the County’s requirements, the growth assumptions used in the traffic analysis include cumulative buildout of land uses identified in the Rancho Cordova General Plan, with and without the proposed project.

The cumulative setting for the transportation and circulation analysis also includes the anticipated roadway geometry and traffic control anticipated to be present in 2035.

Cumulative impacts are analyzed in each of the technical chapters of this EIR (Chapters 4.1 through 4.10). For those e environmental resource areas that have a different cumulative setting from the general cumulative setting described above, the specific cumulative sitting for that resource area is presented along with the cumulative impact discussion in the relevant resource area chapter of the EIR.

5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), this EIR is required to include consideration of significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project, should the project be implemented. An impact would be determined to be a significant and irreversible change in the environment if:
• Buildout of the project area could involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of development could generally commit future generations to similar uses (e.g., a highway provides access to a previously remote area); • Development of the proposed project could involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The phasing and eventual development of the project could result in an unjustified consumption of resources (e.g., the wasteful use of energy).

The proposed project would likely result in, or contribute to, the following significant irreversible environmental changes:
• Conversion of vacant land to a fully built-out residential community, thus precluding alternative land uses in the future; and
• Irreversible consumption of goods and services, such as fire, police, and school services, associated with the future population; and
• Irreversible consumption of energy and natural resources, such as water, electricity, and natural gas, associated with the future residents.

Therefore, the proposed project would likely result in significant irreversible environmental changes, as noted above.

5.5 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
According to CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable should the proposed action be implemented (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[b]). Such impacts would be considered unavoidable when the determination is ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

made that either mitigation is not feasible or only partial mitigation is feasible such that the impact is not reduced to a level that is less-than-significant.

Based on the analysis provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.10 of this EIR, the below listed impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. All other impacts identified in this EIR could be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigations imposed by the City. The final determination of the significance of impacts and the feasibility of mitigation measures would be made by the City as part of the City’s certification action.

4.10-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) under Existing Plus Project
conditions.

As noted on page 4.10-26 of Chapter 4.10, Transportation, of this EIR, according to the VMT Evaluation prepared for the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would result in a VMT per capita of 23.3, which would exceed the applicable threshold of 19.7. Considering the project site is located in a developing area surrounded by only vacant land and other residential communities, the project area offers limited alternatives to driving for work or shopping needs and restrictions are not placed on parking. In addition, the area’s limited access to transit and the inability to implement strategies related to employment and commuting further restricts the proposed project’s ability to reduce VMT per capita.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10-2(a) and (b) would reduce the impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

6. Alternatives Analysis
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The Alternatives Analysis chapter of the EIR includes consideration and discussion of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, as required per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Generally, the chapter includes discussions of the following: the purpose of an alternatives analysis; a reasonable range of project alternatives and their associated impacts in comparison to the proposed project’s impacts; and the environmentally superior alternative.

6.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
The primary intent of the alternatives evaluation in an EIR, as stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, is to “[…] describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” In the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 21061.1, “feasible” is defined as:
...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.

Section 15126.6(f) of CEQA Guidelines states, “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” Section 15126.6(f) of CEQA Guidelines further states:

The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determined could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.

In addition, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternative “cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” The CEQA Guidelines provide the following guidance for discussing alternatives to a proposed project:
• An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]).
• Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these

6. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]). • The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed.

The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination […] Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[c]). • The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. A matrix displaying the major characteristics and significant environmental effects of each alternative may be used to summarize the comparison (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]). • If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]).
• The specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project’s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][1]).
• If the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e][2]).

Project Objectives
Based on the above, reasonable alternatives to the project must be capable of feasibly attaining most of the basic objectives of the project. The following objectives have been submitted by the project applicant:

1. Consolidate the remaining parcels in the Grant Line West Planning Area of the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan in a manner that concentrates development south of Morrison Creek to avoid and minimize potential conflicts with the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.

2. Develop a residential mixed-density community that is consistent with the General Plan conceptual land use designation for the Grant Line West Planning Area.

3. Develop a residential community that is contiguous to and compatible with adjacent existing development and that provides a range of housing choices.

4. Utilize existing utility capacity for maximum efficiency.

5. Develop a residential community that can provide timely housing to help meet current demand.

6. Contribute to the overall bicycle and pedestrian connectivity of the City by building key components of the regional trail system and providing strong connections for both existing and future residents.

7. Enhance the City’s network of parks, trails, and open spaces for the enjoyment of all residents.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

6.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The requirement that an EIR evaluate alternatives to the proposed project or alternatives to the location of the proposed project is a broad one; the primary intent of the alternatives analysis is to disclose other ways that the objectives of the project could be attained, while reducing the magnitude of, or avoiding, one or more of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives that are included and evaluated in the EIR must be feasible alternatives.

However, the CEQA Guidelines require the EIR to “set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” As stated in Section 15126.6(a), an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition for “a range of reasonable alternatives” and thus limit the number and type of alternatives that may need to be evaluated in a given EIR. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f):

The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determined could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.

First and foremost, alternatives in an EIR must be feasible. In the context of CEQA Guidelines Section 21061.1, “feasible” is defined as:
...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.

Finally, an EIR is not required to analyze alternatives when the effects of the alternative “cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR
The following alternatives are evaluated in this section:

1. No Project Alternative;

2. Reduced VMT Alternative; and

3. Reduced Footprint Alternative.

Each of the project alternatives is described in detail below, with a corresponding analysis of each alternative’s consistency with the project objectives and evaluation of impacts to the existing environment in comparison to the proposed project’s identified impacts. While an effort has been made to include quantitative data for certain analytical topics, where possible, qualitative comparisons of the various alternatives to the project are primarily provided. Such an approach to the analysis is appropriate as evidenced by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(d), which states that the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. The analysis evaluates impacts that would occur with the alternatives relative to the significant impacts identified for the proposed project. When comparing the potential impacts resulting from implementation of the foregoing alternatives, the following terminology is used:
• “Fewer” = Less than Proposed Project;
• “Similar” = Similar to Proposed Project; and
• “Greater” = Greater than Proposed Project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

When the term “fewer” is used, the reader should not necessarily equate this to elimination of significant impacts identified for the proposed project. For example, in many cases, an alternative would reduce the relative intensity of a significant impact identified for the proposed project, but the impact would still be expected to remain significant under the alternative, thereby requiring mitigation. In other cases, the use of the term “fewer” may mean the actual elimination of an impact identified for the proposed project altogether. Similarly, use of the term “greater” does not necessarily imply that an alternative would require additional mitigation beyond what has been required for the proposed project. To the extent possible, this analysis will distinguish between the two implications of the comparative words “fewer” and “greater”.

See Table 6-1 at the end of this chapter for a comparison of the environmental impacts resulting from the considered alternatives and the proposed project.

1. No Project Alternative
The following section includes an overview providing background related to this alternative, a description of this alternative, an evaluation of the alternative’s consistency with project objectives, and an impact comparison analysis.

Overview
CEQA requires the evaluation of the comparative impacts of the “No Project” alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). Analysis of the no project alternative shall:
“… discuss […] existing conditions […] as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.” (Id., subd. [e][2]) “If the project is other than a land use or regulatory plan, for example a development project on identifiable property, the ‘no project’ alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in the property’s existing state versus environmental effects that would occur if the project were approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no project’ consequence should be discussed. In certain instances, the no project alternative means ‘no build,’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.

However, where failure to proceed with the project would not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project's non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (Id., subd. [e][3][B]).

Description of Alternative
For the purposes of this analysis, the No Project Alternative assumes the project site would remain in its current condition. Currently, the southern portion of the site contains two single-family residences and associated outbuildings. An orchard is located within the northeastern portion of the site. A third single-family residence and associated outbuildings exist within the northwestern portion of the site. The remainder of the site consists primarily of non-native grasses, scattered trees, and associated access roads. The site is characterized by moderate rolling hills and flatlands interspersed with seasonal drainage corridors and wetlands. Morrison Creek runs northeast to southwest through the project site.

Because the No Project Alternative would result in the continuance of current on-site conditions, it is reasonable to assume that, for the time being, the site would remain generally undeveloped.

However, the alternative’s nullification of the proposed project would eventually impact the future ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

construction of Centennial Drive. As depicted in Figure C-1, Circulation Plan with Roadway System and Sizing, of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the City has planned for the future construction of Centennial Drive, which would include a roadway portion that runs through the project site. Under the proposed project, the General Plan Amendment (GPA) would amend the General Plan to no longer include the construction of this portion of Centennial Drive.

However, without the proposed project, the General Plan would not need to be amended to accommodate the project. Therefore, without the GPA, Centennial Drive would be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element. Centennial Drive would be expected to accommodate vehicles from land uses in the project site’s vicinity, including the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision to the south, a Teichert Aggregates Aggregate/Asphaltic Concrete site across Grant Line Road to the east, and the eventual Rio Del Oro residential community to the west.

Consistency with Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the objectives because the alternative would not consolidate the remaining parcels in the Grant Line West Planning Area in a manner that concentrates development south of Morrison Creek to avoid and minimize potential conflicts with the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan; develop a residential mixed-density community that is consistent with the General Plan conceptual land use designation for the Grant Line West Planning Area; develop a residential community that is contiguous to and compatible with adjacent existing development and that provides a range of housing choices; utilize existing utility capacity for maximum efficiency; develop a residential community that can provide timely housing to help meet current demand; contribute to the overall bicycle and pedestrian connectivity of the City by building key components of the regional trail system and providing strong connections for both existing and future residents; or enhance the City’s network of parks, trails, and open spaces for the enjoyment of all residents.

Impacts of Alternative
The following provides a discussion evaluating the impacts of this alternative on baseline conditions as compared to the impacts of the proposed project on baseline conditions for each impact area addressed within this EIR.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain relatively free of development and would be consistent with the predominantly rural nature currently exhibited by the site. The subdivision of the site into 440 single-family residential lots, construction of neighborhood roadways, implementation of two park areas, and associated improvements would not occur. As a result, Mitigation Measure 4.1-7, which requires the purchase of carbon offsets to address impacts related to GHG emissions associated with the proposed project, would not be required.

However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element and would be expected to accommodate vehicles from land uses in the project vicinity, including the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision to the south, a Teichert Aggregates Aggregate/Asphaltic Concrete site across Grant Line Road to the east, and the eventual Rio Del Oro residential community to the west. While construction of the roadway would result in GHG emissions from construction, the alternative would generate fewer total GHG emissions as compared to the proposed project, as the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would include emissions from construction and operation of the residences as well as emissions from the new vehicle trips ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

associated with operation of the residences. Conversely, GHG emissions associated with operation of Centennial Drive would not result in net new emissions, as the roadway would largely accommodate existing traffic and traffic already planned for the area. In fact, the operation of Centennial Drive through the project site has to potential to reduce regional VMT and associated GHG emissions. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Biological Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped and would be consistent with the predominantly rural nature currently exhibited by the site, as the currently proposed project’s components would not be implemented. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.2- 1 through 4.2-10 and 4.2-12, which address impacts to on-site biological resources associated with the proposed project, would not be required. However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element, and would accommodate existing traffic and traffic already planned for the area in the General Plan. While construction of the roadway could potentially result in impacts to biological resources, the alternative would result in a smaller area of ground disturbance as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to biological resources would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3(a) through (d) would not be required. However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element, and would accommodate existing traffic and traffic planned for the area in the General Plan. While construction of the roadway could potentially result in impacts to unknown buried cultural and tribal cultural resources, should such resources exist, the alternative would result in a smaller area of ground disturbance as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.4-3 and 4.4-5, which ensure preparation and compliance with a final geotechnical engineering report and address potential impacts to paleontological resources, would not be required. However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element, and would accommodate existing traffic and traffic planned for the area in the General Plan. While construction of the roadway could potentially result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil due to ground disturbance and grading activities, the alternative would result in a smaller area of ground disturbance as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to geology, soils, and mineral resources would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) through (f) would not be required. However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element. Construction of the roadway could potentially result in impacts related to the disturbance of various on-site Recognized Environmental Conditions, as the project site has the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

potential to contain an underground storage tank, an unknown underground storage system, and other fuel storage vessels in the northern portions of the project site. The southern portion of the project site contains existing structures built prior to 1980 and 1970 that are likely to contain asbestos-containing building materials and lead-based paints. Additionally, soils in the vicinity of the existing on-site structures have the potential to be contaminated with termiticides. As such, the ground-disturbing activities and potential demolition of on-site structures associated with construction of Centennial Drive could expose the public or environment to a significant hazard through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of on-site hazardous materials into the environment. However, the alternative would result in a smaller area of ground disturbance as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) and (b), 4.6-2, and 4.6-3 which address potential impacts related to short-term construction-related water quality and ensure compliance with best management practices (BMPs) during construction, would not be required. However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element, which could require similar mitigation measures as those to which the proposed project would be subject. While construction of the roadway could potentially result in impacts related to water quality by introducing new impervious surfaces, the alternative would result in a smaller area of ground disturbance as compared to the proposed project. Construction of Centennial Drive would also be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regarding water quality. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped and would be consistent with the predominantly rural nature currently exhibited by the site, as the currently proposed project’s components would not be implemented. Considering the existing conditions are consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the site, the GPA and Rezone to accommodate the land uses planned by the proposed project would not be required.

Without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element, accommodating existing traffic and traffic already planned for the area in the General Plan. As construction and operation of the roadway would be consistent with the General Plan, implementation of Centennial Drive would not conflict with a land use plan or induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, as the roadway would be implemented to accommodate planned population growth. Additionally, Centennial Drive would not physically divide an established community or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, as the site is predominantly rural. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to land use and planning and population and housing would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Noise
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.8-1, which serves to reduce construction noise, would not be required.

However, without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element, which could require similar mitigation ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

measures as those to which the proposed project would be subject. While construction of the roadway could potentially result in noise impacts related to noise generated by construction vehicles and equipment, the alternative’s construction activities would be shorter as compared to the proposed project, given the smaller area of ground disturbance. Additionally, implementation of Centennial Drive would occur in a greater distance from the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision to the south than would implementation of the proposed project. As such, construction of Centennial Drive would be expected to generate less noise than the proposed project, as Centennial Drive would require less construction activities and less time to implement.

