Agenda packet — Rancho Cordova City Council, November 21, 2022 (part 6 of 12)

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T TR L L T TR R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 234 258 225 54 86 19 83 157 275 245 46 167 Average Queue (ft) 111 156 35 16 21 1 32 63 154 142 7 54 95th Queue (ft) 211 241 142 42 56 9 72 123 231 223 31 131 Link Distance (ft) 411 411 351 351 351
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 263 263 167 237 237 143 143
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T TR L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 345 383 410 217 236 268 291 298 144
Average Queue (ft) 195 238 267 126 139 128 146 157 43
95th Queue (ft) 302 348 386 192 208 227 244 253 108
Link Distance (ft) 391 391 391 488 488 488 488 488 488
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 15
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 800 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B14 WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T R R T R R T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 287 362 69 239 289 240 12 169 164 338 380 439 Average Queue (ft) 120 208 26 28 126 47 0 80 56 159 199 221 95th Queue (ft) 214 314 58 142 284 192 10 152 125 282 332 364 Link Distance (ft) 440 440 440 440 1753 568 568 488 488 488 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 5 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 0
Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement NB SB SB SB
Directions Served TR T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 447 185 174 168
Average Queue (ft) 249 131 115 119
95th Queue (ft) 399 199 184 188
Link Distance (ft) 488 50 50 50
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 27 27 26
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 100 100 97
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: US50 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L LR R T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 133 164 186 155 187 176 144 172 153
Average Queue (ft) 61 87 108 71 79 78 68 67 64
95th Queue (ft) 106 134 161 124 154 148 127 130 128
Link Distance (ft) 1501 1501 101 101 101 129 129
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 2 1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 13 9 6 2 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 185
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 801 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center City of Rancho Cordova,
Transportation Impact Study California

Appendix D

Analysis Worksheets for
Cumulative Conditions
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 802 of 1841 ends

Queues
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd 05/26/2022
NP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 12:40 pm 01/11/2022 Cumulative Baseline Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 402 22 120 717 87 109 152 76 163 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.49 0.05 0.48 0.62 0.38 0.45 0.45 0.38 0.41 Control Delay 31.5 21.9 0.2 30.8 22.2 29.4 30.8 10.2 31.4 25.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 31.5 21.9 0.2 30.8 22.2 29.4 30.8 10.2 31.4 25.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 58 0 36 74 26 33 0 23 22
Queue Length 95th (ft) 83 120 0 95 135 74 89 47 69 57
Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 491 394 408
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 375 210 190 290 140
Base Capacity (vph) 819 3516 1573 1147 5004 1311 1380 1212 1311 2523 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.13 0.06 0.06 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 803 of 1841 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd 05/26/2022
NP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 12:40 pm 01/11/2022 Cumulative Baseline Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 370 20 110 590 70 80 100 140 70 110 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 370 20 110 590 70 80 100 140 70 110 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 402 22 120 641 76 87 109 152 76 120 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 124 682 304 153 921 108 246 258 219 161 234 81 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 4633 544 1781 1870 1585 1781 2595 892 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 402 22 120 469 248 87 109 152 76 81 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1702 1772 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1710 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 4.4 0.5 2.8 5.5 5.6 1.9 2.3 3.9 1.7 1.9 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 4.4 0.5 2.8 5.5 5.6 1.9 2.3 3.9 1.7 1.9 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 124 682 304 153 677 353 246 258 219 161 161 155 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.59 0.07 0.78 0.69 0.70 0.35 0.42 0.70 0.47 0.50 0.53 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1037 5794 2584 1452 5550 2890 1660 1743 1477 1660 1655 1593 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.7 15.8 14.2 19.2 16.0 16.0 16.8 16.9 17.6 18.6 18.6 18.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.3 0.0 3.3 0.5 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 1.6 0.2 1.2 1.9 2.0 0.7 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.8 16.1 14.3 22.5 16.5 17.0 17.1 17.3 19.1 19.4 19.5 19.7 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B B B B B B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 522 837 348 239
Approach Delay, s/veh 17.5 17.5 18.1 19.5
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 13.7 9.4 8.8 13.4 11.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.2 5.5 * 5.1 * 5.2 5.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 40.0 * 35 * 70 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 7.6 4.0 4.8 6.4 5.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.8
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 804 of 1841 ends