Construction of Centennial Drive would also adhere to Section 6.68.090 of the City’s Municipal Code, which establishes time periods in which construction is restricted, as well as General Plan Policies N.1.4, N.1.5, and N.1.7, which apply to roadway construction. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to noise would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Public Services and Utilities
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped. Therefore, under the alternative, no impact would occur related to public services or utilities. Without implementation of the proposed project, Centennial Drive would eventually be constructed as depicted in the Circulation Element. Construction of Centennial Drive would not result in impacts to public services and utilities, as the roadway would not introduce, either directly or indirectly, unplanned growth that would result in the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities. As the construction of Centennial Drive has been planned for in the Circulation Element, the roadway would primarily serve to accommodate the City’s existing population and growth anticipated for the City in the General Plan. Given that Centennial Drive would serve to accommodate the City’s existing and future population already planned for in the General Plan, the roadway would not be expected to result in significant impacts related to utilities services. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to public services and utilities would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Transportation
Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain generally undeveloped. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.10-2(a) and (b), which address impacts related to VMT, would not be required. The alternative would not result in the introduction of a significant number of new residences and associated improvements to the project site, which would, in turn, preclude new VMT associated with the residences. In addition, the construction of Centennial Drive through the project site would provide new roadway connections which, in general, tends to reduce regional VMT. Therefore, the alternative’s impacts related to transportation would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

2. Reduced VMT Alternative
The following section includes a description of the Reduced VMT Alternative, an evaluation of the alternative’s consistency with project objectives, and an impact comparison analysis.

Description of Alternative
The Reduced VMT Alternative was designed to reduce project-generated total VMT to 26,260 VMT per day, which would represent the total project-generated VMT if the proposed project were to satisfy the City’s proposed VMT threshold of 19.7 per capita (1,333 residents * 19.7 VMT per capita threshold = 26,260 VMT). In order for the alternative to not exceed a total per-day VMT of 26,260, the number of residential units constructed as part of the proposed project would need to be reduced from 440 to 376 units.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The Reduced VMT Alterative would therefore consist of 376 single-family residential lots on the same 98.9-acre development footprint. Lot sizes would be larger in size than those of the currently proposed project, and the reduction in units would result in a density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Under the Reduced VMT Alternative, the project would require a rezone of the 98.9 acres to the RD-4 zoning district.

Because the Reduced VMT Alternative would result in a similar development footprint to the proposed project, access to the site under the alternative would continue to be provided by two entry points along Raymer Way. Edington Drive would still be extended to provide access from the site to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision. However, with the reduction in units, the site would require fewer interior streets.

The alternative’s utility connections would also be similar to the proposed project. Units would connect to the existing 10-inch water main in Edington Drive by way of a new eight-inch water main; however, given the reduced number of units, fewer interior water lines would be required.

The same would hold true for the site’s new sewer lines. The units would connect to existing eightinch sewer lines in Edington Drive and Thornberg Way, but the alternative would require fewer sewer line connections to as compared to the proposed project. The alternative would still implement two bio-retention basins in the northwest portion of the site, and new drain inlets and underground storm drains would also be installed. The GPA would still be required to amend the General Plan’s Circulation Element, which calls for extending Centennial Drive through the site.

Consistency with Project Objectives
Because the Reduced VMT Alternative would consist of 376 units, resulting in a density of 3.8 du/ac, the alternative would be inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation for the Grant Line West Planning Area, which includes a mix of Medium-Density Residential, with a density of 6.1 to 18 du/ac, and High-Density Residential, with a density of 18 to 40 du/ac. As a result, the Reduced VMT Alternative would be inconsistent with Objective #2. The alternative would meet Objectives #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7, as the reduction of units would not affect the ability for the alternative to consolidate the remaining parcels in the Grant Line West Planning Area in a manner that concentrates development south of Morrison Creek; develop a residential community that is contiguous to and compatible with adjacent existing development; utilize existing utility capacity for maximum efficiency; develop a residential community that can provide timely housing; contribute to the overall bicycle and pedestrian connectivity of the City; or enhance the City’s network of parks, trails, and open spaces.

Impacts of Alternative
The following provides a discussion evaluating the impacts of this alternative on baseline conditions as compared to the impacts of the proposed project on baseline conditions for each impact area addressed within this EIR.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Due to the Reduced VMT Alternative’s reduction in the number of residential units, fewer internal roadways and less connections to water and sewer service would be required. However, site access, stormwater treatment and diversion, and the elimination of Centennial Drive within the project site would remain largely similar under the alternative as compared to the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Although the alternative would include less units, the same area of disturbance would still be required to implement the alternative’s components. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.1-7, which address impacts related to GHG emissions or climate change, may still be required. However, factoring in the alternative’s reduced number of lots, which would result in a reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions generated through construction and operation of the residences, as well as associated total VMT, the alternative’s impacts related to air quality and GHGs would be fewer than the proposed project.

Biological Resources
With the increased lot sizes under the Reduced VMT Alternative, the area of impact to implement the alternative would be equivalent to the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.2- 1 through 4.2-10 and 4.2-12 would still be required. Given the similar area of disturbance, the alternative’s impacts to biological resources would be similar to the proposed project.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
The area of impact to implement the alternative would be equivalent to the proposed project.

Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.3-2 and 4.3-3(a) through (d), which address impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, would still be required. Given the similar area of disturbance, the alternative’s impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the proposed project.

Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources
Because the alternative would still require compliance with recommendations of a final geotechnical engineering report and mitigation to address potential impacts to buried paleontological resources, Mitigation Measures 4.4-3 and 4.4-5 would still be required.

Additionally, because the area of disturbance would be equivalent to the proposed project, the alternative’s impacts to geology, soils, and mineral resources would be similar to the proposed project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The area of disturbance to implement the alternative would be equivalent to the proposed project.

Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.5-2(a) through (f), which address potential release of on-site hazardous materials, would still be required. Given the similar area of disturbance, the alternative’s impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to the proposed project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Because the alternative would involve the same area of disturbance, the alternative would still require mitigation to address potential impacts related to short-term construction-related water quality and compliance with BMPs during construction, Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) and (b), 4.6- 2, and 4.6-3 would still be required. As a result, the alternative’s impacts to hydrology and water quality would be similar to the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing
The alternative would implement the same components as the proposed project, just to a less intense degree. Consequently, the alternative would still require the elimination of a portion of Centennial Drive, and the alternative’s impacts related to land use and planning and population and housing would be similar to the proposed project.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Noise
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1, which requires construction noise reductions, would still be required because the alternative would entail the construction of several residences. However, given that the alternative would include less units, the construction period for the alternative would be shorter. In addition, the development of less units would result in less traffic noise during operations. As a result, alternative’s impacts related to noise would be fewer compared to the proposed project.

Public Services and Utilities
While the alternative would implement many of the same components as the proposed project, many of the components, such as the number of lots, internal neighborhood roadways, and utilities connections, would be implemented to a less intense degree. In addition, operations of fewer residential units would result in reduced demand for public services and utilities. As a result, the alternative’s impacts related to public services and utilities would be fewer compared to the proposed project.

Transportation
Considering the City’s VMT threshold is a function of VMT per capita, a reduction in the number of residents would correspond with a reduction in total VMT and, thus, result in an equivalent rate of VMT per capita. However, total project-generated VMT would be reduced by reducing the number of proposed units. Because the City’s VMT threshold is a per capita rate, the alternative’s reduced intensity of units would not avoid the project’s potential to exceed the City’s VMT threshold. The alternative would still require Mitigation Measures 4.10-2(a) and (b). However, total project-generated VMT would be reduced and, consequently, the alternative’s impacts related to transportation would be fewer as compared to the proposed project. Nonetheless, although impacts related to transportation would be fewer, the Reduced VMT Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact related to the City’s VMT threshold.

3. Reduced Footprint Alternative
The following section includes a description of the Reduced Footprint Alternative, an evaluation of the alternative’s consistency with project objectives, and an impact comparison analysis.

Description of Alternative
Under this alternative, the project site would be reduced to avoid wetland areas in the northwest section of the development area (see Figure 6-1). Wetlands in the southern section of the development area would still be impacted. The reduction in footprint would reduce the project’s development area from 98.9 acres to 92.57 acres, which would preserve 6.33 acres of wetlands.

The alternative would still implement the 9.77 acres designated for community space to allow for the inclusion of the bio-retention and hydromodification areas in the northwest portion of the site.

Retaining the community space would necessitate a reduction in the number of units developed in the western portion of the project site, from 172 units to 47 units. The total units to be developed would be reduced from 440 units to 315 units. The reduction in units and footprint would result in a density of 3.4 du/ac. As such, the alternative would require a Rezone to the RD-4 Zoning District.

Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would maintain a similar layout to the proposed project, access to the site under the alternative would continue to be provided by two entry points along Raymer Way. Edington Drive would still be extended to provide access from the site to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 6-1
Reduced Footprint Alternative Development Area
Wetland Areas Avoided
Reduced Footprint
Development Area
Wetland Areas
Still Impacted
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The alternative’s connections to utilities would also be similar to the proposed project. Units would connect to the existing 10-inch water main in Edington Drive by way of a new eight-inch water main; however, with fewer units, the alternative would require fewer new interior water lines.

Similarly, the units would connect to existing eight-inch sewer lines in Edington Drive and Thornberg Way, but the alternative would require fewer sewer line connections.

New drain inlets and underground storm drains would also be installed. However, the amount of stormwater infrastructure within the site would also be reduced, due to the reduced area of ground disturbance. The GPA would still be required to amend the General Plan’s Circulation Element, which calls for extending Centennial Drive through the site.

Consistency with Project Objectives
Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of 315 units, resulting in a density of

3.4 du/ac, the alternative would be inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation for the Grant Line West Planning Area, which includes a mix of Medium-Density Residential, with a density of 6.1 to 18 du/ac, and High-Density Residential, with a density of 18 to 40 du/ac. As a result, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be inconsistent with Objective #2. The alternative would meet Objectives #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7, as the reduction of units would not affect the ability for the alternative to consolidate the remaining parcels in the Grant Line West Planning Area in a manner that concentrates development south of Morrison Creek; develop a residential community that is contiguous to and compatible with adjacent existing development; utilize existing utility capacity for maximum efficiency; develop a residential community that can provide timely housing; contribute to the overall bicycle and pedestrian connectivity of the City; or enhance the City’s network of parks, trails, and open spaces.

Impacts of Alternative
The following provides a discussion evaluating the impacts of this alternative on baseline conditions as compared to the impacts of the proposed project on baseline conditions for each impact area addressed within this EIR.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would reduce the area of impact from 98.9 acres to 92.57 acres in order to avoid wetland areas in the northwest section of the project footprint. As the alternative would still implement the 9.77 acres designated for community space, the number of units developed in the western portion of the project site would be reduced from 172 units to 47 units and the total units developed would drop from 440 units to 315 units.

The alternative would include less units and the area of ground disturbance would be slightly decreased as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.1-7 to address impacts related to GHG emissions or climate change may still be required. However, factoring in the alternative’s reduced footprint and number of lots, which would result in a reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions generated through construction and operation of the residences, as well as from associated VMT, the alternative’s impacts related to air quality and GHGs would be fewer than the proposed project.

Biological Resources
While the area of disturbance to implement the alternative would be smaller in comparison to the proposed project, the alternative would still impact 92.57 acres, including wetland areas in the southern areas of the project site. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 through 4.2-10 and 4.2- ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

12 would still be required. However, because fewer wetlands would be impacted, the alternative’s impacts to biological resources would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
While the area of disturbance to implement the alternative would be smaller in comparison to the proposed project, the alternative would still impact 92.57 acres. Therefore, Mitigation Measures

4.3-2 and 4.3-3(a) through (d), which address potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, would still be required. However, due to the alternative’s smaller area of disturbance, the alternative’s impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources
Given that the alternative would only shrink the area of disturbance within the project site from

98.9 acres to 92.57 acres, the alternative would still involve ground disturbance of several acres with the same soil conditions as compared to the proposed project. As such, the alternative would still require compliance with recommendations of a final geotechnical engineering report and mitigation to address potential impacts to buried paleontological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.4-3 and 4.4-5 would still be required. However, considering the alternative’s smaller footprint, the alternative’s impacts to geology and soils and mineral resources would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
While the area of disturbance to implement the alternative would be smaller in comparison to the proposed project, the alternative would still impact 92.57 acres. Therefore, Mitigation Measures

4.5-2(a) through (f), which address potential release of on-site hazardous materials, would still be required. However, considering the alternative’s smaller footprint, the alternative’s impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Hydrology and Water Quality
While the area of disturbance to implement the alternative would be smaller in comparison to the proposed project, the alternative would still include impervious surfaces and 315 units, which could result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction activities. As a result, the alternative would require mitigation to address potential impacts related to short-term construction-related water quality and compliance with BMPs during construction, and Mitigation Measures 4.6-1(a) and (b), 4.6-2, and 4.6-3 would still be required. However, considering the alternative’s smaller footprint, the alternative’s impacts to hydrology and water quality would be fewer as compared to the proposed project.

Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing
Because the alternative would implement many of the same components as the proposed project and would still prevent the construction of Centennial Drive within the boundaries of the project site, the alternative’s impacts related to land use and planning and population and housing would be similar to the proposed project.

Noise
Because the alternative would implement many of the same components as the proposed project, just to a less intense degree, Mitigation Measure 4.8-1, which relates to short-term noise from construction activities, would still be required. However, given that the alternative would include less units, the construction period for the alternative would be shorter. In addition, the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

development of less units would result in less traffic noise during operations. As a result, alternative’s impacts related to noise would be fewer compared to the proposed project.

Public Services and Utilities
Many of the components, such as the number of lots and utilities connections, would be implemented to a less intense degree under the alternative as compared to the proposed project.

In addition, operations of fewer residential units would result in reduced demand for public services and utilities. As a result, the alternative’s impacts related to public services and utilities would be fewer compared to the proposed project.

Transportation
As described above for the Reduced VMT Alternative, while a reduction in the number of units and, thus, residents would correspond with a reduction in the total VMT, an equivalent rate of VMT per capita would still occur. Because the City’s VMT threshold is a per capita rate, the alternative’s reduced number of units would not avoid the project’s potential to exceed the City’s VMT threshold and, as a result, the alternative would still require implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10-2(a) and (b). However, considering the alternative’s reduced number of units, the alternative would generate fewer new vehicle trips and less total VMT as compared to the proposed project. As such, the alternative’s impacts related to transportation would be fewer in comparison to the proposed project. However, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact related to the City’s VMT threshold.

6.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires consideration of an environmentally superior alternative from the range of reasonable alternatives evaluated. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would result in the fewest or least significant environmental impacts. If the environmental superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR must identify the environmental superior alternative among the other alternatives. Table 6-1 provides a summary comparison of significance levels for identified impacts under each alternative, and is summarized below.