Queues
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd 05/26/2022
NP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 12:40 pm 01/11/2022 Cumulative Baseline Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 250 217 141 87 293 130 424 870 76 261 870 152 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.29 0.32 0.41 0.36 0.36 0.70 0.44 0.11 0.65 0.52 0.25 Control Delay 56.1 39.0 8.8 59.8 44.0 11.2 50.1 25.1 4.7 55.8 30.7 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 56.1 39.0 8.8 59.8 44.0 11.2 50.1 25.1 4.7 55.8 30.7 9.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 84 65 0 29 65 0 139 154 0 88 173 14 Queue Length 95th (ft) 156 124 56 68 118 58 243 239 27 162 261 66 Internal Link Dist (ft) 802 424 689 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 600 205 185 278 170 251 175
Base Capacity (vph) 829 1367 698 829 1975 694 829 3449 1100 829 3439 1110 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.16 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.19 0.51 0.25 0.07 0.31 0.25 0.14 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 805 of 1841 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd 05/26/2022
NP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 12:40 pm 01/11/2022 Cumulative Baseline Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 230 200 130 80 270 120 390 800 70 240 800 140 Future Volume (veh/h) 230 200 130 80 270 120 390 800 70 240 800 140 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 250 217 141 87 293 130 424 870 76 261 870 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 326 771 344 145 842 261 500 2007 623 337 1766 548 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.35 0.35 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 250 217 141 87 293 130 424 870 76 261 870 152 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 4.6 7.0 2.3 4.6 6.8 10.9 11.3 2.8 6.7 12.2 6.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 4.6 7.0 2.3 4.6 6.8 10.9 11.3 2.8 6.7 12.2 6.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 326 771 344 145 842 261 500 2007 623 337 1766 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.28 0.41 0.60 0.35 0.50 0.85 0.43 0.12 0.78 0.49 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 949 1562 697 949 2244 697 949 3927 1219 949 3927 1219 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.2 29.7 30.6 42.8 33.7 34.6 38.0 20.2 17.6 40.1 23.5 21.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.8 5.0 1.6 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 2.0 2.6 1.0 2.0 2.9 4.6 4.4 1.0 2.9 4.8 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.7 29.8 30.9 44.3 34.5 39.5 39.5 20.5 17.8 41.6 23.9 22.1 LnGrp LOS D C C D C D D C B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 608 510 1370 1283
Approach Delay, s/veh 34.9 37.5 26.2 27.3
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.7 37.3 14.1 21.0 14.4 41.6 9.3 25.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 * 6 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 25.0 * 40 25.0 * 70 25.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.9 14.2 8.4 8.8 8.7 13.3 4.3 9.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 17.2 0.2 6.2 0.2 16.2 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.5
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 806 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50
End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 13083 13230 13264 13153 13220 13221 13239
Vehs Exited 13105 13327 13217 13151 13202 13240 13232
Starting Vehs 412 441 356 444 424 364 420
Ending Vehs 390 344 403 446 442 345 427
Travel Distance (mi) 6977 7064 7030 7029 7046 7063 7038 Travel Time (hr) 405.7 403.1 407.6 406.1 423.9 399.3 398.5 Total Delay (hr) 151.8 146.1 152.3 149.9 167.6 142.2 142.8 Total Stops 12769 12666 13155 12805 14202 12451 12546
Fuel Used (gal) 287.3 290.0 290.3 290.1 294.1 288.4 287.8 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50
End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 12838 13130 13019 13137
Vehs Exited 12821 13092 13082 13146
Starting Vehs 403 387 414 408
Ending Vehs 420 425 351 397
Travel Distance (mi) 6846 6990 6923 7001
Travel Time (hr) 386.9 405.9 390.0 402.7
Total Delay (hr) 138.2 151.9 138.0 148.1
Total Stops 12119 13173 12140 12801
Fuel Used (gal) 279.3 289.2 282.1 287.9
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 6:50
End Time 7:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 807 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 7:00
End Time 7:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3185 3242 3253 3141 3187 3204 3247
Vehs Exited 3266 3317 3230 3251 3216 3202 3283
Starting Vehs 412 441 356 444 424 364 420
Ending Vehs 331 366 379 334 395 366 384
Travel Distance (mi) 1715 1733 1734 1706 1702 1707 1740 Travel Time (hr) 97.0 98.4 101.6 97.6 98.0 94.4 94.9
Total Delay (hr) 34.5 35.2 38.7 35.4 36.3 32.3 31.8
Total Stops 2982 3116 3299 3145 3295 2907 2878
Fuel Used (gal) 70.2 71.4 72.0 70.4 69.9 68.9 70.3
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 7:00
End Time 7:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3227 3210 3215 3208
Vehs Exited 3241 3183 3236 3242
Starting Vehs 403 387 414 408
Ending Vehs 389 414 393 377
Travel Distance (mi) 1739 1700 1723 1720
Travel Time (hr) 97.8 99.0 97.3 97.6
Total Delay (hr) 34.7 37.0 34.8 35.1
Total Stops 2982 3157 2998 3075
Fuel Used (gal) 70.7 70.3 69.8 70.4
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 808 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 7:15
End Time 7:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3533 3567 3389 3508 3511 3510 3489
Vehs Exited 3424 3514 3360 3408 3422 3466 3446
Starting Vehs 331 366 379 334 395 366 384
Ending Vehs 440 419 408 434 484 410 427
Travel Distance (mi) 1845 1911 1783 1843 1850 1862 1840 Travel Time (hr) 110.9 111.9 103.0 109.7 114.6 105.8 104.1 Total Delay (hr) 43.6 42.5 38.3 42.6 47.5 38.1 37.2
Total Stops 3604 3501 3330 3507 3816 3262 3269
Fuel Used (gal) 76.7 79.3 73.1 76.5 78.2 76.0 75.2
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 7:15
End Time 7:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3305 3403 3418 3462
Vehs Exited 3299 3374 3380 3407
Starting Vehs 389 414 393 377
Ending Vehs 395 443 431 426
Travel Distance (mi) 1764 1801 1804 1830
Travel Time (hr) 105.8 104.2 102.4 107.3
Total Delay (hr) 41.9 38.9 36.6 40.7
Total Stops 3466 3389 3185 3430
Fuel Used (gal) 73.7 74.6 73.9 75.7
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 809 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 7:30
End Time 7:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3178 3180 3334 3203 3250 3293 3302
Vehs Exited 3221 3244 3315 3275 3323 3302 3291
Starting Vehs 440 419 408 434 484 410 427
Ending Vehs 397 355 427 362 411 401 438
Travel Distance (mi) 1726 1719 1770 1740 1756 1751 1759 Travel Time (hr) 101.9 97.1 104.4 98.9 107.4 101.4 99.6 Total Delay (hr) 39.4 34.3 40.0 35.6 43.4 37.6 35.4
Total Stops 3232 2999 3505 3022 3713 3351 3157
Fuel Used (gal) 71.5 69.9 73.5 71.8 74.2 72.3 72.1
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 7:30
End Time 7:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3155 3193 3264 3234
Vehs Exited 3230 3250 3289 3274
Starting Vehs 395 443 431 426
Ending Vehs 320 386 406 386
Travel Distance (mi) 1696 1722 1733 1737
Travel Time (hr) 92.4 100.7 98.4 100.2
Total Delay (hr) 30.7 38.2 35.2 37.0
Total Stops 2826 3396 3101 3230
Fuel Used (gal) 68.5 71.5 70.9 71.6
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 810 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 7:45
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3187 3241 3288 3301 3272 3214 3201
Vehs Exited 3194 3252 3312 3217 3241 3270 3212
Starting Vehs 397 355 427 362 411 401 438
Ending Vehs 390 344 403 446 442 345 427
Travel Distance (mi) 1691 1701 1743 1740 1737 1743 1699 Travel Time (hr) 95.9 95.8 98.6 99.9 103.9 97.6 99.9
Total Delay (hr) 34.4 34.1 35.3 36.3 40.4 34.2 38.3
Total Stops 2951 3050 3021 3131 3378 2931 3242
Fuel Used (gal) 69.0 69.4 71.7 71.3 71.8 71.2 70.2
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 7:45
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3151 3324 3122 3227
Vehs Exited 3051 3285 3177 3222
Starting Vehs 320 386 406 386
Ending Vehs 420 425 351 397
Travel Distance (mi) 1648 1767 1663 1713
Travel Time (hr) 90.9 102.0 91.8 97.6
Total Delay (hr) 31.0 37.8 31.5 35.3
Total Stops 2845 3231 2856 3060
Fuel Used (gal) 66.4 72.9 67.4 70.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 811 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Performance Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 11.6 3.6 3.9 4.5 23.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.3 18.1 11.4 11.6 18.9
Stop Delay (hr) 10.0 3.2 2.9 3.2 19.3
Stop Del/Veh (s) 31.4 15.9 8.7 8.1 15.5
4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 1.7 2.0 5.4 3.7 12.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.7 16.5 9.8 9.0 10.8
Stop Delay (hr) 1.4 1.7 2.8 2.0 7.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 13.1 13.9 5.1 5.0 6.7
5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.2 2.9 1.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.4 1.1 0.1 1.0 1.1 3.0 0.7 11.9 1.3 9.8 8.1 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 60.4 45.2 14.5 64.6 59.3 21.8 74.8 35.6 39.0 64.8 19.8 7.8 Stop Delay (hr) 4.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.0 2.6 0.6 9.1 1.0 8.8 5.7 0.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 56.4 41.0 14.4 61.0 52.8 19.2 70.1 27.3 32.3 57.9 14.0 3.6 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4
Total Delay (hr) 43.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 32.9
Stop Delay (hr) 35.4
Stop Del/Veh (s) 27.0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 812 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Performance Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 2.8 2.8 6.5 0.1 11.5 0.1 6.4 30.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 31.6 29.1 25.8 2.8 21.2 27.0 17.0 21.7 Stop Delay (hr) 2.6 2.6 5.1 0.0 7.7 0.1 5.4 23.6
Stop Del/Veh (s) 29.2 26.5 20.4 1.4 14.2 20.8 14.3 16.9 7: US50 WB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 6.8 0.5 1.3 1.3 9.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.6 9.7 5.1 5.2 13.3
Stop Delay (hr) 6.1 0.3 0.9 0.8 8.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 32.8 6.8 3.5 3.3 10.9
9: Performance by movement
Movement NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 0.6 1.2 0.4 2.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 2.5 4.6 0.9 2.3
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
10: Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.9
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 813 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB EB EB EB B33 NB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L L R R T T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 281 293 308 207 213 118 289 180 151 45 273 260 Average Queue (ft) 200 216 223 115 121 4 214 79 66 6 150 143 95th Queue (ft) 265 282 294 182 190 86 303 141 123 27 236 229 Link Distance (ft) 1013 1013 1013 1013 611 54 54 54 54 204 204 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 30 17 13 0 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 91 52 40 1 7 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 510
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement SB
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 223
Average Queue (ft) 133
95th Queue (ft) 210
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 3
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L R R T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 114 140 160 148 244 243 255 165 179 202 Average Queue (ft) 54 77 71 73 140 140 143 87 101 115
95th Queue (ft) 94 119 120 119 213 216 223 138 154 175
Link Distance (ft) 2272 2272 243 243 243 377 377 377
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 416 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 814 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T TR L L T TR R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 234 248 204 66 71 84 93 120 208 199 28 168 Average Queue (ft) 90 148 38 23 21 5 45 49 123 108 2 52 95th Queue (ft) 196 227 127 53 51 40 87 98 186 190 16 140 Link Distance (ft) 411 411 351 351 351
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 263 263 167 237 237 143 143
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1
Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T TR L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 347 397 420 309 321 284 305 313 138
Average Queue (ft) 200 287 337 198 212 137 157 168 41
95th Queue (ft) 314 404 457 282 295 250 268 274 102
Link Distance (ft) 391 391 391 488 488 488 488 488 488
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 8
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 15
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 815 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B14 B14 WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T R R T T R R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 123 213 171 524 300 250 789 1105 79 66 286 335 Average Queue (ft) 45 114 94 321 265 187 115 234 13 9 138 181 95th Queue (ft) 99 191 149 622 368 357 643 884 55 42 251 305 Link Distance (ft) 440 440 440 440 1753 1753 568 568 488 488 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 35 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 61 3
Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T TR T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 402 438 193 186 161
Average Queue (ft) 208 260 163 146 141
95th Queue (ft) 335 412 212 202 190
Link Distance (ft) 488 488 50 50 50
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 34 33 33
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 151 147 149
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: US50 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L LR R T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 179 210 268 210 178 176 136 177 184
Average Queue (ft) 106 132 162 73 67 68 57 90 89
95th Queue (ft) 164 191 231 176 145 146 120 154 160
Link Distance (ft) 1501 1501 101 101 101 129 129
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 2 1 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 7 4 5 6
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 185
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 3 0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 816 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative Baseline
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 717 43 239 565 76 109 217 43 206 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.71 0.08 0.63 0.26 0.37 0.50 0.58 0.24 0.54 Control Delay 47.0 30.1 0.3 37.7 15.5 41.5 45.0 12.6 41.0 33.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 47.0 30.1 0.3 37.7 15.5 41.5 45.0 12.6 41.0 33.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 35 157 0 103 61 34 49 0 19 36
Queue Length 95th (ft) 95 285 0 222 110 93 123 67 61 89 Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 491 394 408
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 375 210 190 290 140
Base Capacity (vph) 599 3095 1397 838 4614 958 1008 956 958 1835 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.23 0.03 0.29 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.23 0.04 0.11 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 817 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative Baseline