The No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to all issue areas. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

The Reduced VMT Alternative would result in fewer impacts to Air Quality and GHG Emissions, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation as compared to the proposed project.

However, the Alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT.

The Reduced VMT Alternative would not meet Objective #2, but would meet Objectives #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7.

The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts to almost all issue areas, except for Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing, which would be similar as compared to the proposed project. However, the Alternative would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact related to VMT. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would not meet Objective #2, but would meet Objectives #1, #3, #4, #5, and #7.

Based on the analysis presented in this chapter, both the Reduced VMT Alternative and the Reduced Footprint Alternative would meet most of the project objective. However, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the Reduced VMT Alternative and the ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Table 6-1
Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives Resource Area
Proposed Project level of
significance after mitigation

1. No Project
Alternative

2. Reduced VMT
Alternative

3. Reduced Footprint
Alternative
Air Quality and
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than Significant < < <
Biological
Resources Less than Significant < = <
Cultural and Tribal
Resources Less than Significant < = <
Geology and
Soils/Mineral
Resources
Less than Significant < = <
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials Less than Significant < = <
Hydrology and
Water Quality Less than Significant < = <
Land Use and
Planning/Population
and Housing
Less than Significant < = =
Noise Less than Significant < < <
Public Services and
Utilities Less than Significant < < <
Transportation Significant and Unavoidable < <* <*
Note: Less than Proposed Project = “<”; Similar to Proposed Project = “=”; Greater than Proposed Project = “>”. * Significant and Unavoidable impact(s) determined for the proposed project would still be expected to occur under the Alternative.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

7. EIR Authors and Persons
Consulted
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Raney Planning & Management, Inc.

C. Timothy Raney, AICP President
Cindy Gnos, AICP Senior Vice President
Nick Pappani Vice President
Rod Stinson Division Manager/Air Quality Specialist
Angela DaRosa Assistant Division Manager/Air Quality Specialist Briette Shea Senior Associate/Air Quality Technician
Jessica Chuidian-Ingersoll Associate
Joe Baucum Associate
Jesse Fahrney Associate
Ben Porter Associate
City of Rancho Cordova
Darcy Goulart Principal Planner
Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc.

Dario Gotchet Senior Consultant
ECORP Consulting, Inc.

Taraneh Emam Project Manager/Senior Biologist
Keith Kwan Senior Biologist
Angela Haas Biologist
Matthew Spaulding Biologist
Daniel Wong Biologist
Ben Waitman Arborist
Theodora Fuerstenberg Senior Archaeologist
Roger Mason Archaeologist
Megan Webb Associate Archaeologist
Ellen Dahl Associate Archaeologist
Geocon Consultants, Inc.

Shane Rodacker Vice President
Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.

Matt Weir Vice President/Principal Engineer
Chris Gregerson Engineer
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates
John Zellmer Principal Engineer
Rich Radoycis Project Manager
Steve Bowman Project Manager

7. EIR AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc.

David C. Sederquist Senior Engineering Geologist/Hydrogeologist Dennis S. Eck Staff Geologist
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

8. References
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

1. AECOM, Inc. SunCreek Specific Plan Project DEIR/DEIS. October 2012.

2. ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013.

3. 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. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment, The Preserve Residential Development. September 3, 2020.

5. California Air Resources Board. Aerometric Data Analysis and Management (iADAM) System. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed May 2021.

6. California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.

7. California Air Resources Board. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. October 24, 2013. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/truck-idling.htm. Accessed December 2020.

8. California Air Resources Board. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4, 2016. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed May 2021.

9. California Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm. Accessed May 2021.

10. California Air Resources Board. Glossary of Air Pollution Terms. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/gloss.htm. Accessed May 2021.

11. California Air Resources Board. In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation. December 10, 2014. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm. Accessed December 2020.

12. California Air Resources Board. Reducing Toxic Air Pollutants in California’s Communities. February 6, 2002.

13. California Air Resources Board. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. January 20, 2017.

8. REFERENCES
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

14. California Department of Conservation. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp.

Accessed September 2020.

15. California Department of Education. District Profile: Folsom-Cordova Unified. Available at:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sdprofile/details.aspx?cds=34673300000000. Accessed March 2021.

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.

17. 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.ht m. Accessed July 2019.

18. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. 2013.

19. California Energy Commission. Electricity Consumption by County. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed April 2021.

20. California Energy Commission. Gas Consumption by County: Sacramento County, Residential Sector, Year 2018. Available at:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed January 2020.

21. California Energy Commission. Title 24 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards FAQ.

November 2018.

22. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. Order No. R5- 2016-0020-01 NPDES No. CA0077682. April 2016.

23. CalRecycle. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary (2007 – Current). Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiversionPost2 006. Accessed October 2020.

24. 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.

25. City of Ranch Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Environmental Impact Report.

June 2006.

26. City of Ranch Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006.

27. City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan. Available at:
https://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=11416. Accessed January 2021.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

28. City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova Transportation Impact Guidelines. June 2, 2020.

29. City of Rancho Cordova. Development Related Processes and Fees. May 2018.

30. De Novo Planning Group. Environmental Impact Report for The Ranch Project (SCH:
2018072011). August 2019.

31. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Special Report 192: Relative Likelihood for the Presence of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in Eastern Sacramento County, California. Published 2006.

32. Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Landslides. Available at:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. Accessed April 2020.

33. Department of Conservation. Mineral Land Classification Map Folsom 15-Minute Quadrangle. May 30, 2018.

34. Department of Education, California School Dashboard. District Performance Overview:

Folsom-Cordova Unified. 2019.

35. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Addendum to Aquatic Resources Delineation for The Preserve Development. June 27, 2019.

36. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Addendum to Biological Resources Assessment for The Preserve Development. July 25, 2019.

37. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Aquatic Resources Delineation, The Preserve Development, Rancho Cordova, California. November 26, 2018.

38. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Arborist Survey Report, The Preserve, Rancho Cordova, California. June 21, 2019.

39. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment, The Preserve Development, Rancho Cordova, California. June 28, 2019.

40. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Bird and Bat Potential Habitat Assessment Surveys – The Preserve Development Project, Rancho Cordova, California. June 21, 2019.

41. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory Report. February 5, 2019.

42. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Special-Status Plant Survey Report, The Preserve Development, Rancho Cordova, California. June 27, 2019.

43. EDAW, Inc. Rio del Oro Specific Plan Project Final EIR. June 24, 2010.

44. ESRI Business Analyst. 2010 Census Profile. November 2019.

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

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

46. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Number 06067C0250H. August 16, 2012.

47. Federal Transit Administration. Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 2018.

48. Folsom Cordova Unified School District Department of Facilities and Planning. 2019 School Facility Needs Analysis. April 2019.

49. Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Development Impact Fees. Available at:
https://www.fcusd.org/Page/2291. Accessed October 2020.

50. Folsom Cordova Unified School District. Facility Master Plan. November 2013.

51. Geocon Consultants, Inc. Subject: The Preserve, Grant Line Road and Raymer Way, Rancho Cordova, California. Geotechnical Peer Review. March 24, 2020.

52. Health Effects Institute. Understanding the Health Effects of Ambient Ultrafine Particles.

January 2013.

53. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J.

Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 2014.

54. Jeff Rodrigues, Crime Analyst, Rancho Cordova Police Department. Personal communication [phone] with Joe Baucum, Associate, Raney Planning and Management, Inc. May 11, 2021.

55. Kimley-Horn. Memorandum: The Preserve Centennial Drive Considerations. August 16, 2021.

56. Kimley-Horn. Supplemental Analysis for Six Additional Units. February 8, 2021.

57. Kimley-Horn. The Preserve, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Evaluation. August 16, 2021.

58. Kimley-Horn. Traffic Impact Analysis for The Preserve, City of Rancho Cordova, California. November 4, 2020.

59. Pacific Gas and Electric. Company Profile. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page.

Accessed October 2020.

60. Rancho Cordova Police Department. About Us. Available at:
https://www.ranchocordovapd.com/about-us. Accessed September 2020.

61. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Sewer Study for The Preserve. June 2020.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

62. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. The Preserve – Unit Count Increase on Sewer and Water Studies. January 2021.

63. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar & Associates. Water Study for The Preserve. September 2018.

64. Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar. Drainage Study for the Preserve. Updated October 2019.

65. Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. November 18, 2019.

66. Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology Menu. September 19, 2019.

67. Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and Housing Issues. Available at: https://www.sacog.org/regional-housing-needsallocation-rhna. Accessed December 2019.

68. Sacramento County Water Agency. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. May 2016.

69. Sacramento County Water Agency. Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan. February 2005.

70. Sacramento County Water Agency. Zone 40 Water System Infrastructure Plan Update.

September 2016.

71. Sacramento County. Environmental Impact Report for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Interceptor Master Plan 2002 (SCH: 1995012061). November 2002.

72. Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District. Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool. June 2020.

73. Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District. Thresholds of Significance Table.

April 2020.

74. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Air Quality Pollutants and Standards. Available at: http://www.airquality.org/air-quality-health/air-quality-pollutantsand-standards. Accessed May 2021.

75. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guide. April 2020.

76. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District. October 2020.

77. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Guide to Air Quality Assessment, Chapter 4: Operational Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions. June 2020.

78. Sacramento Metropolitan, El Dorado, Feather River, Placer, and Yolo-Solano Air Districts:

Sacramento Region Spare the Air. Air Quality Information for the Sacramento Region.

Available at: http://www.sparetheair.com/health.cfm?page=healthoverall. Accessed May 2021.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

79. Sacramento Regional Community Services District. Final Executive Summary:

Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. May 2008.

80. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.

December 2012.

81. South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan. What is the South Sacramento HCP? Available at: https://www.southsachcp.com/. Accessed July 2019.

82. U.S. Energy Information Administration. California: State Profile and Energy Estimates.

Available at: https://www.eia.gov/state/index.php?sid=CA. Accessed December 2020.

83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. 2009.

84. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. April 14, 2021.

85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Nonattainment and Unclassifiable Area Designations for the 2015 Ozone Standards. April 30, 2018.

86. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed May 2021.

87. Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. Geology and Soils for The Preserve. June 2019.

88. Youngdahl Consulting Group, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, The Preserve, Sacramento County APNs 072-0300-001, 002, -005, 008, -010, and 073-0010-011, Rancho Cordova, California. June 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Appendix A
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
______________________________________________________________________________ DATE: October 25, 2019
TO: State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento CA, 95814
TO: Responsible Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties LEAD AGENCY: City of Rancho Cordova
Contact: Darcy Goulart
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95760
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Report for The Preserve Project ______________________________________________________________________________ In discharging its duties under Section 15125 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cordova (as Lead Agency) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for The Preserve Project. The City will be the lead agency for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

In accordance with Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cordova has prepared this Notice of Preparation to provide Responsible Agencies and other interested parties with sufficient information describing the proposal and its potential environmental effects.

The determination to prepare an EIR was made by the City of Rancho Cordova. An Initial Study, attached hereto, has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, which identifies the anticipated environmental effects of the project. The Initial Study satisfies the City’s obligation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 to identify the probable environmental effects of the project.

As specified by the CEQA Guidelines, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) will be circulated for a 30-day review period. The City of Rancho Cordova welcomes public input during this review. In the event that no response or request for additional time is received by any Responsible Agency by the end of the review period, the Lead Agency may presume that the Responsible Agency has no response.

PUBLIC MEETING
A Public Scope Meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Rancho Cordova City Hall, American River South Room 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Comments may be submitted during the review period and addressed to Darcy Goulart, Planning Manager
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 96670
The comment period closes on November 25, 2019
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

A. Project Location, Current Use, and Surrounding Use
The project site consists of approximately 283 acres located within the City of Rancho Cordova (see Figure 1). The site is located northwest of Raymer Way and Grant Line Road, north of the Sunridge Specific Plan and east of the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan (see Figure 2). The General Plan designates the project site Planning Area. Specifically, the site is located within the Grant Line West Planning Area and is designated Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density by the Draft Land Use Concept Map. The site is zoned Agricultural (AG-80) and Industrial Reserve (IR) and is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 072-0300-001, -002, -005, -008, and 073-0010-010, and -011.

Currently, the 283-acre project consists of two single-family residences on the southern portion of the property, and vacant, non-native grasslands throughout the remaining area. The site has moderately rolling hills and flatlands throughout the parcel with seasonal drainage channels and wetlands. Additionally, Morrison Creek flows northeast to southwest through the project site. Several ornamental trees are located along the existing entrance road near the structures on the property. The elevation of the site ranges from 210 to 250 feet above mean sea level. The project site is also traversed by the 275 feet wide utility easement occupied by PG&E and SMUD facilities.

Surrounding land uses include the Camden at Somerset Ranch Residential subdivision to the south, a Teichert Aggregates Aggregate/Asphaltic Concrete site across Grant Line Road to the east, industrial/open space to the north, and vacant land for the development of the Rio Del Oro residential community to the west.

B. Project Characteristics
The proposed project would include subdivision of the site to develop a total of 434 single-family lots and various associated improvements including, but not limited to, parks, a preserve area, landscaping, circulation improvements, and utility installation. The proposed project would include 22.84 acres of public parks north of the proposed residences. Additionally, the project would preserve 185 acres of natural land to the north in order to protect wetlands.

General Plan Amendment/Rezone
Per the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, the project site is currently designated Planning Area. The Draft Land Use Concept Map for the Grant Line West Planning Area designates the site Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation to Low-Density Residential. An additional General Plan Amendment would be required to remove from the Circulation Element Centennial Drive in the project vicinity. In addition, the project would require a rezone of approximately 70 acres of AG-80 and approximately 25-acres of IR to Residential District (RD-6). The Residential District designation sets a maximum of six dwelling units per acre (See Figure 3).

Tentative Subdivision Map
The proposed project would subdivide 434-single family residential lots. Lots in the western portion of the site would be a minimum of 4,050 sf (45 feet x 90 feet), with the larger lots located at the corners of each block. Lots located in the central area of the site would be a minimum of 5,775 sf (55 feet x 105 feet). Lots located in the eastern portion of the site would be approximately 4,725 sf (45 feet x 105 feet). The range of lot sizes for the proposed project would be between 4,050 sf and 9,416 sf (see Figure 4). In addition, the project would include an 18 to 20-foot setback from the front of each residence to the street. The proposed would also provide a 100-foot setback from Morrison Creek.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 1
Project Location
Project Location
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 2
Project Site and Existing Planning Boundaries
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 3
Existing and Proposed Zoning
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4
Tentative Subdivision Map
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Access and Circulation
The proposed project includes four access points, including two connections to Raymer Way and two connections to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision to the south. Street sections would range from 42-feet for the internal residential streets to 69-feet for the residential collector street. The internal residential streets would include a five-foot sidewalk on each side. The other streets would include a combination of parkways with 10-foot sidewalks on one side and either a connected five-foot sidewalk on the other or a six-foot parkway and six-foot sidewalk on the other side.