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 660 40 220 440 80 70 100 200 40 120 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 660 40 220 440 80 70 100 200 40 120 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 717 43 239 478 87 76 109 217 43 130 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 97 855 381 286 1483 264 295 310 263 168 208 115 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.34 0.34 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 4359 776 1781 1870 1585 1781 2211 1217 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 717 43 239 371 194 76 109 217 43 103 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1702 1731 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 12.0 1.3 8.1 5.0 5.2 2.3 3.2 8.3 1.4 3.5 3.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 12.0 1.3 8.1 5.0 5.2 2.3 3.2 8.3 1.4 3.5 3.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 855 381 286 1158 589 295 310 263 168 168 156 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.84 0.11 0.84 0.32 0.33 0.26 0.35 0.83 0.26 0.61 0.66 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 712 3977 1774 997 3810 1937 1139 1196 1014 1139 1136 1056 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 22.6 18.5 25.5 15.3 15.3 22.7 23.1 25.2 26.3 27.2 27.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.9 0.0 2.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 2.5 0.3 1.4 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 4.7 0.5 3.4 1.8 1.9 0.9 1.4 3.1 0.6 1.5 1.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.3 23.5 18.6 28.0 15.3 15.5 22.9 23.4 27.7 26.6 28.6 29.2 LnGrp LOS C C B C B B C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 836 804 402 249
Approach Delay, s/veh 24.2 19.1 25.6 28.5
Approach LOS C B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 26.5 11.4 15.1 20.3 15.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.2 5.5 * 5.1 * 5.2 5.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 40.0 * 35 * 70 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 7.2 5.8 10.1 14.0 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.1
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 818 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative Baseline
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 228 413 370 152 348 337 337 1011 65 261 1120 228 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.56 0.66 0.59 0.37 0.66 0.75 0.47 0.09 0.70 0.55 0.32 Control Delay 71.5 51.9 18.2 73.9 50.2 19.0 69.3 28.7 3.2 70.8 32.2 12.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 71.5 51.9 18.2 73.9 50.2 19.0 69.3 28.7 3.2 70.8 32.2 12.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 166 56 64 95 49 142 214 0 110 256 44 Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 274 194 130 160 179 253 354 20 203 415 135 Internal Link Dist (ft) 802 424 689 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 600 205 185 278 170 251 175
Base Capacity (vph) 686 1147 710 686 1634 692 686 2875 931 686 2846 948 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.33 0.36 0.52 0.22 0.21 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.07 0.38 0.39 0.24 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 819 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative Baseline
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 210 380 340 140 320 310 310 930 60 240 1030 210 Future Volume (veh/h) 210 380 340 140 320 310 310 930 60 240 1030 210 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 228 413 370 152 348 337 337 1011 65 261 1120 228 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 281 1004 448 204 1330 413 390 1999 621 314 1887 586 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 228 413 370 152 348 337 337 1011 65 261 1120 228 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.4 12.2 28.3 5.6 7.0 25.9 12.4 19.5 3.4 9.6 23.0 13.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.4 12.2 28.3 5.6 7.0 25.9 12.4 19.5 3.4 9.6 23.0 13.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 281 1004 448 204 1330 413 390 1999 621 314 1887 586 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.41 0.83 0.74 0.26 0.82 0.86 0.51 0.10 0.83 0.59 0.39 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 666 1096 489 666 1575 489 666 2756 856 666 2756 856 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.6 37.8 43.5 60.0 38.1 45.0 56.5 29.9 25.0 58.0 33.0 30.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1 0.1 9.4 2.0 0.4 14.0 2.6 0.4 0.1 2.2 0.6 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.8 5.4 12.2 2.5 3.0 11.8 5.6 8.1 1.3 4.3 9.6 5.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.7 37.9 52.9 62.0 38.4 59.0 59.1 30.3 25.2 60.1 33.6 31.0 LnGrp LOS E D D E D E E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1011 837 1413 1609
Approach Delay, s/veh 48.5 51.0 37.0 37.5
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.1 53.7 16.1 39.8 17.3 56.6 13.2 42.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 * 6 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 25.0 * 40 25.0 * 70 25.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.4 25.0 10.4 27.9 11.6 21.5 7.6 30.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 23.0 0.1 5.9 0.2 18.7 0.1 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.0
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 820 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Start Time 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05
End Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 15233 15176 15312 15005 14976 15117 15011
Vehs Exited 15191 15193 15301 14984 15003 15144 14956
Starting Vehs 417 421 455 461 427 449 397
Ending Vehs 459 404 466 482 400 422 452
Travel Distance (mi) 7897 7861 7947 7787 7783 7870 7808 Travel Time (hr) 477.5 460.7 494.0 498.9 463.1 471.4 461.1 Total Delay (hr) 189.6 175.0 204.9 215.4 179.6 184.6 177.3 Total Stops 14317 14008 14440 14162 13978 14135 14354
Fuel Used (gal) 332.6 327.9 338.3 334.9 326.6 330.6 326.4 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Start Time 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05
End Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 15025 15250 15010 15112
Vehs Exited 15052 15228 14985 15105
Starting Vehs 432 432 451 433
Ending Vehs 405 454 476 442
Travel Distance (mi) 7825 7891 7792 7846
Travel Time (hr) 464.9 469.7 454.5 471.6
Total Delay (hr) 180.7 182.7 170.7 186.0
Total Stops 14077 14159 13992 14156
Fuel Used (gal) 327.3 332.2 324.2 330.1
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 3:05
End Time 3:15
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 821 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 3:15
End Time 3:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3740 3836 3644 3642 3648 3647 3698
Vehs Exited 3733 3805 3662 3703 3616 3665 3592
Starting Vehs 417 421 455 461 427 449 397
Ending Vehs 424 452 437 400 459 431 503
Travel Distance (mi) 1949 1996 1886 1912 1882 1922 1894 Travel Time (hr) 115.7 115.6 113.5 115.2 111.6 110.4 111.0 Total Delay (hr) 44.8 42.9 44.8 45.7 43.0 40.6 42.3
Total Stops 3500 3604 3425 3432 3439 3293 3573
Fuel Used (gal) 81.9 83.0 79.2 80.4 78.7 79.4 78.9
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 3:15
End Time 3:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3736 3751 3713 3704
Vehs Exited 3710 3751 3693 3693
Starting Vehs 432 432 451 433
Ending Vehs 458 432 471 444
Travel Distance (mi) 1943 1947 1933 1926
Travel Time (hr) 116.0 111.8 114.8 113.6
Total Delay (hr) 45.7 41.0 44.5 43.5
Total Stops 3486 3452 3666 3485
Fuel Used (gal) 81.1 80.9 80.7 80.4
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 822 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 3:30
End Time 3:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3973 3970 4005 3852 4052 4028 3966
Vehs Exited 3924 3936 3933 3745 3990 3981 3952
Starting Vehs 424 452 437 400 459 431 503
Ending Vehs 473 486 509 507 521 478 517
Travel Distance (mi) 2031 2020 2068 1986 2087 2073 2046 Travel Time (hr) 129.0 122.1 128.0 126.5 124.3 128.5 122.0 Total Delay (hr) 55.0 48.6 52.8 54.2 48.6 53.0 47.6
Total Stops 3747 3670 3770 3744 3760 3844 3694
Fuel Used (gal) 87.3 85.3 88.2 85.3 87.7 88.3 86.0
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 3:30
End Time 3:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3930 4031 3958 3975
Vehs Exited 3860 3937 3851 3910
Starting Vehs 458 432 471 444
Ending Vehs 528 526 578 513
Travel Distance (mi) 2013 2062 2028 2042
Travel Time (hr) 124.5 125.8 119.7 125.1
Total Delay (hr) 51.4 50.9 45.8 50.8
Total Stops 3804 3813 3661 3750
Fuel Used (gal) 85.7 87.4 84.8 86.6
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 823 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 3:45
End Time 4:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3777 3764 3815 3728 3624 3747 3661
Vehs Exited 3757 3781 3840 3778 3711 3809 3670
Starting Vehs 473 486 509 507 521 478 517
Ending Vehs 493 469 484 457 434 416 508
Travel Distance (mi) 1977 1963 1989 1947 1921 1946 1931 Travel Time (hr) 120.3 114.5 126.1 128.7 116.9 119.0 112.9 Total Delay (hr) 48.1 43.1 53.7 58.0 46.7 47.9 42.7
Total Stops 3730 3372 3583 3527 3442 3415 3477
Fuel Used (gal) 83.2 81.6 85.1 85.1 81.1 82.1 80.3
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 3:45
End Time 4:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3699 3684 3651 3713
Vehs Exited 3774 3740 3798 3764
Starting Vehs 528 526 578 513
Ending Vehs 453 470 431 463
Travel Distance (mi) 1956 1940 1938 1951
Travel Time (hr) 114.1 117.5 113.2 118.3
Total Delay (hr) 43.1 46.9 42.7 47.3
Total Stops 3429 3512 3393 3489
Fuel Used (gal) 81.3 82.3 80.9 82.3
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 824 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 4:00
End Time 4:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3743 3606 3848 3783 3652 3695 3686
Vehs Exited 3777 3671 3866 3758 3686 3689 3742
Starting Vehs 493 469 484 457 434 416 508
Ending Vehs 459 404 466 482 400 422 452
Travel Distance (mi) 1940 1882 2004 1942 1894 1929 1936 Travel Time (hr) 112.5 108.6 126.4 128.4 110.3 113.4 115.2 Total Delay (hr) 41.6 40.4 53.6 57.5 41.3 43.1 44.7
Total Stops 3340 3362 3662 3459 3337 3583 3610
Fuel Used (gal) 80.3 78.1 85.8 84.0 79.0 80.8 81.1
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 4:00
End Time 4:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3660 3784 3688 3714
Vehs Exited 3708 3800 3643 3733
Starting Vehs 453 470 431 463
Ending Vehs 405 454 476 442
Travel Distance (mi) 1913 1941 1893 1927
Travel Time (hr) 110.4 114.6 106.7 114.6
Total Delay (hr) 40.5 43.8 37.7 44.4
Total Stops 3358 3382 3272 3431
Fuel Used (gal) 79.2 81.6 77.7 80.7
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 825 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Performance Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 14.6 2.6 7.4 4.7 29.3
Total Del/Veh (s) 38.6 14.7 14.2 13.0 20.4
Stop Delay (hr) 12.3 2.3 5.5 3.4 23.6
Stop Del/Veh (s) 32.5 13.0 10.6 9.5 16.4
4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 2.1 3.2 8.4 3.3 17.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 24.2 24.8 11.6 8.2 12.6
Stop Delay (hr) 1.8 2.8 4.3 1.8 10.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 20.7 21.7 5.9 4.6 8.0
5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 6.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.3 14.7 13.6 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 5.6 1.0 0.1 2.3 1.9 4.3 1.2 23.2 0.7 12.0 8.5 0.7 Total Del/Veh (s) 67.6 52.0 15.0 64.5 56.8 27.2 86.4 52.5 50.3 74.0 23.2 8.3 Stop Delay (hr) 5.2 0.9 0.1 2.2 1.6 3.7 1.1 18.6 0.6 10.8 6.3 0.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 63.3 47.7 14.8 60.1 49.7 23.9 79.5 42.2 41.9 66.4 17.1 4.5 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 6.5
Denied Del/Veh (s) 4.7
Total Delay (hr) 61.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 43.5
Stop Delay (hr) 51.5
Stop Del/Veh (s) 36.4
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 826 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Performance Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 5.6 0.8 3.2 1.0 15.2 0.1 6.2 32.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 34.0 25.6 14.9 9.2 22.5 21.3 16.1 20.2 Stop Delay (hr) 5.0 0.8 2.4 0.7 9.8 0.0 5.2 23.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 30.6 24.0 11.1 6.6 14.5 14.6 13.4 15.1 7: US50 WB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 5.1 1.4 2.0 1.6 10.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.4 14.5 4.9 5.0 10.4
Stop Delay (hr) 4.6 1.2 1.2 0.9 7.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 33.0 11.9 3.0 2.8 8.1
9: Performance by movement
Movement NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 1.5 1.9 0.4 3.8
Total Del/Veh (s) 3.7 5.7 0.9 3.2
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
10: Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.2
Total Delay (hr) 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.0
Total Del/Veh (s) 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1
Stop Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 827 of 1841 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB EB EB EB B33 NB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L L R R T T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 365 382 390 167 178 124 298 259 272 76 253 235 Average Queue (ft) 247 264 274 93 96 4 267 147 146 21 150 141 95th Queue (ft) 331 353 363 143 151 91 319 234 239 59 227 214 Link Distance (ft) 1013 1013 1013 1013 611 54 54 54 54 204 204 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 34 28 27 2 2 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 159 129 126 12 7 3
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 510
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement SB
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 220
Average Queue (ft) 133
95th Queue (ft) 208
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L R R T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 129 154 179 179 347 365 349 157 179 191 Average Queue (ft) 58 84 96 97 198 199 198 89 99 112
95th Queue (ft) 106 131 155 153 306 308 312 139 154 173 Link Distance (ft) 2272 2272 243 243 243 377 377 377
Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 3 3
Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 22 26
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 416 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 828 of 1841 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement EB EB EB EB EB B32 WB WB WB WB WB NB
Directions Served L L T T TR T L L T TR R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 259 269 245 59 74 19 134 142 192 269 263 82 Average Queue (ft) 120 163 43 22 22 1 37 83 86 167 155 12 95th Queue (ft) 224 247 164 50 54 21 116 131 165 245 234 47 Link Distance (ft) 411 411 267 351 351 351
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 263 263 167 237 237 143
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 0
Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T T TR L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 408 415 430 383 390 338 325 320 153 Average Queue (ft) 81 337 365 392 236 250 150 166 174 41 95th Queue (ft) 182 443 450 462 347 355 280 282 282 106 Link Distance (ft) 391 391 391 488 488 488 488 488 488
Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 10 31 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 143
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 41
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 21
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 829 of 1841 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B14 WB WB NB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T R R T R R T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 223 344 75 452 300 250 92 165 150 445 476 508 Average Queue (ft) 115 206 34 93 207 111 4 79 59 202 242 266 95th Queue (ft) 201 304 65 335 340 304 70 151 126 385 431 462 Link Distance (ft) 440 440 440 440 1753 568 568 488 488 488 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 15 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 0
Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement NB SB SB SB
Directions Served TR T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 496 200 177 172
Average Queue (ft) 293 163 140 138
95th Queue (ft) 481 215 199 190
Link Distance (ft) 488 50 50 50
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 33 32 32
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 154 147 150
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: US50 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L LR R T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 169 190 206 182 189 187 161 238 182
Average Queue (ft) 86 105 126 80 92 94 79 106 92
95th Queue (ft) 138 156 183 141 172 175 143 194 164
Link Distance (ft) 1501 1501 101 101 101 129 129
Upstream Blk Time (%) 5 4 2 2 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 24 20 12 14 10
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 185
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 830 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center City of Rancho Cordova,
Transportation Impact Study California

Appendix E

Analysis Worksheets for
Cumulative plus Proposed Project Conditions
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 831 of 1841 ends

Queues
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd 05/26/2022
PP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 1:34 pm 01/24/2022 Cumulative plus Project Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 98 402 47 142 717 138 109 198 76 163 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.53 0.11 0.52 0.62 0.51 0.38 0.48 0.39 0.41 Control Delay 33.3 24.3 1.4 32.1 23.2 32.1 28.7 9.1 33.4 26.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 33.3 24.3 1.4 32.1 23.2 32.1 28.7 9.1 33.4 26.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 64 0 45 78 44 34 0 25 24
Queue Length 95th (ft) 87 130 5 114 144 111 90 52 73 61 Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 491 394 408
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 375 210 190 290 140
Base Capacity (vph) 783 3475 1556 1096 5004 1254 1319 1179 1254 2413 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.12 0.03 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.07 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 832 of 1841 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd 05/26/2022
PP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 1:34 pm 01/24/2022 Cumulative plus Project Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 90 370 43 131 590 70 127 100 182 70 110 40 Future Volume (veh/h) 90 370 43 131 590 70 127 100 182 70 110 40 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 98 402 47 142 641 76 138 109 198 76 120 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 125 614 274 182 909 107 294 309 262 158 231 79 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 4633 544 1781 1870 1585 1781 2595 892 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 98 402 47 142 469 248 138 109 198 76 81 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1702 1772 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1710 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 4.7 1.1 3.5 5.8 5.9 3.2 2.3 5.4 1.8 1.9 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 4.7 1.1 3.5 5.8 5.9 3.2 2.3 5.4 1.8 1.9 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 125 614 274 182 668 348 294 309 262 158 158 152 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.65 0.17 0.78 0.70 0.71 0.47 0.35 0.76 0.48 0.51 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 989 5525 2465 1385 5293 2756 1583 1662 1408 1583 1579 1519 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.6 17.4 15.9 19.7 16.9 16.9 17.0 16.7 17.9 19.5 19.6 19.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.4 0.1 2.7 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.3 1.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 1.7 0.4 1.4 2.0 2.2 1.2 0.9 1.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.7 17.8 16.0 22.5 17.4 17.9 17.4 16.9 19.6 20.4 20.5 20.7 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B B B B C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 547 859 445 239
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.9 18.4 18.3 20.5
Approach LOS B B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 14.0 9.5 9.7 13.0 12.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.2 5.5 * 5.1 * 5.2 5.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 40.0 * 35 * 70 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 7.9 4.1 5.5 6.7 7.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 833 of 1841 ends

Queues
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd 05/26/2022
PP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 1:34 pm 01/24/2022 Cumulative plus Project Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 284 229 141 87 299 130 424 870 76 261 870 168 v/c Ratio 0.67 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.37 0.36 0.71 0.44 0.11 0.65 0.51 0.27 Control Delay 57.2 39.3 8.7 61.7 45.5 11.3 52.1 25.8 4.8 57.7 31.4 9.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 57.2 39.3 8.7 61.7 45.5 11.3 52.1 25.8 4.8 57.7 31.4 9.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 71 0 30 69 0 144 159 0 91 178 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 179 132 56 70 123 59 252 247 27 167 268 73 Internal Link Dist (ft) 802 424 689 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 600 205 185 278 170 251 175
Base Capacity (vph) 805 1328 682 805 1918 678 805 3349 1071 805 3340 1085 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.35 0.17 0.21 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.53 0.26 0.07 0.32 0.26 0.15 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 834 of 1841 ends