Open Space/Recreation
As part of the proposed project, 185.3 acres of undeveloped land to the north would be maintained as open space/preserve. The project would designate 8.9 acres for parks, 11.6 acres of Community Space, and 1.6 acres of green infrastructure (see Figure 5). The Community Space would be presented in the form of two bioretention areas that feed into a hydromodification area. The area designated for open space would remain within the IR or AG-80 zoning designation.

The 8.9 acres designated for parks would include two parks managed by the Cordova Parks and Recreation District. The 1.6 acres of green infrastructure would be composed of trail connections to surrounding parks and landscaped areas.

Utilities
Treated water service for the project would be provided by the Sacramento County Water Agency. The proposed project would include construction of new eight-inch water lines connecting to an existing 10- inch water main located within Edington Drive.

Sanitary sewer service is provided to the City by the County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1). CSD-1 maintains the sewer system collecting waste water flows from individual developments throughout the district and conveys them to the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Inceptor system. Wastewater would be routed and delivered to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant north of Elk Grove (see Figure 6). The project would include connection to the existing eight-inch sewer lines or within Edington Drive and Thornberg Way.

Stormwater throughout the site would be directed through 12- and 30-inch drainage pipes. From the drainage pipes, the stormwater would be routed to the bioretention basins located at the northwestern portion of the parcel. The stormwater would then travel to the hydromodification basin which would deliver the remaining stormwater to the pond north of the project site. In addition, connection to existing natural gas and telecommunications infrastructure would be required for the proposed development.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 5
Parks and Open Space/Preserve Area
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 6
Preliminary Utilities Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

C. Required Approvals
The proposed project requires approval of the following discretionary entitlements.

The proposed project would require City approval of the following:
• Certification of the EIR;
• Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • General Plan Amendment from Grant Line West Planning Area to Low-Density Residential; • General Plan Amendment to remove from the Circulation Element Centennial Drive in the vicinity of the project;
• Rezone from AG-80 (approximately 70 acres) and IR (approximately 25 acres) to MDR (25.9 acres), O (4.3 acres), and RLDR 1-2.3 ac min (1.8 acres).; • Tentative Subdivision Map; and
• Development Agreement.

Other discretionary approvals that may be required by other governmental agencies may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
• Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB); • Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD); and • United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) – Nationwide Permit (404).

D. Project Background
The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about potential significant physical environmental impacts of the Preserve Project, to identify possible ways to minimize those significant impacts, and to describe and analyze possible alternatives to the proposed project if potential significant impacts are identified.

Preparation of an NOP and EIR does not indicate a decision by the City to approve or disapprove the project.

However, prior to making any such decision, the City Council must review and consider the information contained in the EIR.

E. Potential Environmental Effects
The environmental analysis for the proposed project will focus on the following areas: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy), Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology & Soils/Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology & Water Quality (Drainage), Land Use & Planning/Population & Housing, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation. In addition, statutorily required sections and discussion of project alternatives will be included. Some refinement to the aforementioned issues may be required based on comments received during the NOP scoping process. The following section describes each of the technical Chapters of the EIR in further detail.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy) The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions chapter of the EIR will summarize the regional air quality setting, including climate and topography, existing ambient air quality, regulatory setting, and presence of any sensitive receptors near the project site. The air quality impact analysis will be determined through coordination with SMAQMD. A quantitative assessment of short-term and long-term increases of criteria air pollutant emissions of primary concern (i.e., ROG NOx, and PM10) resulting from the proposed ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

project will be included. The Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be based upon modeling using California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod). CALINE 4 modeling will be conducted if warranted based on the results of the TIS.

Throughout the GHG section, CalEEMod will be used to produce an estimate of carbon dioxide emissions, including indirect emissions of GHG (e.g., electricity, natural gas). Analysis will include a discussion of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 in compliance with the California 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan and SMAQMD to determine appropriate thresholds. This chapter will also discuss potential energy impacts as a result of the proposed project. In accordance with Appendix G Checklist of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis will discuss the projects energy efficiency, conservation measures, and applicable mitigation measures, if needed, for reducing air quality, GHG, and energy impacts.

Biological Resources
The Biological Resources analysis will discuss potential impacts to plant communities, wetlands, and wildlife. The analysis will take an in-depth look at potential effects on rare, endangered, candidate sensitive, and special-status species from the buildout of the proposed project. The analysis will reference an Aquatic Resources Delineation, Arborist Survey Report, Special Status Plant Surveys, and Biological Resources Report (BRA) prepared for the project. In addition, the biological resources analysis will discuss the effects of the proposed project on Morrison Creek riparian vegetation and the effects of the proposed project.

Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant impacts to biological resources and ensure compliance with South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
The Cultural and Tribal Resources chapter of the EIR will discuss the potential impacts to historical, archaeological, and tribal resources, including human remains and historical buildings, from implementation of the proposed project. Typical historical resources often include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics. The chapter will include analysis of a record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File and the California Historical Resources Information System database results for the proposed project. The chapter will also discuss compliance with AB 52 regarding notification of relevant tribes. Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant cultural and tribal resource impacts.

Geology & Soils/Mineral Resources
The Geology & Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of the EIR will summarize the setting and describe the potential effects from soil erosion, earthquakes, liquefaction, and expansive soils, as well as identify any unique geologic features within the project vicinity. This chapter will utilize a Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site and discuss the present conditions. The Geology & Soils/Mineral Resources chapter will reflect the results of the Geotechnical Report and will provide analysis of the project in the context of the various features in the area. Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant geologic and mineral resource impacts.

Hydrology & Water Quality (Drainage)
The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter will summarize the setting of the project site and identify potential effects on drainage, flooding, groundwater, and water quality. This chapter will include analysis of drainage from impervious surfaces associated with the proposed project and analyze impacts to groundwater and surface water. The analysis will use the Drainage Study, Sewer Study, and Water Study prepared for the project. The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, General Plan EIR, and additional ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

ordinances will be referenced in the analysis. Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant hydrology and water quality impacts.

Land Use & Planning/Population & Housing
The Land Use & Planning/Population & Housing chapter of the EIR will evaluate the consistency of the proposed project with the City of Rancho Cordova’s adopted land use plans and policies, as well as the projects compatibility with surrounding land uses both, existing and proposed. The analysis will discuss amendments needed to the General Plan and the required changes to the zoning designations. The Rancho Cordova General Plan, Zoning Ordinances, and other documents will be examined to determine the potential effects of the proposed project. Population and housing will be addressed in the chapter to discuss population growth and the effects of the increase in residents. Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant land use and planning, as well as population and housing impacts.

Noise
The Noise chapter of the EIR will be based on a project specific noise analysis. The noise analysis will include evaluation of the existing noise environment, prediction of project-generated noise, and development of noise control mitigation measures, as appropriate. Analysis of the proposed projects potential impact on surrounding sensitive receptors due to construction noise and vibration will be included.

Potential noise associated with traffic effects will be evaluated in relation to the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan and relevant ordinances. Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant noise impacts.

Public Services and Utilities
The Public Services and Utilities chapter will describe the current setting and potential demands the proposed project may have on services, including fire, police, schools, parks, and recreation. The Rancho Cordova General Plan and General Plan EIR will be used to evaluate the potential impacts on public services. The Utilities portion of this chapter will focus on the potential effects on water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. The analysis will reference information from the Rancho Cordova Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) to evaluate the potential new demand on water supply as a result of the proposed project. In addition, wastewater and solid waste issues will be analyzed using the Rancho Cordova General Plan and General Plan EIR and through consultation with the appropriate service provider.

Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce public services and utilities impacts.

Transportation
The Transportation chapter of the EIR will incorporate a TIS provided to evaluate impacts of the proposed project on existing and future transportation systems. The TIS will be used to examine the surrounding intersections in the area and the potential impacts the proposed project may have on the roadways. The chapter will evaluate the adequacy of site access, emergency access, possible design hazards, and on-site circulation. The chapter will also include additional analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled induced by the proposed project. Recommended mitigation measures will be incorporated, if necessary, to reduce significant transportation impacts.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Attachment – Initial Study
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

City of Rancho Cordova
Community Development Department
The Preserve Project
Initial Study
October 2019
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A,  Sacramento  CA  95834
Office 916.372.6100  Fax 916.419.6108
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 1 B. SOURCES.................................................................................................................... 2 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED....................................... 3 D. DETERMINATION........................................................................................................ 4 E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION....................................................................... 5 F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 5 G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...............................................................................16 I. AESTHETICS. ......................................................................................... 17 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. ...................................... 21 III. AIR QUALITY. ......................................................................................... 23 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. .................................................................. 26 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ..................................................................... 29 VI. ENERGY. ................................................................................................. 30 VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS........................................................................... 31 VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.......................................................... 35 IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. ......................................... 36 X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. .................................................. 39 XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. .................................................................. 41 XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. ........................................................................ 42 XIII. NOISE...................................................................................................... 43 XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. .............................................................. 45 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES................................................................................. 46 XVI. RECREATION. ........................................................................................ 48 XVII. TRANSPORTATION................................................................................ 49 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................... 51 XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..................................................... 52 XX. WILDFIRE................................................................................................ 55 XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. ...................................... 57 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

INITIAL STUDY
October 2019
A. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: The Preserve Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cordova Community Development Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95760

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Darcy Goulart
Principal Planner
(916) 851-8784

4. Project Location: Northwest of Raymer Way and Grant Line Road Rancho Cordova, CA
APNs 072-0300-001, -002, -005, -008,
073-0010-010, and -011

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Winn Communities, Inc. 3001 I Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95816
(916) 930-0925

6. Existing General Plan Designation: Grant Line West Planning Area Natural Resources
Residential Mixed Density

7. Existing Zoning Designation: Agricultural (AG-80)
Industrial Reserve (IR)

8. Proposed Land Use Designation: Low-Density Residential

9. Proposed Zoning Designation: Residential District (RD-6) Agricultural (AG-80)
Industrial Reserve (IR)

10. Required Approvals from California Department of Fish and Wildlife Other Public Agencies: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District United States Army Corps of Engineers
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

11. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site consists of approximately 283 acres located within the City of Rancho Cordova, California. Currently, the project site contains two single-family residences on the southern portion of the site, and the remainder of the site is vacant, primarily composed of non-native grasses and forbs. The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan designates the project site as Grant Line West Planning Area and the site is zoned Agricultural (AG-80) and Industrial Reserve (IR). Surrounding land uses include Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision to the south; vacant agricultural lands under a Williamson Act contact to the east, vacant land approved for the development of the Rio Del Oro residential community to the west and industrial/open space to the north.

12. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project would include developing a 434-unit, single-family residential subdivision including parks, preserve areas, and additional infrastructure to support the community. Of the 283 acres within the project site, 185.3 acres of undeveloped land on the northern parcels would be remain as open space/preserve. The project would include

26.12 acres of public parks and community spaces north of the proposed residences.

Additionally, the proposed project would include landscaping, circulation improvements, and utility installation. The project would require approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site, a General Plan Amendment to remove from the Circulation Element Centennial Drive in the project vicinity, a Rezone, Development Agreement, and a Tentative Subdivision Map.

13. Status of Native American Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1:

In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1), project notification letters were distributed to the necessary tribes in the project area. To date, requests to consult have not been received by the City of Rancho Cordova.

B. SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources used for the purposes of this Initial Study:

1. California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019.

2. California Department of Conservation. Sacramento County Important Farmland 2016.

July 2017.

3. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento County, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. November 7, 2007.

4. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.

Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm.

Accessed June 2019.

5. City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006.

6. City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2005022137. March 13, 2006.

7. City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho General Plan Land Use Policy Map. June 26, 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

8. City of Rancho Cordova. Design Guidelines. September 6, 2005.

9. City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova Police Department. Available at:
http://www.ranchocordovapd.com/about.php. Accessed: July 11, 2019.

10. Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed June 2019.

11. ECORP Consulting Inc. Arborist Survey Report, The Preserve, Rancho Cordova, California. October 23, 2018.

12. ECORP Consulting, Inc. Biological Resources Assessment, The Preserve Development, Rancho Cordova, California. December 17, 2018.

13. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Sacramento County Flood Insurance Rate Map. August 16, 2012.

14. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guide to Air Quality Assessment [pg. 7-3]. December, 2007. Available at:
http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch7Odors%20FINAL6- 2016.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2019.

15. Sacramento County Water Agency. Urban Water Management Plan. May, 2016.

C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
 Aesthetics  Agriculture and Forest
Resources
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy
 Geology and Soils  Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
 Hydrology and Water
Quality
 Land Use and Planning  Mineral Resources
 Noise  Population and Housing  Public Services
 Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities and Service
Systems
 Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of
Significance
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

D. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:
 I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
 I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Darcy Goulart, Principal Planner City of Rancho Cordova Printed Name For
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

E. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
This Initial Study (IS) identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of The Preserve Project (proposed project). The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance with the order of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

On June 26, 2006, the City of Rancho Cordova adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan1 and certified an associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR).2 Per Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a project that is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations of the City may tier from the analysis contained in the General Plan EIR, incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR. The proposed project would not be consistent with General Plan designation and requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the site, a General Plan Amendment to remove from the Circulation Element Centennial Drive in the project vicinity, and a Rezone. As a result, the environmental analysis contained in this IS cannot be tiered from the General Plan EIR in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, but rather, the analysis herein is primarily based upon project-specific technical studies and information. However, where applicable, supplemental information in this IS has been drawn from the Rancho Cordova General Plan and the Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR, and both documents are incorporated by reference in this IS.

The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this IS would be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA, and the mitigation measures would be incorporated into the project. In addition, findings and a project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be adopted in conjunction with approval of the project.

F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following section provides a comprehensive description of the proposed project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines.

Project Location and Setting
The project site consists of approximately 283 acres located within the City of Rancho Cordova, California (see Figure 1). The site is located northwest of Raymer Way and Grant Line Road, within the Grant Line West Planning Area of the City (see Figure 2). The project site is directly east of the Rio Del Oro Specific Plan and north of the Sunridge Specific Plan. The site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 072-0300-001, -002, -005, -008, and 073-0010-010, and -011.