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd 05/26/2022
PP Cumulative AM Residences at Capital Center 1:34 pm 01/24/2022 Cumulative plus Project Synchro 11 Report Kimley-Horn Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 261 211 130 80 275 120 390 800 70 240 800 155 Future Volume (veh/h) 261 211 130 80 275 120 390 800 70 240 800 155 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 284 229 141 87 299 130 424 870 76 261 870 168 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 358 802 358 144 837 260 498 1996 620 335 1755 545 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.39 0.39 0.10 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 284 229 141 87 299 130 424 870 76 261 870 168 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 5.0 7.0 2.3 4.8 7.0 11.2 11.7 2.9 6.9 12.6 7.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 5.0 7.0 2.3 4.8 7.0 11.2 11.7 2.9 6.9 12.6 7.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 358 802 358 144 837 260 498 1996 620 335 1755 545 V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.29 0.39 0.60 0.36 0.50 0.85 0.44 0.12 0.78 0.50 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 927 1525 680 927 2192 680 927 3836 1191 927 3836 1191 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.8 29.9 30.7 43.9 34.6 35.5 38.9 20.8 18.2 41.1 24.2 22.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.1 0.3 1.5 0.9 5.1 1.6 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 2.1 2.7 1.0 2.1 3.0 4.8 4.6 1.1 3.0 5.0 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 42.3 29.9 30.9 45.4 35.5 40.5 40.5 21.1 18.3 42.6 24.6 23.1 LnGrp LOS D C C D D D D C B D C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 654 516 1370 1299
Approach Delay, s/veh 35.5 38.4 27.0 28.0
Approach LOS D D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.9 37.8 15.2 21.3 14.5 42.2 9.4 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 * 6 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 25.0 * 40 25.0 * 70 25.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.2 14.6 9.5 9.0 8.9 13.7 4.3 9.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 17.5 0.2 6.3 0.2 16.1 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 835 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50
End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 13843 13823 13726 13840 13675 13784 13880
Vehs Exited 13870 13841 13696 13802 13659 13764 13847
Starting Vehs 400 414 432 393 390 395 360
Ending Vehs 373 396 462 431 406 415 393
Travel Distance (mi) 7145 7111 7047 7121 7043 7097 7100 Travel Time (hr) 409.9 402.0 405.3 397.7 424.3 399.5 421.2 Total Delay (hr) 149.9 143.3 149.7 139.1 168.6 141.3 163.2 Total Stops 13137 12518 12879 12325 14149 12640 13999
Fuel Used (gal) 294.6 292.2 291.7 291.1 295.8 290.3 297.2 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Start Time 6:50 6:50 6:50 6:50
End Time 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 13874 13919 13702 13804
Vehs Exited 13832 13906 13642 13785
Starting Vehs 409 364 340 387
Ending Vehs 451 377 400 413
Travel Distance (mi) 7117 7166 7027 7097
Travel Time (hr) 410.7 412.8 404.7 408.8
Total Delay (hr) 151.6 152.0 149.0 150.8
Total Stops 13190 12981 13142 13093
Fuel Used (gal) 294.4 295.9 290.8 293.4
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 6:50
End Time 7:00
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 836 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 7:00
End Time 7:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3379 3477 3293 3283 3261 3353 3386
Vehs Exited 3365 3496 3371 3298 3257 3381 3388
Starting Vehs 400 414 432 393 390 395 360
Ending Vehs 414 395 354 378 394 367 358
Travel Distance (mi) 1733 1794 1695 1689 1666 1731 1731 Travel Time (hr) 103.1 101.4 94.3 92.8 92.2 95.7 93.8
Total Delay (hr) 39.8 36.1 33.1 31.6 31.6 32.7 31.0
Total Stops 3520 3185 3054 2832 2885 2964 2895
Fuel Used (gal) 72.4 73.7 69.8 68.5 67.4 70.4 69.9
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 7:00
End Time 7:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3384 3437 3317 3355
Vehs Exited 3427 3415 3259 3364
Starting Vehs 409 364 340 387
Ending Vehs 366 386 398 378
Travel Distance (mi) 1752 1758 1700 1725
Travel Time (hr) 97.9 99.5 95.8 96.6
Total Delay (hr) 34.1 35.2 33.8 33.9
Total Stops 2955 3085 3138 3048
Fuel Used (gal) 71.6 71.9 69.6 70.5
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 837 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 7:15
End Time 7:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3650 3658 3644 3634 3779 3668 3636
Vehs Exited 3643 3593 3554 3611 3668 3615 3527
Starting Vehs 414 395 354 378 394 367 358
Ending Vehs 421 460 444 401 505 420 467
Travel Distance (mi) 1877 1848 1869 1861 1914 1871 1830 Travel Time (hr) 109.4 101.7 106.3 104.2 119.9 109.6 109.5 Total Delay (hr) 41.1 34.6 38.5 36.7 50.2 41.5 43.3
Total Stops 3507 3021 3264 3247 4035 3561 3673
Fuel Used (gal) 78.2 75.4 76.8 76.1 81.8 77.4 76.9
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 7:15
End Time 7:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3661 3714 3644 3666
Vehs Exited 3588 3645 3581 3600
Starting Vehs 366 386 398 378
Ending Vehs 439 455 461 447
Travel Distance (mi) 1859 1889 1845 1866
Travel Time (hr) 109.8 108.5 109.4 108.9
Total Delay (hr) 42.1 39.8 42.2 41.0
Total Stops 3521 3339 3654 3480
Fuel Used (gal) 77.5 78.1 77.0 77.5
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 838 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 7:30
End Time 7:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3398 3324 3362 3418 3302 3370 3519
Vehs Exited 3434 3403 3426 3387 3360 3428 3547
Starting Vehs 421 460 444 401 505 420 467
Ending Vehs 385 381 380 432 447 362 439
Travel Distance (mi) 1769 1741 1746 1753 1725 1753 1790 Travel Time (hr) 99.0 100.8 98.9 97.1 109.3 98.3 111.2
Total Delay (hr) 34.7 37.3 35.5 33.4 46.8 34.4 45.8
Total Stops 3108 3146 3025 3088 3726 3140 3796
Fuel Used (gal) 72.3 72.1 71.9 71.7 73.7 71.8 76.3
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 7:30
End Time 7:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3454 3357 3374 3390
Vehs Exited 3504 3382 3474 3434
Starting Vehs 439 455 461 447
Ending Vehs 389 430 361 402
Travel Distance (mi) 1794 1747 1773 1759
Travel Time (hr) 105.2 103.7 103.6 102.7
Total Delay (hr) 40.1 40.1 39.2 38.7
Total Stops 3466 3410 3336 3324
Fuel Used (gal) 74.8 72.6 74.3 73.2
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 839 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Simulation Summary DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 7:45
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3416 3364 3427 3505 3333 3393 3339
Vehs Exited 3428 3349 3345 3506 3374 3340 3385
Starting Vehs 385 381 380 432 447 362 439
Ending Vehs 373 396 462 431 406 415 393
Travel Distance (mi) 1766 1729 1737 1817 1739 1742 1749 Travel Time (hr) 98.4 98.1 105.8 103.5 103.0 95.8 106.6 Total Delay (hr) 34.4 35.4 42.6 37.4 40.0 32.6 43.1
Total Stops 3002 3166 3536 3158 3503 2975 3635
Fuel Used (gal) 71.7 71.0 73.2 74.8 72.8 70.7 74.1
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 7:45
End Time 8:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3375 3411 3367 3396
Vehs Exited 3313 3464 3328 3383
Starting Vehs 389 430 361 402
Ending Vehs 451 377 400 413
Travel Distance (mi) 1713 1771 1709 1747
Travel Time (hr) 97.7 101.2 95.9 100.6
Total Delay (hr) 35.3 36.9 33.8 37.1
Total Stops 3248 3147 3014 3235
Fuel Used (gal) 70.4 73.3 69.9 72.2
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 840 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Performance Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 11.3 3.7 4.0 4.6 23.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.6 18.7 11.4 11.5 18.8
Stop Delay (hr) 9.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 19.3
Stop Del/Veh (s) 31.9 16.5 8.6 8.2 15.5
4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 1.8 2.0 5.2 3.7 12.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 16.5 16.6 9.6 9.0 10.7
Stop Delay (hr) 1.4 1.7 2.7 2.0 7.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 12.8 14.0 5.0 4.9 6.6
5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.2 2.5 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 4.4 1.0 0.1 0.9 1.0 3.0 0.6 10.1 1.0 9.9 7.4 0.8 Total Del/Veh (s) 61.1 43.1 15.3 65.0 57.3 19.8 71.0 30.7 30.1 63.4 18.4 7.9 Stop Delay (hr) 4.1 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.9 2.6 0.6 7.7 0.8 8.8 5.0 0.4 Stop Del/Veh (s) 57.4 38.9 15.2 61.6 50.8 17.3 66.5 23.4 24.0 56.4 12.5 3.6 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.3
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2
Total Delay (hr) 40.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 30.6
Stop Delay (hr) 32.7
Stop Del/Veh (s) 24.9
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 841 of 1841 ends

Baseline
SimTraffic Performance Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 2.6 2.8 7.2 0.1 13.1 0.1 6.6 32.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 29.8 29.1 28.3 2.5 23.7 23.3 17.3 23.0 Stop Delay (hr) 2.4 2.6 5.7 0.0 9.2 0.0 5.5 25.5
Stop Del/Veh (s) 27.6 26.5 22.6 1.1 16.6 16.4 14.5 18.1 7: US50 WB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 6.8 0.5 1.4 1.4 10.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.8 9.9 5.3 5.6 13.5
Stop Delay (hr) 6.1 0.4 0.9 0.9 8.3
Stop Del/Veh (s) 32.9 7.0 3.6 3.5 11.0
9: Performance by movement
Movement NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 1.1 1.3 0.4 2.7
Total Del/Veh (s) 2.6 4.8 0.9 2.4
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
10: Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6
Total Del/Veh (s) 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.9
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 842 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB EB EB EB B33 NB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L L R R T T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 291 309 319 224 236 63 290 192 161 50 249 253 Average Queue (ft) 196 209 214 119 124 4 211 85 66 7 145 142 95th Queue (ft) 264 281 289 191 203 91 303 158 131 31 226 222 Link Distance (ft) 1013 1013 1013 1013 611 54 54 54 54 204 204 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 30 17 14 0 1 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 94 54 44 1 6 4
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 510
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement SB
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 215
Average Queue (ft) 133
95th Queue (ft) 208
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L R R T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 114 143 152 150 260 249 261 155 174 191 Average Queue (ft) 54 78 71 73 136 140 139 85 101 113
95th Queue (ft) 96 121 118 121 216 218 222 130 152 172
Link Distance (ft) 2272 2272 243 243 243 377 377 377
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 1 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 416 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 843 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T TR L L T TR R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 206 227 118 64 73 62 103 126 222 208 31 166 Average Queue (ft) 85 131 29 22 21 3 37 46 125 111 4 44 95th Queue (ft) 167 199 81 51 52 28 81 100 186 189 19 122 Link Distance (ft) 411 411 351 351 351
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 263 263 167 237 237 143 143
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T TR L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 334 379 414 307 316 261 278 290 160
Average Queue (ft) 199 252 288 200 211 127 147 159 40
95th Queue (ft) 302 363 414 285 297 236 248 260 104
Link Distance (ft) 391 391 391 488 488 488 488 488 488
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 17
Queuing Penalty (veh) 5
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 844 of 1841 ends

Baseline
Queuing and Blocking Report DEFAULT
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B14 B14 WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T R R T T R R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 134 199 232 525 300 250 797 1047 78 70 302 341 Average Queue (ft) 57 97 99 333 275 203 185 281 12 7 167 206 95th Queue (ft) 114 169 196 640 357 357 886 1027 51 37 291 329 Link Distance (ft) 440 440 440 440 1753 1753 568 568 488 488 Upstream Blk Time (%) 13 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 40 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 69 3
Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T TR T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 382 419 201 179 170
Average Queue (ft) 227 262 164 145 142
95th Queue (ft) 352 397 213 203 190
Link Distance (ft) 488 488 50 50 50
Upstream Blk Time (%) 34 33 33
Queuing Penalty (veh) 153 147 147
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: US50 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L LR R T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 194 242 267 200 164 168 142 200 190
Average Queue (ft) 107 133 160 69 70 70 63 96 91
95th Queue (ft) 166 205 233 163 138 141 126 171 166
Link Distance (ft) 1501 1501 101 101 101 129 129
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 1 2 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 6 5 8 8
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 185
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 2 3 0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 845 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative plus Project
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 717 93 284 565 105 109 245 43 206 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.73 0.18 0.60 0.25 0.54 0.54 0.63 0.26 0.57 Control Delay 52.5 34.1 6.5 35.1 15.1 50.8 49.8 13.5 44.9 36.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 52.5 34.1 6.5 35.1 15.1 50.8 49.8 13.5 44.9 36.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 39 181 0 131 63 54 56 0 22 41
Queue Length 95th (ft) 100 305 35 266 110 128 130 74 65 94 Internal Link Dist (ft) 445 491 394 408
Turn Bay Length (ft) 310 375 210 190 290 140
Base Capacity (vph) 537 2915 1321 752 4448 859 904 894 859 1651 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.25 0.07 0.38 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.27 0.05 0.12 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 846 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative plus Project
1: White Rock Rd & Kilgore Rd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 660 86 261 440 80 97 100 225 40 120 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 660 86 261 440 80 97 100 225 40 120 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 717 93 284 478 87 105 109 245 43 130 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 97 841 375 328 1570 279 321 337 286 163 203 112 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.24 0.24 0.18 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.09 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3554 1585 1781 4359 776 1781 1870 1585 1781 2211 1217 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 717 93 284 371 194 105 109 245 43 103 103 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1777 1585 1781 1702 1731 1781 1870 1585 1781 1777 1651 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.9 13.3 3.3 10.7 5.4 5.6 3.5 3.5 10.3 1.5 3.9 4.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.9 13.3 3.3 10.7 5.4 5.6 3.5 3.5 10.3 1.5 3.9 4.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.74
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 841 375 328 1226 623 321 337 286 163 163 151 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.85 0.25 0.87 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.32 0.86 0.26 0.63 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 646 3606 1609 904 3455 1756 1033 1085 919 1033 1030 958 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.2 25.2 21.3 27.3 15.8 15.9 24.6 24.6 27.4 29.2 30.2 30.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.0 0.1 2.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.9 0.3 1.5 2.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.3 5.4 1.2 4.6 2.0 2.1 1.4 1.5 3.9 0.7 1.7 1.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.2 26.1 21.5 30.1 15.9 16.0 24.8 24.8 30.3 29.5 31.7 32.4 LnGrp LOS D C C C B B C C C C C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 886 849 459 249
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.6 20.7 27.7 31.6
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 30.0 11.8 17.8 21.5 17.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.2 5.5 * 5.1 * 5.2 5.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 40.0 * 35 * 70 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 7.6 6.2 12.7 15.3 12.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 847 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative plus Project
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
Queues Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 248 420 370 152 360 337 337 1011 65 261 1120 262 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.55 0.65 0.60 0.38 0.66 0.76 0.47 0.09 0.71 0.55 0.36 Control Delay 73.3 52.2 18.0 76.1 51.5 19.9 71.8 29.4 3.1 72.9 32.9 13.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 73.3 52.2 18.0 76.1 51.5 19.9 71.8 29.4 3.1 72.9 32.9 13.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 109 174 57 67 102 54 147 220 0 114 263 53 Queue Length 95th (ft) 196 278 193 131 166 186 256 361 20 205 423 156 Internal Link Dist (ft) 802 424 689 453
Turn Bay Length (ft) 265 600 205 185 278 170 251 175
Base Capacity (vph) 669 1127 703 669 1595 679 669 2816 914 669 2778 938 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.53 0.23 0.23 0.50 0.50 0.36 0.07 0.39 0.40 0.28 Intersection Summary
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 848 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center Cumulative plus Project
2: White Rock Rd & Sunrise Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Synchro 11 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 228 386 340 140 331 310 310 930 60 240 1030 241 Future Volume (veh/h) 228 386 340 140 331 310 310 930 60 240 1030 241 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 248 420 370 152 360 337 337 1011 65 261 1120 262 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 300 1020 455 204 1322 410 389 1996 620 313 1884 585 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.39 0.39 0.09 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 248 420 370 152 360 337 337 1011 65 261 1120 262 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.3 12.6 28.7 5.7 7.4 26.4 12.7 19.9 3.4 9.8 23.4 16.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.3 12.6 28.7 5.7 7.4 26.4 12.7 19.9 3.4 9.8 23.4 16.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 300 1020 455 204 1322 410 389 1996 620 313 1884 585 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.41 0.81 0.75 0.27 0.82 0.87 0.51 0.10 0.83 0.59 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 654 1076 480 654 1546 480 654 2705 840 654 2705 840 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.3 38.1 43.8 61.2 39.0 46.1 57.7 30.6 25.6 59.1 33.7 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.1 9.0 2.1 0.4 14.5 3.1 0.4 0.2 2.2 0.6 1.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.2 5.6 12.4 2.6 3.2 12.0 5.7 8.3 1.3 4.4 9.8 6.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 61.6 38.2 52.8 63.3 39.4 60.5 60.7 31.0 25.7 61.3 34.3 32.6 LnGrp LOS E D D E D E E C C E C C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1038 849 1413 1643
Approach Delay, s/veh 49.0 52.1 37.8 38.3
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.4 54.6 17.0 40.2 17.5 57.5 13.3 43.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 * 6 5.5 * 5.8 5.5 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 25.0 * 70 25.0 * 40 25.0 * 70 25.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.7 25.4 11.3 28.4 11.8 21.9 7.7 30.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 23.3 0.2 5.8 0.2 18.6 0.1 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 849 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 1 ends

Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Start Time 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05
End Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 15372 15149 15250 15093 14948 15220 15288
Vehs Exited 15372 15151 15241 15040 14916 15129 15255
Starting Vehs 488 454 442 423 445 445 452
Ending Vehs 488 452 451 476 477 536 485
Travel Distance (mi) 7981 7837 7875 7829 7741 7864 7921 Travel Time (hr) 535.8 490.5 562.0 481.4 463.4 508.2 495.6 Total Delay (hr) 245.5 205.6 274.8 196.1 181.9 221.5 207.4 Total Stops 15672 14474 15579 14913 14189 14306 14697
Fuel Used (gal) 349.2 335.3 352.1 331.5 324.4 339.3 338.1 Summary of All Intervals
Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Start Time 3:05 3:05 3:05 3:05
End Time 4:15 4:15 4:15 4:15
Total Time (min) 70 70 70 70
Time Recorded (min) 60 60 60 60
# of Intervals 5 5 5 5
# of Recorded Intervals 4 4 4 4
Vehs Entered 15450 15392 15349 15251
Vehs Exited 15412 15337 15284 15214
Starting Vehs 499 417 436 450
Ending Vehs 537 472 501 488
Travel Distance (mi) 8005 7947 7969 7897
Travel Time (hr) 552.1 483.8 535.7 510.8
Total Delay (hr) 261.1 194.3 246.1 223.4
Total Stops 16449 14557 14564 14935
Fuel Used (gal) 352.8 336.1 347.7 340.7
Interval #0 Information Seeding
Start Time 3:05
End Time 3:15
Total Time (min) 10
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

No data recorded this interval.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 850 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 2 ends

Interval #1 Information
Start Time 3:15
End Time 3:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3807 3703 3697 3660 3576 3662 3736
Vehs Exited 3825 3752 3593 3618 3493 3698 3727
Starting Vehs 488 454 442 423 445 445 452
Ending Vehs 470 405 546 465 528 409 461
Travel Distance (mi) 1980 1927 1873 1901 1837 1919 1930 Travel Time (hr) 118.6 119.2 147.1 115.2 109.7 111.6 116.0 Total Delay (hr) 46.6 48.9 78.7 46.2 43.0 41.7 45.9
Total Stops 3674 3614 4247 3611 3366 3445 3461
Fuel Used (gal) 83.0 82.7 87.1 80.2 76.8 79.8 81.4
Interval #1 Information
Start Time 3:15
End Time 3:30
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3782 3789 3760 3719
Vehs Exited 3839 3811 3696 3707
Starting Vehs 499 417 436 450
Ending Vehs 442 395 500 461
Travel Distance (mi) 1995 1973 1932 1927
Travel Time (hr) 121.9 118.2 119.7 119.7
Total Delay (hr) 49.4 46.4 49.4 49.6
Total Stops 3726 3487 3604 3624
Fuel Used (gal) 84.0 83.3 81.8 82.0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 851 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 3 ends