Currently, the 283-acre project site contains two single-family residences on the southern portion of the site, and the remainder of the site is vacant, primarily composed of non-native grasses. The site is characterized by moderate rolling hills and flatlands interspersed with seasonal drainage corridors and wetlands. Additionally, Morrison Creek runs northeast to southwest through the project site. The site contains at least two wells and septic systems associated with the existing residences.
1 City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2006. 2 City of Rancho Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 2005022137. March 13, 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 1
Project Location
Project Location
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 2
Project Site and Existing Boundaries
Project Site
Raymer Way
Access
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The General plan designates the project site Planning Area. Specifically, the site is located within the Grant Line West Planning Area and is designated Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density by the Draft Land Use Concept Map. The site is zoned Agricultural (AG-80) and Industrial Reserve (IR).

The elevation of the site ranges from 210 to 250 feet above mean sea level. The project site is predominantly covered in grassland, primarily composed of non-native annual grasses and forbs, with limited patchy riparian vegetation along Morrison Creek. In addition, the project site contains approximately 7.9 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, including seasonal wetlands and vernal pools.

Several ornamental trees are located along the existing entrance road and around the existing residential buildings. In all, an arborist report prepared for the project site documented 249 trees within the site, including coast redwood, eucalyptus, and other trees not native to the region.

Project Components
The proposed project would include subdivision of the project site to develop a total of 434 singlefamily lots and various associated improvements including, but not limited to, parks, a preserve area, landscaping, circulation improvements, and utility installation. The project would require City approval of the following: General Plan Amendment; Rezone; Development Agreement; and Tentative Subdivision Map. The details of the proposed project, including required approvals, are described in further detail below.

General Plan Amendment/Rezone
Per the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan, the project site is currently designated Planning Area. The Draft Land Use Concept Map for the Grant Line West Planning Area designates the site Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density. The proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the site’s land use designation in the Grant Line West Planning Area to Low-Density Residential. An additional General Plan Amendment would be required to remove from the Circulation Element Centennial Drive in the project vicinity. In addition, the project would require a rezone to change approximately 70 acres of the AG-80 and approximately 25 acres of the IR zoning designations to Residential District (RD-6), six dwelling units per acre maximum (see Figure 3).

Tentative Subdivision Map
The proposed project would include a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide the project site into 434 single-family residential lots (see Figure 4). Lots on the western portion of the project site would generally be a minimum of 4,050 sf (45 feet x 90 feet), with larger lots at the corners of each block. Lots in the central portion of the site would generally be a minimum of 5,775 sf (55 feet x 105 feet) with corner lots and others being larger, and lots in the eastern portion of the site would generally be a minimum of 4,725 sf (45 feet x 105 feet). Overall, the proposed lots would range from a minimum of 4,050 sf to a maximum of 9,416 sf (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). The units would include either an 18- or 20-foot setback from the front of the residence to the street.

In addition, the proposed project would establish a 100-foot setback from Morrison Creek.

In addition, subdivision of the site would include 26.12 acres of park area and community spaces,

1.22 acres of green infrastructure, and 185.3 acres of open space/preserve area. Within the community space, the proposed project would also include three hydromodification basins for treatment of wastewater.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 3
Existing and Proposed Zoning
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 4
Tentative Subdivision Map
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 5
Western Site Map Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 6
Eastern Site Map Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Development Agreement
The proposed project would include a Development Agreement to assure the City that the proposed project would be constructed and developed in compliance with the plans submitted by the applicant. The agreement would also give certainty to various City fees associated with development of the proposed project. Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources, reducing the cost of development, and encouraging investment in comprehensive planning.

Access and Circulation
The proposed project would include two entry points and potential widening of Raymer Way, as well as connection to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision by way of an extension of Edington Drive and a new connection to Thornburg Way. The streets would be between 42 and 69-feet wide, which would allow for emergency vehicle access within the minimum 20-foot street width requirement. The internal circulation system would consist of several streets with circulation to all residences within the subdivision. The proposed project would include construction of 10- foot sidewalks and gutters per City standards along the internal streets. Six-foot margins along the sides of each street would allow for street parking. Construction of the two entry points from Raymer Way as well as the new connection with Thornburg Way would require construction activity outside of, but adjacent to, the project site. These roadway improvements would be considered off-site.

Parks, Open Space, and Landscaping
As part of the proposed project, 185.3 acres of undeveloped land on the northern parcels would be retained as open space/preserve (see Figure 7). Morrison Creek would be undisturbed within the open space area. The proposed project would include measures to protect the vegetation and habitats within the 185.3 acres of open space/preserve, including but not limited to, preserve fencing and long-term funding for management of the preserve. Portions of an easement for the future extension of Centennial Drive would be located within the 185.3-acre open space/preserve area. The areas designated for open space would maintain the IR or AG-80 zoning designation and would not require an amendment.

A total of 26.12 acres are planned for two park areas located at the northern end of the development area and community spaces. The parks would be managed by the Cordova Recreation and Park District. The Community Space area would include bioretention and hydromodification areas. Finally, 1.22 acres of the project site would be designated green infrastructure which would include enhanced landscaped areas and trails with connection to the surrounding parks.

Utilities
Potable water service for the project would be provided by the Sacramento County Water Agency.

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 run throughout the streets of the project site and would service all units (see Figure 8).

Sanitary sewer service is provided to the City by the County Sanitation District 1. The County Sanitation District 1 operates and maintains the sewer system, which collects wastewater flows from individual developments within the City and conveys them to the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Inceptor system. Wastewater is ultimately delivered to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant north of Elk Grove.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 7
Parks and Open Space/Preserve Land
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Figure 8
Preliminary Utilities Plan
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The proposed project would include installation of eight-inch sanitary sewer pipelines throughout the project site which would divert wastewater to the County Sanitation District. The project would include connection of the eight-inch sanitary sewer lines to existing eight-inch sewer lines within Edington Drive and Thornberg Way.

Stormwater generated by impervious areas within the project site would be directed to a series of new drain inlets, by way of drainage pipes sized between 12 and 30 inches. Runoff from the inlets would then be directed to three bioretention and hydromodification basins along the northwest corner of the project site. Each area would be constructed and sized to properly treat stormwater falling on the project site prior to discharge to the City system.

G. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. For this checklist, the following designations are used:

Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.

Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

I. AESTHETICS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?    
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
   
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
   
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
   
Discussion
a,b. Examples of typical scenic vistas include mountain ranges, ridgelines, or bodies of water as viewed from a highway, public space, or other area designated for the express purpose of viewing and sightseeing. In general, a project’s impact to a scenic vista would occur if development of the project would substantially change or remove a scenic vista. A scenic vista includes any such areas designated by a federal, state, or local agency. The City of Rancho Cordova’s General Plan does not officially designate scenic vistas within the planning area. However, the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR does designate the American River and the Sierra Nevada Mountain range as scenic resources.

Additionally, the City lists areas which include views of scenic resources. Examples include Mt. Diablo (Grant Line Road), Pine Hill, Flagstaff Hill, Pyramid Peak, Carson Spur, Jackson Butte, Mt. Vaca, and Goat Mountain/Snow Mountain.3 In addition, the General Plan EIR designates the American River as an important scenic resource; however, the project site is approximately 5.5 miles away and does not offer scenic views of the river from the site. Therefore, the project would not obstruct this scenic resource. Despite the Sierra Nevada Mountain range being designated as a scenic resource, the General Plan states that the views are scattered, and partially obstructed by distance and existing structures. Public views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range to the east of the project site may be available from portions of Grant Line Road in proximity to the project site; however, public views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range are not currently available from the west of the project site. Development of the proposed project would not alter existing views looking east from Grant Line Road (i.e. views looking from Grant Line Road towards the Sierra Nevada). Thus, the proposed project would not substantially affect views of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range or the American River.

The City’s General Plan notes that scenic views of Mount Diablo are available from portions of Grant Line Road. However, the areas proposed for residential development are located approximately 1,000 feet from Grant Line Road. Separation of the proposed residences from Grant Line Road would diminish the perceived height of the proposed structures, allowing for views over proposed residences. In addition, the proposed 3 City of Ranch Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan – III Urban Design Element [pg. 8]. June 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

residential structures would be subject to the design requirements within the City of Rancho Cordova’s Municipal Code, including the maximum building height restrictions.

Adherence to the zoning code maximum height restrictions would ensure that development of the proposed project would not include construction of excessively tall structures that could substantially interfere with distant views of scenic resources.

Considering the lack of significant or designated public views of the American River or the Sierra Nevada foothills across the project site, the setback of proposed structures from Grant Line Road, and the existing maximum height requirements, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, the project site is not located within the vicinity of an officially designated State Scenic Highway.4 The nearest designated State Scenic Highways are State Route (SR) 50 and SR 160; however, the project is located approximately 3.75 miles away from SR 50 and 12 miles away from SR 160. Because the project site is not visible from either highway, the project would not have an adverse-effect on the foregoing scenic highways.

The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a designated scenic vista or state scenic highway. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Views of the project site currently consist of rural agricultural landscapes, dominated by weedy ruderal vegetation where agricultural operations have ceased, and two on-site structures. The site is bordered by the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision to the south and Grant Line Road is located to the east of the site. The proposed project would result in a portion of the project being developed with a single-family residential subdivision.

Although a portion of the land within the project site would be converted to residential uses, the area to the north of the proposed residential development would remain as undeveloped open/agricultural space. Because the northern portion of the project site would remain undeveloped, public views of the site from Grant Line Road, of the northern portion of the site, would remain unchanged.

The proposed residential structures would be adjacent to the existing residential development to the south of the project site, and would be visually consistent with the existing subdivision. Therefore, although the proposed project would result in a change in the visual character of the southern portion of the project site, such a change would be consistent with the existing development to the south of the project site. The proposed development would be subject to all relevant standards within the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code and the City’s Design Guidelines.
5 The City’s Design Guidelines provide
a framework to evaluate new development projects and ensure that development within the City meet the City’s aesthetic and design standards and vision. In addition, the Design Guidelines include a checklist that should be used in the design of projects to ensure that all proposed residential developments meet the City’s design standards. 4 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed June 2019. 5 City of Rancho Cordova. Design Guidelines. September 6, 2005.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Considering the above, implementation of the proposed project would include retention of the northern portion of the site as undeveloped agricultural/grassland areas, while the southern portion of the site would be developed in a manner consistent with existing development adjacent to the site, and in compliance with all relevant guidelines related to project design. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a degradation of the existing visual character of the site or quality of the public views of the site and its surroundings, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. d. The project site is located in a rural agricultural area. As such, relatively few sources of light and glare occur in the project vicinity. Existing sources of light and glare are primarily limited to headlights from vehicles travelling on Grant Line Road and Raymer Way.

Sources of light and glare are also produced by the Camden at Somerset Ranch residential subdivision to the south of the project site and the two existing on-site residences. Implementation of the proposed project would develop the site with 434 residential buildings, and, thus, would introduce new sources of light and glare where little currently exists.

Development of the project would add new sources of light and glare to the site in the form of street lights, homes, windows, and increased vehicle traffic. Per Section 23.725.060 of the Ranch Cordova Municipal Code, the project would be subject to compliance with the applicable sections of the lighting code, including, but not limited to, shielding of fixtures to limit light pollution and the restriction of direct lighting from crossing property lines.

Given that the exact location and type of lighting fixtures required on-site is not currently known, the potential exists for the project to create a new source of substantial light or glare which could adversely affecting nighttime views in the area and potentially violating Section 23.725.060 of the Ranch Cordova Municipal Code. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

I-1 Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans and issuance of Building Permits for any development on the project site, the project applicant shall submit a lighting plan for the project to the City of Rancho Cordova Planning Division for review and approval. The lighting plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following provisions:
• Shield or screen lighting fixtures to direct the light downward and prevent light spill on adjacent properties;
• Place and shield or screen flood and area lighting needed for construction activities and/or security so as not to disturb adjacent residential areas and passing motorists;
• For public lighting, prohibit the use of light fixtures that are of unusually high intensity or brightness (e.g., harsh mercury vapor, low-pressure sodium, or fluorescent bulbs) or that blink or flash; • Use appropriate building materials (such as low-glare glass, lowglare building glaze or finish, neutral, colored paint and roofing materials), shielded or screened lighting, and appropriate signage ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

to prevent light and glare from adversely affecting motorists on nearby roadways; and
• The proposed location, mounting height, and aiming point of all outdoor lighting used during project operations and/or construction.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST
RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
   
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
   
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?    
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
   
Discussion
a,e. The project site is currently zoned AG-80 and IR, and the parcel contains two-single family residences with vacant land containing non-native grasses throughout the site. Per the Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), the project site is currently classified as Grazing Land, Farmland of Local Importance, and Unique Farmland.
6 Grazing Land is defined as land where existing vegetation is suited for the grazing of livestock. Farmland of Local Importance is land that is currently irrigated for crops or pasture or non-irrigated crops. Grazing Land and Farmland of Local Importance do not qualify as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Furthermore, the project site is not currently used for grazing purposes or for crops or pasture.

A small area in the northeast portion of the project site is designated Unique Farmland.

However, the portion of the site designated Unique Farmland is located within the 185.3- acre open space/ preserve area, which would be retained and would not be developed as part of the proposed project. It should be noted that the 185.3-acre open space/preserve area includes portions of an easement for the future extension of Centennial Drive; however, development within this easement is not proposed as part of the proposed project. Further, the easement area is not located within the portion of the site designated as Unique Farmland. The 185.3-acre area would maintain the AG-80 and IR zoning designations. Under the existing AG-80 zoning, agriculture activities could occur. The portions of nature preserve and bio-retention areas at the northern portion of the proposed residential area would provide a buffer between the proposed residential uses and the potential future agricultural activities within the AG-80 zone and the area designated as 6 California Department of Conservation. Sacramento County Important Farmland 2016. July 2017.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Unique Farmland . As such, development of the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use or involve any other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
b. The proposed project includes a request for a rezone of a portion of the site from the existing AG-80 and IR designation to RD-6. The remaining 185.3-acres of the site would continue to hold the existing AG-80 and IR zoning designations. The project site is not currently being used for agricultural purposes, and, thus, the project would not result in development of land being used for agriculture. Furthermore, the City has already considered impacts associated with development of the site with non-agricultural uses as part of the General Plan EIR analysis. The proposed project would not result in any impacts in excess of what has already been considered by the City. Given the City’s General Plan EIR has already anticipated impacts related to conversion of agricultural land,, and the project site is not under a Williamson Act contract, a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c,d. The project area is not considered forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), and is not zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104[g]).

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to conversion of forest land or any potential conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

III. AIR QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?    
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
   
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?    
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
   
Discussion
a,b. Rancho Cordova is located within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB) and under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) require that federal and State ambient air quality standards (AAQS) be established, respectively, for six common air pollutants, known as criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants include particulate matter (PM), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and lead. At the federal level, Sacramento County is designated as severe nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone AAQS, nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 AAQS, and attainment or unclassified for all other criteria pollutant AAQS. At the State level, the area is designated as a serious nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone AAQS, nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone AAQS, nonattainment for the PM10 and PM2.5 AAQS, and attainment or unclassified for all other State AAQS.

Due to the nonattainment designations, SMAQMD, along with the other air districts in the SVAB region, is required to develop plans to attain the federal and State AAQS for ozone and particulate matter. The attainment plans currently in effect for the SVAB are the 2013 Revisions to the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 Ozone Attainment Plan), PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Re-designation Request for Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area (PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan), and the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP), including triennial reports. The air quality plans include emissions inventories to measure the sources of air pollutants, to evaluate how well different control measures have worked, and show how air pollution would be reduced. In addition, the plans include the estimated future levels of pollution to ensure that the area would meet air quality goals.

General conformity requirements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) include whether a project would cause or contribute to new violations of any federal AAQS, increase the frequency or severity of an existing violation of any federal AAQS, or delay timely attainment of any federal AAQS. In addition, a project would be considered to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, an applicable air quality plan if the project would be inconsistent with the emissions inventories contained in the air quality plan. Emission inventories are developed based on projected increases in population, employment, regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and associated area sources within the region, which are based on regional projections that are, in turn, based on General Plans and zoning designations for the region.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Due to the nonattainment designations of the area, SMAQMD has developed plans to attain the State and federal standards for ozone and particulate matter. The plans include the 2013 Ozone Attainment Plan, the PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan, and the 2012 Triennial Assessment and Plan Update. Adopted SMAQMD rules and regulations, as well as the thresholds of significance, have been developed with the intent to ensure continued attainment of AAQS, or to work towards attainment of AAQS for which the area is currently designated nonattainment, consistent with applicable air quality plans. Thus, by exceeding the SMAQMD’s mass emission thresholds for operational or construction emissions of ROG, NOX, or PM10, a project would be considered to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SMAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.

During construction of the proposed project heavy-duty equipment would operate on the project site. Exhaust emissions would be generated by construction equipment, as well as equipment used for vegetation clearing and earth movement activities. Additional criteria pollutant emissions would be generated from workers and residents commuting to and from the project site. In addition, operational emissions associated with the proposed development would primarily consist of an increase in vehicle trips. Increased vehicle trips in the City of Rancho Cordova would generate increased amounts of NOX, ROG, and PM10. Therefore, the aforementioned activities could result in increased emissions in the project vicinity above thresholds established by the SMAQMD.

Construction and operational emissions associated with the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within the project region could either delay attainment of the standards or require the adoption of additional controls on existing and future air pollution sources to offset emission increases.

The increase in emissions as a result of the project would require further study to determine the significance of related impacts. Thus, the project could cumulatively contribute to regional air quality health effects through emissions of criteria and mobile source air pollutants. Based on the above, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact with regard to air quality.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR. c. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others, due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and/or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with existing health problems are especially vulnerable to the effects of air pollution. Sensitive receptors are typically defined as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (i.e., children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. Accordingly, land uses that are typically considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals, and medical clinics. The nearest existing sensitive receptors would be the residential development located south of the project site.

The major pollutants of concern are localized carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. Implementation of the proposed project would involve operation of heavy-duty construction equipment on the project site throughout the duration of the construction activities. Furthermore, project operations may include sources of TACs or contribute substantially to localized CO emissions. Given that construction and ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

operation of the proposed project could result in localized CO and TAC emissions, further analysis of such emission sources is required.

Because the proposed project could involve pollutant emissions associated with construction and operations of the proposed project, the project could expose existing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Accordingly, impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations could be potentially significant.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR. d. Emissions such as those leading to odors have the potential to adversely affect sensitive receptors within the project area. Pollutants of principal concern include emissions leading to odors, emission of dust, or emissions considered to constitute air pollutants. Air pollutants and emissions of dust have been discussed in section “a” through “c” above and will be further addressed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions chapter of the Preserve Project EIR. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on emissions of odors.

According to the SMAQMD, common types of facilities that are known to produce odors include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment facilities, chemical or fiberglass manufacturing, landfills, composting facilities, food processing facilities, refineries, dairies, and rendering plants.7 Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The presence of an odor impact is dependent on a number of variables including: the nature of the odor source; the frequency of odor generation; the intensity of odor; the distance of odor source to sensitive receptors; wind direction; and sensitivity of the receptor. Residential land uses, such as the proposed project, are not typically associated with creation of substantial objectionable odors. As a result, the proposed project operations would not create any objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people.

In addition, SMAQMD regulates objectionable odors through Rule 402 (Nuisance), which prohibits any person or source from emitting air contaminants that cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or the public. Rule 402 is enforced based on complaints. If complaints are received, the SMAQMD is required to investigate the complaint, as well as determine and ensure a solution for the source of the complaint, which could include operational modifications. Thus, although not anticipated, if odor complaints are submitted after the proposed project is approved, the SMAQMD would ensure that such odors are addressed and any potential odor effects reduced to less than significant.

For the aforementioned reasons, implementation of the proposed project would not result in emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people, and a less-than-significant impact would result. 7 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. CEQA Guide to Air Quality Assessment [pg. 7-3].

December, 2007. Available at:
http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch7Odors%20FINAL6-2016.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, and
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
   
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
   
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
   
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
   
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation
Community Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
   
Discussion
a. A search of special-status species in the area was conducted for the Buffalo Creek 7.5- minute quadrangle through the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the project area.8 According to the CNDDB, various species of special-status plants and animals occur within the vicinity of the project site. Special-status plants with the potential to occur at the project site include legenere, slender Orcutt grass, Sacramento Orcutt grass, and Sanford’s arrowhead. In addition, the potential exists for the following specialstatus wildlife species to occur on-site: conservancy fairy shrimp, mid-valley fairy shrimp, ricksecker’s water scavenger beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, western spadefoot, American badger, burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, merlin, northern harrier, western pond turtle, white-tailed kite, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, special-status bats, and other migratory birds and nesting raptors protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, the proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S.

Fish & Wildlife Service. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur. 8 California Natural Diversity Database. Buffalo Creek, California. 2018 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Biological Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
b,c. A Wetland Delineation prepared for the project site in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual noted that the project site contains potential wetlands and waters of the U.S., including vernal pools, wetland swales, and streams/creeks. The various on-site wetlands are seasonal; however, the wetlands may serve as potential habitats for various species found on the project site. Although a portion of the project site would remain open space, the potential exists that development of the proposed residences would disturb the wetlands and vernal pools located on-site.

Furthermore, while the project would include a 100-foot setback from Morrison Creek, the potential to disrupt wildlife in the area still exists. Therefore, the project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and could have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Biological Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
d. Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or by areas of human disturbance or urban development. Topography and other natural factors in combination with urbanization can fragment or separate large open-space areas. The fragmentation of natural habitat can create isolated “islands” of vegetation and habitat that may not provide sufficient area to accommodate sustainable populations and can adversely impact genetic and species diversity.

The proposed project site contains Morrison Creek which is located within the northern portion of the site and various riparian habitats are present throughout project site. The riparian vegetation could represent a wildlife movement corridor which could be disturbed with implementation of the project. Moreover, the use of the project site as a wildlife nursery site, although unlikely, is currently unknown. Due to the potential presence of the wildlife movement corridors the project could interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Biological Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
e. The project site contains a total of 249 trees greater than six inches in diameter at standard height (dsh) for trees measured at 4.5-feet above natural grade. All of the trees on the project site are nonnative to the region. Of the 249 total trees on the project site, 146 trees are 12-inches or more in dsh and meet the definition of a Protected Tree per the City of Rancho Cordova’s Municipal Code (Chapter 19.12). With implementation of the proposed project, a portion of the existing trees would require removal to accommodate the proposed development. Removal of a substantial number of trees, including protected trees could result in a potentially significant impact related to conflicting with local ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including local tree preservation policies.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Biological Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
f. The South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP) was recently adopted in February of 2018, by the cities of Rancho Cordova and Galt; Sacramento County; the Sacramento County Water Agency; the Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District; and the Capital Southeast Connector Joint Powers Authority. The project site is located within the boundaries of the SSHCP and is subject to the SSHCP requirements. The proposed project would be subject to compliance monitoring to track the status of the SSHCP implementation and provide protection and mitigation for covered species. As such, the potential exists for the proposed project to conflict with applicable standards within the SSHCP, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Biological Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
   
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
   
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.    
Discussion
a,b,c. Historical resources are features that are associated with the lives of historically important persons and/or historically significant events, that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the pre-history or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Examples of typical historical resources include, but are not limited to, buildings, farmsteads, rail lines, bridges, and trash scatters containing objects such as colored glass and ceramics. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the Rancho Cordova Planning Area contains twenty-three historic resources, eight prehistoric sites, and one prehistoric/historic site.9 The project site has not been formally evaluated for the presence/absence of historic or archaeological resources, nor has the site been evaluated for the presence/absence of human remains. Consequently, the presence or absence of such resources at the project site is currently unknown, and the possibility exists that such resources could occur on-site.

Considering that unknown historical/archaeological resources, including human remains, have the potential to exist on-site, ground-disturbing activity related to the proposed construction activities could encounter such resources. Therefore, the project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical or archaeological resources, including human remains, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Cultural and Tribal Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
9 City of Ranch Cordova. City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. [Page 4.11-3] March 13, 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

VI. ENERGY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
   
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?    
Discussion
a,b. The main forms of available energy supply are electricity, natural gas, and oil. A description of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CBSC), with which the proposed project would be required to comply, as well as discussions regarding the proposed project’s potential effects related to energy demand during construction and operations is provided below.

The 2019 CBSC, otherwise known as the CAL Green Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), which will become effective on January 1, 2020.
10 The purpose of the CAL Green Code is to
improve public health, safety, and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices. The CBSC standards regulate the method of use, properties, performance, types of materials used in construction, alteration repair, improvement and rehabilitation of a structure or improvement to property. Construction of the proposed project would involve an increase in energy demand and consumption. Construction related work would require the use of oil in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel or construction trips. Hauling and materials truck delivery and operation of off-road construction equipment would be required in the development of the project.

The project is anticipated to 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.

Based on the increased use of energy during project construction and operations, the project could result in a significant impact due to wasteful or inefficient energy as well as conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR. 10 California Building Standards Commission. California Green Building Standards Code. 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
   
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?    
iv. Landslides?    
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?    
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
   
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?    
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
   
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
   
Discussion
ai. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, the closest fault zone to the project site is the Bear Mountain fault zone. The Bear Mountain fault zone is the primary fault concern in Sacramento County; however, the fault zone is located approximately 24 miles northeast of Rancho Cordova’s Planning Area. Given that known surface expressions of fault traces do not exist within the City’s Planning Area, including the site, fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site. In addition, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are not known to exist near the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur related to substantial adverse effects, including risk, injury, or death, associated with the rupture of a known fault zone.
aii. Ground shaking is the motion that occurs as energy is released during fault related activity and occurs as a result of seismic activity. According to the General Plan EIR, the greatest geologic potential for injury or property damage in the Planning Area is the result of ground shaking from a nearby earthquake. The Planning Area is located within Seismic Zone 3, ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

which is a characteristic of the intensity of an earthquake in a given area. Seismic Zone 3 is considered an area of relatively low ground shaking potential. The California Building Code requirements would mitigate the shaking effects of nearby seismic activity.

Structures built in compliance with the California Building Code should be able to resist moderate earthquakes although some nonstructural damage may occur, and resist major earthquakes without collapse; however, some structural and nonstructural damage is common.

The project would be built in compliance with the California Building Code requirements.

Although the project would adhere to the California Building Code requirements, the proposed project could expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic ground shaking and a potentially significant impact would occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
aiii, aiv,
c. The proposed project’s potential effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence/settlement are discussed in detail below.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes transient loss of strength, which commonly causes ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Because saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. As noted in the General Plan EIR, the depth to the groundwater table and aquifer system is generally greater than 50 feet. While it is not likely that unstable soil is located at the project site, further investigation is necessary to determine the presence/absence of liquefiable soils at the project site.

Landslides
Seismically-induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of landslide hazard is greatest in areas with steep, unstable slopes. Although on-site slopes are relatively minor, the potential for landslides to occur at or affect the site is currently unknown. Therefore, further investigation is necessary to ensure the proposed project would not result in adverse effects.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. Because the potential for liquefaction to occur at the site is unknown, the potential for lateral spreading to occur is unknown. Further analysis of the geologic conditions is required to avoid adverse effects.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Subsidence/Settlement
Loose unsaturated sandy soils can settle during strong seismic shaking. The potential for subsidence/settlement at the site is currently unknown, thus, further study is required to ensure that the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects related to subsidence or settlement of on-site soils.

Conclusion
Based on the above discussion, further analysis of on-site soil conditions is necessary to ensure that the proposed project would not result in adverse effects related to liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, or subsidence/settlement. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur related to directly or indirectly causing substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving liquefaction, due to the sites location on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, potentially resulting in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
b. Issues related to erosion and degradation of water quality during construction are further discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this IS, under question ‘a’. During grading activities associated with development of the proposed project, soil may be temporarily exposed. Thus, the potential exists for wind and water to erode portions of the soil on-site, resulting in the loss of topsoil. Impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during construction of the proposed project could be potentially significant.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Hydrology and Water Quality (Drainage) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
d. Expansive soils can undergo significant volume changes with changes in moisture content. Specifically, such soils shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. If structures are underlain by expansive soils, foundation systems must be capable of withstanding the potential damaging movements of the soil. The proposed project would include construction of foundations or development of residential structures that could be subject to potential risks related to expansive soils. Further study of the geologic conditions would be necessary. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to being located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code, thereby creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
e. The proposed project would include connection to the County Sanitation District 1 system.