Interval #2 Information
Start Time 3:30
End Time 3:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 4158 4003 4058 3965 4043 4037 4112
Vehs Exited 4068 3880 4063 3905 4070 3948 4045
Starting Vehs 470 405 546 465 528 409 461
Ending Vehs 560 528 541 525 501 498 528
Travel Distance (mi) 2117 2035 2105 2026 2089 2059 2116 Travel Time (hr) 141.6 131.2 138.7 122.3 125.4 129.4 140.8 Total Delay (hr) 64.3 57.1 61.8 48.5 49.3 54.2 63.8
Total Stops 4206 3792 4219 3801 3641 3781 4028
Fuel Used (gal) 92.9 87.9 91.7 85.0 88.0 88.4 92.5
Interval #2 Information
Start Time 3:30
End Time 3:45
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by PHF, Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3999 4040 4008 4041
Vehs Exited 3838 3963 3948 3973
Starting Vehs 442 395 500 461
Ending Vehs 603 472 560 527
Travel Distance (mi) 2034 2054 2076 2071
Travel Time (hr) 137.3 129.2 135.5 133.2
Total Delay (hr) 63.3 54.2 59.9 57.6
Total Stops 4104 3826 3885 3927
Fuel Used (gal) 89.0 87.6 89.3 89.2
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 852 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 4 ends

Interval #3 Information
Start Time 3:45
End Time 4:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3752 3747 3739 3695 3650 3714 3744
Vehs Exited 3796 3829 3835 3775 3711 3727 3757
Starting Vehs 560 528 541 525 501 498 528
Ending Vehs 516 446 445 445 440 485 515
Travel Distance (mi) 1965 1968 1955 1965 1929 1924 1949 Travel Time (hr) 136.4 120.1 136.2 125.7 116.5 132.9 125.0 Total Delay (hr) 65.0 48.7 64.9 54.0 46.4 62.6 53.8
Total Stops 3877 3550 3512 3877 3661 3548 3763
Fuel Used (gal) 86.8 83.0 86.5 84.7 80.8 85.0 84.0
Interval #3 Information
Start Time 3:45
End Time 4:00
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3831 3757 3710 3734
Vehs Exited 3895 3781 3829 3793
Starting Vehs 603 472 560 527
Ending Vehs 539 448 441 472
Travel Distance (mi) 1981 1970 1973 1958
Travel Time (hr) 140.6 119.0 143.2 129.6
Total Delay (hr) 68.7 47.1 71.7 58.3
Total Stops 3974 3603 3504 3684
Fuel Used (gal) 87.9 83.3 89.0 85.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 853 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Simulation Summary
SimTraffic Report

Page 5 ends

Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 4:00
End Time 4:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Vehs Entered 3655 3696 3756 3773 3679 3807 3696
Vehs Exited 3683 3690 3750 3742 3642 3756 3726
Starting Vehs 516 446 445 445 440 485 515
Ending Vehs 488 452 451 476 477 536 485
Travel Distance (mi) 1919 1907 1942 1937 1887 1961 1926 Travel Time (hr) 139.2 119.9 139.9 118.1 111.8 134.3 113.8 Total Delay (hr) 69.6 50.9 69.3 47.4 43.2 63.0 43.9
Total Stops 3915 3518 3601 3624 3521 3532 3445
Fuel Used (gal) 86.4 81.8 86.8 81.5 78.8 86.2 80.3
Interval #4 Information Recording
Start Time 4:00
End Time 4:15
Total Time (min) 15
Volumes adjusted by Growth Factors.

Run Number 8 9 10 Avg
Vehs Entered 3838 3806 3871 3757
Vehs Exited 3840 3782 3811 3741
Starting Vehs 539 448 441 472
Ending Vehs 537 472 501 488
Travel Distance (mi) 1995 1949 1987 1941
Travel Time (hr) 152.2 117.4 137.3 128.4
Total Delay (hr) 79.7 46.6 65.1 57.9
Total Stops 4645 3641 3571 3702
Fuel Used (gal) 91.9 82.0 87.6 84.3
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 854 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Performance Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 6 ends

3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps Performance by movement Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 14.9 2.8 7.4 4.8 29.9
Total Del/Veh (s) 39.0 15.6 14.3 13.2 20.7
Stop Delay (hr) 12.6 2.5 5.6 3.6 24.2
Stop Del/Veh (s) 32.9 13.8 10.7 9.8 16.7
4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd Performance by movement Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 1.9 3.0 8.0 3.3 16.2
Total Del/Veh (s) 22.8 24.0 11.0 8.0 12.0
Stop Delay (hr) 1.6 2.7 3.9 1.8 9.9
Stop Del/Veh (s) 19.4 21.0 5.3 4.4 7.4
5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 19.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.2 0.3 42.0 44.4 44.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay (hr) 6.0 1.0 0.1 2.5 1.8 4.9 1.4 27.9 1.0 17.6 9.7 0.6 Total Del/Veh (s) 70.0 50.0 14.0 67.9 57.3 28.9 92.4 63.4 66.9 99.8 26.6 8.1 Stop Delay (hr) 5.6 0.9 0.1 2.4 1.6 4.3 1.3 23.0 0.8 16.0 7.3 0.3 Stop Del/Veh (s) 65.5 46.0 13.9 63.5 50.2 25.3 85.3 52.2 57.7 90.7 20.1 4.2 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd Performance by movement Movement All
Denied Delay (hr) 21.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 14.8
Total Delay (hr) 74.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 51.7
Stop Delay (hr) 63.5
Stop Del/Veh (s) 44.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 855 of 1841 ends

SimTraffic Performance Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 7 ends

6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr Performance by movement Movement EBL EBT EBR WBR NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 5.5 0.9 5.3 1.1 16.8 0.1 6.8 36.5
Total Del/Veh (s) 34.4 26.9 23.3 10.0 24.5 24.9 17.5 22.7 Stop Delay (hr) 5.0 0.8 4.2 0.8 11.2 0.1 5.7 27.8
Stop Del/Veh (s) 31.1 25.1 18.7 7.3 16.3 18.0 14.7 17.3 7: US50 WB Ramps Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Delay (hr) 5.1 1.5 2.2 1.6 10.4
Total Del/Veh (s) 36.2 14.2 5.2 5.1 10.5
Stop Delay (hr) 4.6 1.2 1.4 1.0 8.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 32.7 11.3 3.3 3.0 8.2
9: Performance by movement
Movement NBT NBR SBT All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (hr) 1.7 2.0 0.4 4.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 3.9 5.9 0.9 3.3
Stop Delay (hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
10: Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Delay (hr) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Denied Del/Veh (s) 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.2
Total Delay (hr) 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.1
Total Del/Veh (s) 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1
Stop Delay (hr) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Stop Del/Veh (s) 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 856 of 1841 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 10 ends

Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement EB EB EB EB EB B33 NB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L L R R T T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 350 368 380 188 195 63 301 254 273 86 258 262 Average Queue (ft) 247 263 272 101 106 2 268 147 148 23 152 147 95th Queue (ft) 332 349 362 167 173 64 319 236 245 63 230 232 Link Distance (ft) 1013 1013 1013 1013 611 54 54 54 54 204 204 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 34 28 28 3 2 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 162 132 129 15 7 5
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 510
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Sunrise Blvd & US50 EB Ramps
Movement SB
Directions Served T
Maximum Queue (ft) 221
Average Queue (ft) 138
95th Queue (ft) 207
Link Distance (ft) 204
Upstream Blk Time (%) 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 2
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: US50 WB Ramps & Sunrise Blvd
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L L R R T T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 118 132 174 174 308 324 328 158 181 199 Average Queue (ft) 53 77 93 94 187 186 188 87 102 113
95th Queue (ft) 96 116 150 149 285 286 297 140 158 176
Link Distance (ft) 2272 2272 243 243 243 377 377 377
Upstream Blk Time (%) 2 2 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 16 14 18
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 416 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 857 of 1841 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 11 ends

Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement EB EB EB EB EB WB WB WB WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T TR L L T TR R L L
Maximum Queue (ft) 261 270 234 47 58 146 152 208 302 286 52 168 Average Queue (ft) 129 171 34 19 19 47 89 86 182 170 14 92 95th Queue (ft) 235 255 120 45 47 135 140 168 266 252 42 193 Link Distance (ft) 411 411 351 351 351
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 263 263 167 237 237 143 143
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 1 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0 2
Intersection: 5: Zinfandel Dr & White Rock Rd
Movement NB NB NB SB SB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served T T TR L L T T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 413 424 434 463 459 448 454 468 259
Average Queue (ft) 352 382 403 314 321 211 213 227 48
95th Queue (ft) 440 445 441 476 473 428 407 445 180
Link Distance (ft) 391 391 391 488 488 488 488 488 488
Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 20 47 1 0 1 1 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 3 2 3 4 12 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%) 48
Queuing Penalty (veh) 25
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 858 of 1841 ends

Queuing and Blocking Report
SimTraffic Report

Page 12 ends

Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement EB EB EB EB EB EB B14 B14 WB WB NB NB
Directions Served L L T T R R T T R R T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 264 351 121 515 300 250 573 666 172 171 441 482 Average Queue (ft) 116 202 37 189 241 151 100 138 86 62 224 267 95th Queue (ft) 213 310 94 532 357 342 690 774 156 134 407 457 Link Distance (ft) 440 440 440 440 1753 1753 568 568 488 488 Upstream Blk Time (%) 8 0 1 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0 0 1
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 200 200
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 27 1
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 15 1
Intersection: 6: US50 EB Ramps & Zinfandel Dr
Movement NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served T TR T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 512 505 194 179 173
Average Queue (ft) 286 314 167 143 139
95th Queue (ft) 482 510 213 202 194
Link Distance (ft) 488 488 50 50 50
Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 36 33 34
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 5 165 155 156
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 7: US50 WB Ramps
Movement WB WB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L LR R T T T T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 168 192 210 199 191 189 164 229 197
Average Queue (ft) 88 105 124 80 100 101 85 110 99
95th Queue (ft) 137 159 177 140 188 186 149 198 173
Link Distance (ft) 1501 1501 101 101 101 129 129
Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 5 3 3 2
Queuing Penalty (veh) 30 26 16 16 12
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 185 185
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 0 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 0
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 859 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center City of Rancho Cordova,
Transportation Impact Study California