Therefore, because the proposed project would use a sewer system, no impact regarding the capability of soil to adequately support the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur.
f. The potential for paleontological resources/unique geologic features to exist at the site is unknown. Should previously unknown paleontological resources exist within the project ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

site, ground-disturbing activity such as grading and excavating associated with development of the proposed project would have the potential to disturb or destroy such resources. Therefore, the proposed project could result in the direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
   
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gasses?
   
Discussion
a,b. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. An individual project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale level relative to global emissions and effects to global climate change; however, an individual project could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. As such, impacts related to emissions of GHG are inherently considered cumulative impacts.

Implementation of the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to increases of GHG emissions. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to the project would be primarily associated with increases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and, to a lesser extent, other GHG pollutants, such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) associated with area sources, mobile sources or vehicles, and electricity use. As such, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change could be cumulatively considerable and considered potentially significant.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
   
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the likely release
of hazardous materials into the environment?
   
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
   
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
   
e. For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
   
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
   
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
   
Discussion
a,b. A significant hazard to the public or the environment could result from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. While the proposed project would not be used for industrial purposes, previous uses of the project site may have involved past uses of hazardous materials. Given that the project site is designated for agricultural production uses, the potential exists for on-site soils to be contaminated with herbicides and/or pesticides from past agricultural activities on-site. If present in sufficient concentrations, such chemicals could pose a risk to workers involved in earth-moving activities at the project site.

In addition, the project site contains two single-family residences on the property which may require removal as part of the proposed project. For buildings constructed prior to 1980, the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926.1101) states that all thermal system insulation must be designated as “presumed asbestos containing material.” Asbestos is the name for a group of natural occurring silicate materials that are considered “fibrous” and can cause serious illness if inhaled. In addition, lead-based paint is common in structures built prior to 1978. Lead is considered a highly toxic material and caution should be used when removing similar structures. Because the age of the structures on-site is ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

unknown, the presence or absence of asbestos and lead-based paint cannot be determined at this time.

The project site currently contains septic systems to support the existing residences. The proposed project would include connection to the County Sanitation District 1 system; thus, abandonment of the existing septic systems would be necessary. If not properly abandoned, the on-site septic systems could pose a hazard to construction workers or future residents. Thus, further analysis is needed to determine the potential impacts of the previous septic systems.

Given that the previous uses of the site and current conditions of the on-site structures are unknown, and the need to properly abandon the existing septic system, a potentially significant impact could occur involving the release of hazardous materials into the public environment.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
c. The nearest schools relative to the project site are Sunrise Elementary School, located approximately 2.3 miles west of the site, and Robert J. McGarvey Elementary School, located approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the site. Therefore, schools are not located within a quarter mile of the site and the proposed project would result in no impact related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. d. A list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 was accessed through the Envirostor database.11 Based on Envirostor data, 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. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the location of the project on a hazardous materials site or creating a significant hazard to the public.
e. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan. The closest airport to the project site is Mather Airport, located approximately five miles to the west of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project site is not located within two miles of any public airports and does not fall within an airport land use plan area and no impact would result related to a safety hazard for people living or working in the area. f. Sufficient emergency access is determined by a number of factors including site circulation and access points. The project would include two off-site entry points and improvements to Raymer Way, as well as an extension to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch Subdivision by way of an extension of Edington Drive and a new connection to Thornburg Way. The streets would be between 42 and 69-feet wide which would provide adequate emergency vehicle access meeting a minimum 20-feet street width requirement. The proposed project would not include substantial modifications to the existing roadway system in the project area. The proposed project would not include any changes to the surrounding roadway networks that would impair circulation. Therefore, the proposed 11 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Envirostor Database Map. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=Sacramento&tour=True. Accessed July 12, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

project would not impair or physically interfere with any emergency evacuation or response plan, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. g. Issues related to wildfire hazards are discussed in Section XX, Wildfire, of this IS. As noted therein, the project site is not located within a Very High or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ).
12 In addition, the site is bordered by an existing residential development to the south which limits the risk of wildland fire to the project site. The area located east of the project site, across Grant Line Road, is designated as a moderate fire hazard zone; the project site is separated from the moderate fire hazard zone by Grant Line Road, and fire protection services are provided to the site by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

Therefore, the nearby moderate fire hazard zone is not considered to pose a substantial hazard to the proposed residences.

The proposed project would not expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
12 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento County, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA.

November 7, 2007.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
   
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
   
c. 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:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;    
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
   
iii. 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
   
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?    
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?     e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
   
Discussion
a. During the early stages of construction, topsoil would be exposed due to grading and leveling of the site. Therefore, after grading and leveling and prior to overlaying the ground with imperious surfaces, the potential exists for wind and water erosion to discharge sediment and/or urban pollutants into stormwater runoff, which would adversely affect water quality. In addition, the proposed project would result in the generation of increased urban runoff from the creation of substantial impervious areas, which could contribute urban runoff constituents to downstream surface waters. The proposed project would be subject to regulation by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) to prevent degradation of water quality.

Based on the above, the proposed project could result in the violation of water quality standards and degradation of water quality, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Hydrology and Water Quality (Drainage) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

b,e. According to the Sacramento County Water Agency’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA) adopted a Groundwater Management Plan in 2006.13 The SCGA was formed to maintain the long-term sustainable yield of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin groundwater supply. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially deplete groundwater supply from this basin. In addition, the proposed project would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and a Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP) as the project would create over 10,000 sf of impervious surfaces. Thus, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project could impede a sustainable groundwater management plan of the basin.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Hydrology and Water Quality (Drainage) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
ci-civ. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on the site would be directed toward the proposed bioretention and hydromodification areas in the northwest of corner of the parcel. Water from the bioretention basins would drain into the hydromodification basin through a 12-inch storm drain. An outlet structure would be connected to the hydromodification basin which would then direct the water to an existing pond off site.

Given the substantial drainage modifications that would occur with the proposed project, further study is required to ensure that such modifications would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Hydrology and Water Quality (Drainage) chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
d. The project site is not located near the ocean and, thus, would not be subject to tsunami hazards. The site is not located within the vicinity of a large closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir that could be subject to risks from seiches. In addition, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project site is not located within a Special Flood Hazard Area subject to a 100-year flooding. 14 Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to impeding or redirecting flood flows, or pose a risk related to the release of pollutants due to project inundation due to flooding.
13 Sacramento County Water Agency. Urban Water Management Plan. May, 2016. 14 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Sacramento County Flood Insurance Rate Map. August 16, 2012.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?    
b. 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?
   
Discussion
a. A project risks dividing an established community if the project would introduce infrastructure or alter land use so as to change the land use conditions in the surrounding community, or isolate an existing land use. Currently, two existing single-family homes are located on the project site. Given that the existing single-family residences do not belong to an established community and would be demolished as part of the proposed project, the project would not have the potential to physically divide an established community.

Accordingly, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Per the Rancho Cordova General Plan, the project site is currently designated Planning Area. The site is located within the Grant Line West Planning Area and is designated Natural Resources and Residential-Mixed Density. Implementation of the project would require a General Plan Amendment to change the sites land use designation to LowDensity Residential. An additional General Plan Amendment would be required to remove from the Circulation Element Centennial Drive in the project vicinity. In addition, the project would require a rezone of the AG-80 and IR zoning designations to RD-6.

Given that the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment and rezone, further analysis of the project’s consistency with applicable land use policies, plans, and regulations is required to ensure that the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to conflicts with such standards. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
   
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
   
Discussion
a,b. Per the City’s General Plan EIR, mineral extraction in the Planning Area primarily consists of fine sand and course gravel, as well as clay. Currently, two mining operations exist near the project site. Teichert aggregates is located northeast of the project site and Union Mine Iron is located southwest of the project site. The proximity of the project site to existing mining operations could signify that the site contains both known significant mineral resources and known mineral deposits that could qualify as mineral resources.15 Given that the proposed project is located close to an existing mining operation, the proposed project could result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Thus, a potentially significant impact would occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
15 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft EIR [pg. 4.8-11]. March 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XIII. NOISE.

Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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?
   
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?    
c. 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?
   
Discussion
a. The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is defined primarily by vehicle noise from surrounding streets including Grant Line Road and Raymer Way. The proposed project would increase traffic noise levels on surrounding streets with the introduction of new residential development. In addition, project operations would also result in an increase in stationary noise associated with outdoor and recreational activities in the area.

Temporary noise sources would also be produced during construction activities.

Construction activities could include earth moving activities, stationary equipment, and construction vehicles would generate noise during demolition, site preparation, excavation, and grading. Noise levels generated by the project may exceed established thresholds in the City’s General Plan Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. The project could cause a substantial permanent, temporary, or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above thresholds. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Noise chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
b. Groundborne vibration generated would be generated during construction of the proposed project. Construction activities would produce groundborne vibrations include drilling, the use of jackhammers, and other high-power or vibratory tools, and heavy-duty equipment.

In addition, construction activities may expose the nearby residential development to the south of the project site to groundborne vibrations. In the event that such groundborne vibration occurs within the vicinity of the existing sensitive receptors to the south of the project site, the project could expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in The Noise chapter of the Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

c. The nearest airport to the project site is Mather Airport, located approximately five miles to the west of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels related to air traffic, and no impact would occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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)?
   
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include the development of a 434-unit, single-family residential subdivision. The proposed project requests a General Plan Amendment to remove the Natural Reserve and Residential-Mixed Density designation and introduce Low-Density Residential to the project site. Additionally, the project includes a request to rezone a portion of the site from AG-80 and IR zoning to RD-6. The proposed project would not be consistent with City’s current General Plan designations for the project site and would result in direct population growth in the area. Thus, the project would result in a potentially significant impact related to population and housing.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Land Use & Planning/Population and Housing chapter of The Preserve Project EIR. b. The project site is currently developed with two single-family residences on the southern portion of the project site. The proposed project would require demolition of the on-site structures. While the project would displace inhabitants of the two single-family residences, considering the small number of current residents that would be displaced, replacement housing would be available from the existing housing stock in Rancho Cordova. Furthermore, the project would add 434 residential units to the site, resulting in a net increase of 432 units to the City’s housing stock. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project 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:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other Public Facilities?    
Discussion
a. Fire protection services within the project area are provided by the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District. The project site is located close to two fire stations in the City of Rancho Cordova. Station 68 is located approximately four miles south west of the project site and Station 66 is located approximately six miles west of the project site. Station 68 is located at 4381 Anatolia Drive in Rancho Cordova while Station 66 is located at 3180 Kilgore Road in Rancho Cordova. The proposed project would include development of new residential units and parks, which could result in the potential for fire incidents, EMT calls, and create an increase in demand for fire protection services. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Public Services and Utilities chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
b. Police protection services for the project site are currently provided by the Rancho Cordova Police Department, which maintains a staff of 55 sworn police officers and 7 nonsworn staff members.16 The Police Station is located at 2897 Kilgore Road in the City of Rancho Cordova. The proposed project would increase the number of residents and houses in the area, which could result in an increase in demand for police protection services. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Public Services and Utilities chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
c. The project site is located with the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, which includes 33 public and private schools. The project site would be served by Navigator Elementary School located at 10679 Bear Hollow Drive, W.E. Mitchell Middle School located at 2100 Zinfandel Drive, and Cordova High School located at 2239 Chase Drive.

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 1 uses the rates provided in the City’s General Plan EIR for single16 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova Police Department. Available at:
http://www.ranchocordovapd.com/about.php. Accessed: July 11, 2019.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

family dwelling units.17 As shown in Table 1, the proposed project could generate approximately 221 students. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increased number of students in the area, and, thus may result in a potentially significant impact to school services.

Table 1
Student Generation Estimates
Housing
Type
# of
Units
Elementary
Students
Junior High
Students
High School
Students
Rate
New
Students Rate
New
Students Rate
New
Students
Low Density 434 0.299 130 0.104 45 0.107 46
Total New Students 221
Source:
• City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft EIR. [pg. 4.12-77]. March, 2006.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Public Services chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
d,e. The proposed project would include the construction of new homes and, thus, would introduce new residents to the project area. As such, the project would result in increased demand for schools, parks, and other public facilities. The Rancho Cordova Recreation and Park District maintains 18 neighborhood parks and six community parks. Hagan Community Park includes approximately 75 acres including the Cordova Community Center, three swimming pools, and additional recreation areas. A section of the American River Parkway is also in Rancho Cordova which includes a 23-mile open space area.

In addition, the City has collected Quimby Act fees since its incorporation in July 2003.

The Quimby Act standard for dedication of parkland is 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Per section 22.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project would be required to dedicate at least 6.4 acres of parkland based on the inclusion of 434 units within the proposed project.
18 The proposed project would satisfy the Municipal Code requirement, as the project would include dedication of a total of 26.12 acres, included in two park areas located at the northern end of the development and community spaces. The parks would be managed by the Cordova Recreation and Park District. The designated community space areas would include bioretention and hydromodification basins. In addition, the project site would include 1.22 acres of green infrastructure to enhance landscape areas and trails connected to surrounding parks.

Currently, other public facilities located in Rancho Cordova include four community swimming pools, the Cordova Senior Center, Mather Sports Complex, the Cordova Shooting Center, and the Cordova Golf Course. The Mather Sports Complex allows residents to participate in a large variety of activities including aerobics, racquetball, and a gym where residents can exercise. Due to the proposed implementation of open space and parks, the project would satisfy the City’s parkland dedication requirements and allow access to public facilities throughout the City. Thus, a less-than-significant impact related to impacts on parks or the need for additional parks would occur. 17 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft EIR. [pg. 4.12-77]. March, 2006. 18 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. [Section 22.40.035]. June 2019 ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
   
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
   
Discussion
a,b. Given that the proposed project would include residential development and would generate population growth within the project area, the project would result in increased demand for park and recreation facilities. However, the proposed project would include two on-site parks and open space at the northern end of the site. As stated in Section XV Public Services, the project would designate 26.12 acres and Community Space, and 1.22 acres of green infrastructure which would exceed the City’s parkland dedication requirement of 6.4 acres. Per Section 22.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, the parks would be managed by the Cordova Parks and Recreation District and subject to park improvement development fees. Therefore, substantial deterioration of any parks or recreational facilities would not occur as a result of the proposed project.

In addition to the development of the proposed parks, the American River Parkway includes C.M. Geothe Park which consists of 444 acres, and has hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails as well as picnic areas for residents. Construction of recreation facilities will not be included as part of the proposed project; however, Rancho Cordova offers numerous recreation facilities including the Mills Station Arts and Culture Center and an exhibit of fine art at Rancho Cordova City Hall.19 The Neil Orchard Senior Activities Center also offers a place for intimate family gatherings and large community meetings.

The project would not be required to construct new recreation facilities, as the current facilities, combined with the proposed on-site park areas, would accommodate residents of the proposed project.

With payment of improvement development fees and designated land for parks, the project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of any existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, and would not result in adverse physical effects related to the construction or expansion of new facilities. Consequently, a lessthan-significant impact would occur. 19 City of Rancho Cordova. Rancho Cordova General Plan Draft EIR. [pg. 4.12-84]. March 2006.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
   
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?    
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
   
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include construction of two entry points and improvements on Raymer Way, as well as connection to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision through an extension of Edington Drive and a new connection to Thornburg Way. Increased vehicle trips in the area related to project construction and operations could impact roadway systems by increasing vehicle volumes and congestion at intersections. Thus, further study is required to determine whether implementation of the proposed project would result in substantial impacts related to traffic load and capacity of the roadway system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). In addition, the project could exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the City General Plan for roads affected by project traffic. Therefore, the project could result in a potentially significant impact related to conflicting with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Transportation chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Per Section 15064.3, analysis of vehicle miles travelled (VMT) attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.

Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and nonmotorized travel. Except as provided in Section 15064.3(b)(2) regarding roadway capacity, a project’s effect on automobile delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA. It should be noted that currently, the provisions of Section 15064.3 apply only prospectively; determination of impacts based on VMT is not required Statewide until July 1, 2020. It should also be noted that the City does not currently have standards for VMT and relies on level of service standards.

Given that the proposed project would result in increased vehicle trip generation on local roadways, further analysis of VMT attributable to the project is required to ensure that the project would not conflict with Section 15064.3(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Transportation chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
c,d. An existing residential subdivision is currently located directly south of the project site and agricultural land to the north. The proposed project includes a request for a General Plan amendment and rezone to allow for the proposed 434 single family residences. The proposed project would include construction of two entry points from Raymer Way, as well as connection to the existing Camden at Somerset Ranch subdivision through an extension of Edington Drive and a new connection to Thornburg Way. Raymer Way may also be improved by widening of the roadway. The internal circulation system would consist of multiple roads to all the residences within the subdivision. The proposed increase in development intensity of the site through development of the proposed residences could cause an increase in traffic-related hazards or affect emergency access in the project area. Without further evaluation, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to an increase in hazards from design features or incompatible uses, or inadequate emergency access to the project.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Transportation chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k).
   
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
   
Discussion
a,b. The proposed project site would include grading and excavation during construction which could lead to encountering previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Tribal resources may exist within the project site due to the site’s proximity to Morrison Creek. To aid in the determination of the presence or absence of tribal cultural resources, the City is in the process of conducting tribal outreach per AB 52. Thus, until tribal consultation is complete and further study is completed related to the presence or absence of tribal cultural resources, impact of the proposed project cannot be known. Therefore, further study is required and a potentially significant impact to tribal cultural resources could occur.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Cultural and Tribal Resources chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. 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?
   
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
   
c. 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?
   
d. 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?
   
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
   
Discussion
a,c. Potable water service for the project would be provided by the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA). The proposed project would include installation of new eight-inch water mains, which would connect to an existing 10-inch water main located within Edington Drive. Sanitary sewer service is provided to the City by the County Sanitation District 1.

The County Sanitation District 1 collects the wastewater flows from individual developments and directs them to the Sacramento Sanitation District Inceptor System.

Wastewater would be routed through the eight-inch sanitary sewer pipelines which would ultimately be delivered to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant north of Elk Grove. Given the size of the proposed residential development, the total quantity of wastewater generated could be substantial.

The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces at the project site, thus, increasing stormwater runoff at the site. Stormwater would be directed through 12 and 30-inch drainage pipes to the bioretention basins located in the northwest corner of the project site. The stormwater would then be directed to the hydromodification basin and then directed to the pond north of the project site.

The project would require the relocation or construction of new water infrastructure, as new waterlines would be included in the development. In addition, connection to existing natural gas or telecommunications infrastructure would be required for the proposed residential development.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Per the SCWA’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, water demands within the SCWA Zone 40 North Service Area are approximately 24,403 acre-feet per year (afy). By the year 2030, the Zone 40 North Service Area water demands are expected to reach 56,816 afy.

As stated above, water demand projections were based on buildout of the SCWA’s UWMP.. Because the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment, implementation of the proposed project could result in an increase in demand for water that was not previously foreseen. Therefore, further study is necessary to determine the potential effect.

Based on the above, the proposed project would require the relocation or construction of new wastewater treatment, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, the project could result in a potentially significant impact related to requiring or resulting in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, storm water drainage, or electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Public Services and Utilities chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
b. As discussed in Section X, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Initial Study, the proposed project would rely on groundwater supplies. Groundwater would be supplied by the SCWA. The proposed project could potentially deplete supply from the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin and have an adverse effect.

According to the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, the SCWA’s ground water is Rancho Cordova’s main water supply. While the City uses surface water as a source of water supply, groundwater supplies are more reliable and consistent. 20 The UWMP
predicts that the SCWA will be able to meet water demands in normal years, single dry years, and multiple dry years through the year 2040. If multiple dry years were to occur between 2020 and 2040, the first-year supply totals would range from 77,900 afy in 2020 to 90,900 afy in 2040. The water supply would meet demand totals of 48,121 afy to 79,278 afy. In second year, supply and demand totals would remain the same. In the third dry year, supply totals would range from 70,200 afy in 2020 to 83,800 afy in 2040. Again, the water supply would meet demand totals of 48,121 afy to 79,278 afy. While the SCWA could supply the SCWA’s service area during drought years, demand projections for the service area were based on land use designations for the SCWA’s service area. The proposed project includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to allow for development of a portion of the site with residential uses. Because the proposed project would include a General Plan Amendment, implementation of the proposed project could result in an increase in demand for water that was not previously foreseen.

Further analysis is necessary to ensure that adequate groundwater supplies would be available to serve the project following the General Plan Amendment altering the land use designation to Low-Density Residential. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact related to having sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
20 Sacramento County Water Agency. Urban Water Management Plan. May 2016.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Public Services and Utilities chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.
d,e. The Sacramento County Department of Waste Management and Recycling (DWMR) is responsible for maintain waste management for residents. The Sacramento County DWMR also oversees the Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority (SWA). 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. The Kiefer Road Landfill is operating below permitted capacity and will have the capacity for about 20 additional years. While the landfill has remaining capacity, the proposed project has not been anticipated by the General Plan and could generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of the landfill.

Based on the above, the proposed project could 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. Further study is necessary to determine if the project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, a potentially significant impact related to solid waste would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Further analysis of the above impact will be included in the Public Services and Utilities chapter of The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XX. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
   
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
   
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
   
Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within a Very High or High FHSZ.
21 The land located to the east of Grant Line Road is designated as Moderate FHSZ in a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Compared to High and Very High FHSZ, the Moderate FHSZ classification defines areas that present a relatively low risk of wildfires.

The area directly south of the proposed project site is occupied with residential development, which would act as a fire break, reducing the potential for fire to spread to the project site from the south. In addition, the currently vacant land to the west of the site is approved for the development of the Rio Del Oro residential community, which, upon completion, would similarly limit the potential for wildfire risk from the west. However, the areas to the north and east of the project site are currently undeveloped and interspersed with ruderal vegetation. The proposed project would preserve 185.3 acres of undeveloped land on the northern parcels. The undeveloped preserve area would be separated from the proposed residences by 26.12 acres of public parks and community spaces north of the proposed residences. The park and community spaces area would be regularly maintained and would provide a buffer between the open space lands and the proposed residential development, providing a fire break and reducing the potential for the spread of wildfire to the proposed residences.

In addition, implementation of the proposed project would include site clearing activities, which would remove much of the on-site vegetation within the developable area and would further create a buffer between lands designated for open space and residential development. Development of the site for residential uses would reduce the risk of wildland fire because site improvements, such as roadways, driveways, and irrigated 21 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento County, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA.

November 7, 2007.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

landscaping, would reduce readily combustible vegetation. Furthermore, development of the proposed project would include the installation of fire suppression systems (e.g., fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, smoke detectors) and would be designed in accordance with the latest requirements of the California Fire Code. In accordance with State standards, the project would be required to maintain defensible space to provide a fire break that would prevent the spread of ground fires and protect on-site structures. The proposed project would also be subject to fire safety requirements of the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, which would review all plans as part of the City’s Building Permit review process.

Fire sprinklers, vegetative buffer zones, and other fire-safe measures may be required as part of their review. Compliance with such would ensure that the potential hazards associated with wildand fires to the proposed buildings and structures would be reduced.

Therefore, based on the above, although an SRA is located in proximity to the project site, implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to result in the following wildfire hazards identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: emergency response or evacuation; exacerbation of wildfire or other fire risks; or wildfire related flooding or landslides, slope instability, or drainage changes.Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
   
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
   
c. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
   
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS, the proposed project could potentially result in impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species and other biological resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project could have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment by potentially reducing the habitat for special-status plant and animal species. In addition, the project could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, including the various wetlands on-site. Furthermore, as noted in Section V, the project site has not been formally evaluated for the presence of historical resources, and possibility exists for such resources to be found on-site. As such, and in the absence of further study, the project could eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impacts will be included in The Preserve Project EIR. b. The proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the City of Rancho Cordova, could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the project area. In particular, the chapters that will discuss project related impacts include Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (including Energy), Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils/Mineral Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality (Drainage), Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing, Noise, Public Services and Utilities, and Transportation. Thus, a potentially significant impact could occur with regard to cumulative impacts in the project area.

Further analysis of the above impacts will be included in The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

c. As described in this IS, implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts related to air quality, hazardous materials, and excess noise levels. As such, in the absence of further study, the project could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, and a potentially significant impact could occur.

Further analysis of the above impacts will be included in The Preserve Project EIR.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

Appendix B
ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

November 18, 2019
Darcy Goulart
City of Rancho Cordova Planning Department
2729 Prospect Park Dr.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Regarding: Notice of Preparation regarding an Environmental Impact Report The Preserve Tentative Subdivision Map (June 10, 2019)
Comment Period: October 25 – November 25
Grant Line West Planning Area
Rancho Cordova, CA

Reviewed by: Cordova Recreation and Park District
Laura Taylor, CRPD Park Planning and Development Manager Lisbet Gullone, CRPD Contract Planner
As a part of the entitlement process for The Preserve Tentative Subdivision Map, the City of Rancho Cordova circulated a Notice of Preparation regarding an Environmental Impact Report on October 25, 2019. The Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD or ’the District’) has previously prepared project review comments in a letter dated March 15, 2019 and met with the project team on February 21 and October 17, 2019.

BACKGROUND
After CRPD reviewed the project for Quimby Parkland requirements in May of this year, the application was on hold until the City could determine if the previously planned extension of Centennial Drive (through the northeast corner of the Parkway development) would remain an option.

This issue has now been resolved. The City will no longer pursue a road extension through the future open space preserve north of the subdivision.

The Preserve Project Initial Study dated October 2019 contains outdated statistics about the Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD) on page 47. The name of the District needs to be corrected in paragraph one. The District currently has 39 parks (10 community parks and 29 neighborhood parks). CRPD also has a golf course, two swimming pools (one is currently being replaced), a senior center and the Mather Sports Complex that includes a gymnasium. CRPD no longer has a shooting center.

TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The Preserve subdivision includes 434 single family units and will have a future population of 1,280 individuals (434 x 2.95). The community is required to provide 6.4 acres of Quimby Parkland (5 acres per 1,000 residents), but as shown in the Park Exhibit, the two parks that are designated to CRPD have a combined area of 10.37 acres. CRPD has also noted that the park area is specified as 8.9 acres on page 8 of the NOP.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4

The current project proposal exceeds the Quimby parkland dedication requirement. The District’s acceptance of additional acreage requires an increase to existing funding models for the development and maintenance of the additional park acreage.

The District has met with the applicant to discuss the latest Tentative Map and Park Exhibit (dated June 10, 2019), but written review comments have not yet been prepared. While the proposed Quimby parks are not consistent with CRPD’s regular standards regarding size and location, the District is open to some deviations to be approved by the District’s General Manager and ultimately the Board of Directors through the mechanism of a Park Development Agreement.

At this time, several options are under consideration. CRPD may consider the larger park in the northeast corner of the subdivision (Park 1) a Community Park and the smaller park at the center of the open space/park corridor (Park 2) a Neighborhood Park. The City of Rancho Cordova staff and CRPD staff have begun discussions about the concept of a trailhead at Park 1 Community Park site to access the proposed trail system. The jurisdictional issues related to City trails and CRPD Quimby parkland have not been detailed should the two agencies pursue a trailhead facility.

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
District standards state that neighborhood parks should have street frontage on three sides and community parks should have street frontage on two sides. The proposed park layout does not conform to this standard and causes some concern for access, visibility and potential security issues.

The District has considered mitigation measures for the access issues created by the nonconformance, suggested below.

The two proposed parks are incorporated with the park/open space corridor close to Morrison Creek, CRPD would like to improve public access to and increase the visibility of the park sites by locating the main loop road (from the North Douglas Neighborhood to Raymer Way) next to Park 2. As a part of this change, Street H would become the main entrance from Raymer Way (in lieu of Street A). In order to further increase the visibility of the two parks, CRPD would also like to place park signs along the assigned loop road.

The proposed trail along Morrison Creek will need to provide access for large maintenance and emergency vehicles. The trail corridor and associated cable fencing along the creek will need to be located in an easement that is separate from the Quimby park sites.

The trail system within The Preserve was presented as connecting to the City of Rancho Cordova trail system. However, adjustments will need to be made to this project proposal and to approved plans for offsite properties to connect the trail system in this project to the City trail system. Because a creek trail was originally envisioned to extend from the west boundary of the Preserve to Americanos Boulevard (along the north side of Morrison Creek), CRPD recommends that the trail within the Preserve (along the south side of Morrison Creek) should extend up to the west subdivision boundary.

From this location, a future trail could be extended west through a portion of Rio Del Oro Specific Plan area to Americanos Boulevard. By moving the trail from the north side of the creek, the main part of the wetlands preserve can also remain undisturbed.

Demonstrated ability to connect The Preserve trail system to the larger City system is needed to justify the concept of a trailhead at Park 1 Community Park site.

ITEM 11.1. ATTACHMENT 4