Appendix F

Analysis Worksheets for
Signal Warrants
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 860 of 1841 ends

1/26/2022
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet Warrant 3:

Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing Plus Project Conditions AM
Intersection: Kilgore Rd AND Project Driveway
Comments:

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

1. No

2. Yes

3. No
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 373
Highest Approach - Minor Street 157
1397 593 82 8
571 1326 56 4
The Residences at Capital Center
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 861 of 1841 ends

1/26/2022
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet Warrant 3:

Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 California Supplement
Scenario: Existing Plus Project Conditions PM
Intersection: Kilgore Rd AND Project Driveway
Comments:

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

1. No

2. No

3. No
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 497
Highest Approach - Minor Street 91
1397 593 82 8
571 1326 56 4
The Residences at Capital Center
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 862 of 1841 ends

1/26/2022
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet Warrant 3:

Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 California Supplement
Scenario: Cumulative Year Conditions AM
Intersection: Kilgore Rd AND Project Driveway
Comments:

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

1. No

2. Yes

3. No
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 471
Highest Approach - Minor Street 157
1397 593 82 8
571 1326 56 4
The Residences at Capital Center
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 863 of 1841 ends

1/26/2022
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet Warrant
3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 California Supplement
Scenario: Cumulative Year Conditions PM
Intersection: Kilgore Rd AND Project Driveway
Comments:

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

1. No

2. No

3. Yes
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 764
Highest Approach - Minor Street 91
1397 593 82 8
571 1326 56 4
The Residences at Capital Center
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 864 of 1841 ends

1/26/2022
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 California Supplement
Scenario: Cumulative Year Plus Project Conditions AM
Intersection: Kilgore Rd AND Project Driveway
Comments:

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

1. No

2. Yes

3. Yes
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 637
Highest Approach - Minor Street 157
1397 593 82 8
571 1326 56 4
The Residences at Capital Center
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 865 of 1841 ends

1/26/2022
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 California Supplement
Scenario: Cumulative Year Plus Project Conditions PM
Intersection: Kilgore Rd AND Project Driveway
Comments:

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

1. No

2. No

3. Yes
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One
Both Approaches - Major Street 910
Highest Approach - Minor Street 91
1397 593 82 8
571 1326 56 4
The Residences at Capital Center
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersection with less than four approaches.
2 or More
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 866 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center City of Rancho Cordova,
Transportation Impact Study California

Appendix G

Streetlight Data Sheets
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 867 of 1841 ends

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Sunrise Blvd & US-50 EB Ramps
City: Rancho Cordova Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 4 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
6:00 AM 0 95 0 0 0 286 0 0 104 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 577
6:15 AM 0 148 0 0 0 244 0 0 113 0 104 0 0 0 0 0 609
6:30 AM 0 179 0 0 0 392 0 0 168 0 122 0 0 0 0 0 861
6:45 AM 0 208 0 0 0 359 0 0 180 0 134 0 0 0 0 0 881
7:00 AM 0 204 0 0 0 383 0 0 201 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 934
7:15 AM 0 217 0 0 0 270 0 0 296 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 945
7:30 AM 0 263 0 0 0 379 0 0 273 0 193 0 0 0 0 0 1108
7:45 AM 0 262 0 0 0 495 0 0 344 0 225 0 0 0 0 0 1326
8:00 AM 0 314 0 0 0 346 0 0 351 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 1166
8:15 AM 0 219 0 0 0 534 0 0 393 0 107 0 0 0 0 0 1253
8:30 AM 0 242 0 0 0 541 0 0 306 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 1218
8:45 AM 0 270 0 0 0 469 0 0 345 0 124 0 0 0 0 0 1208

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 2621 0 0 0 4698 0 0 3074 0 1693 0 0 0 0 0 12086 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 64.49% 0.00% 35.51% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1045 0 0 0 1890 0 0 1395 0 515 0 0 0 0 0 4845 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.832 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.873 0.000 0.000 0.887 0.000 0.831 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 4 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 598 0 0 0 455 0 0 404 0 95 0 0 0 0 0 1552
4:15 PM 0 513 0 0 0 552 0 0 468 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 1645
4:30 PM 0 576 0 0 0 498 0 0 398 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 1600
4:45 PM 0 520 0 0 0 585 0 0 449 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 1682
5:00 PM 0 529 0 0 0 558 0 0 405 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 1609
5:15 PM 0 577 0 0 0 555 0 0 356 0 149 0 0 0 0 0 1637
5:30 PM 0 446 0 0 0 423 0 0 463 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 1479
5:45 PM 0 431 0 0 0 502 0 0 487 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 1561
6:00 PM 0 511 0 0 0 447 0 0 409 0 130 0 0 0 0 0 1497
6:15 PM 0 348 0 0 0 443 0 0 409 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 1327
6:30 PM 0 442 0 0 0 322 0 0 335 0 128 0 0 0 0 0 1227
6:45 PM 0 241 0 0 0 325 0 0 349 0 116 0 0 0 0 0 1031

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 5732 0 0 0 5665 0 0 4932 0 1518 0 0 0 0 0 17847 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 76.47% 0.00% 23.53% 0.00% PEAK HR : 03:15 PM 286 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 2138 0 0 0 2193 0 0 1720 0 485 0 0 0 0 0 6536 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.928 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.937 0.000 0.000 0.919 0.000 0.947 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
22-070003-003
1/11/2022
Streetlight Data - Totals
Sunrise Blvd Sunrise Blvd US-50 EB Ramps US-50 EB Ramps AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.967 0.832 0.873 0.944
03:15 PM - 04:15 PM
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.971 0.928 0.937 0.950
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 868 of 1841 ends

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Zinfandel Dr & US-50 EB Ramps/Gold Center Dr
City: Rancho Cordova Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
NL NT NR NU NR2 SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU WU2 TOTAL 6:00 AM 0 209 2 0 0 0 104 0 0 27 174 9 0 4 0 31 0 2 562 6:15 AM 0 313 0 0 0 0 122 0 0 50 103 0 0 7 0 21 0 1 617 6:30 AM 0 302 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 62 109 6 0 7 0 26 0 2 678 6:45 AM 0 283 0 0 0 0 187 0 0 93 148 18 0 2 0 17 0 0 748 7:00 AM 0 350 0 0 0 0 170 0 0 62 155 6 0 0 0 9 0 5 757
7:15 AM 0 489 0 0 0 0 312 0 0 68 167 0 0 2 0 25 0 6 1069 7:30 AM 0 462 0 0 0 0 275 0 0 104 159 0 0 0 0 47 0 4 1051 7:45 AM 0 606 0 0 0 0 359 0 0 147 210 0 0 0 0 48 0 5 1375 8:00 AM 0 602 0 0 0 0 359 0 0 147 214 0 0 0 0 36 0 5 1363 8:15 AM 0 508 1 0 0 0 291 0 0 125 229 2 0 2 0 31 0 6 1195 8:30 AM 0 331 9 0 0 0 314 0 0 125 208 7 0 5 0 29 0 5 1033 8:45 AM 0 317 19 0 0 0 245 0 0 142 213 8 0 2 0 33 0 4 983 NL NT NR NU NR2 SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU WU2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4772 31 0 0 0 2902 0 0 1152 2089 56 0 31 0 353 0 45 11431 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 99.35% 0.65% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 34.94% 63.36% 1.70% 0.00% 7.23% 0.00% 82.28% 0.00% 10.49% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 2178 1 0 0 0 1284 0 0 523 812 2 0 2 0 162 0 20 4984 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.899 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.894 0.000 0.000 0.889 0.886 0.250 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.844 0.000 0.833 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBR2 SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU WBU2 0 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
NL NT NR NU NR2 SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU WU2 TOTAL 4:00 PM 0 727 5 0 0 0 302 0 0 326 53 4 0 0 0 134 0 6 1557 4:15 PM 0 727 18 0 0 0 414 0 0 341 48 9 0 2 0 155 0 9 1723 4:30 PM 0 748 18 0 0 0 417 0 0 434 46 23 0 2 0 189 0 11 1888 4:45 PM 0 723 5 0 0 0 443 0 0 380 46 33 0 6 0 191 0 5 1832 5:00 PM 0 1038 0 0 0 0 428 0 0 372 33 33 0 2 0 222 0 14 2142 5:15 PM 0 585 3 0 0 0 503 0 0 346 31 14 0 0 0 166 0 10 1658 5:30 PM 0 629 2 0 0 0 371 0 0 306 54 6 0 2 0 113 0 13 1496 5:45 PM 0 607 3 0 0 0 413 0 0 254 74 5 0 1 0 95 0 12 1464 6:00 PM 0 532 7 0 0 0 296 0 0 214 64 2 0 0 3 106 0 27 1251 6:15 PM 0 455 8 0 0 0 497 0 0 197 34 0 0 0 0 81 0 20 1292 6:30 PM 0 499 11 0 0 0 406 0 0 219 38 0 0 0 0 60 0 14 1247 6:45 PM 2 527 17 0 0 0 299 0 0 288 56 0 0 6 0 44 0 9 1248 NL NT NR NU NR2 SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU WU2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 7797 97 0 0 0 4789 0 0 3677 577 129 0 21 3 1556 0 150 18798 APPROACH %'s : 0.03% 98.75% 1.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 83.89% 13.16% 2.94% 0.00% 1.21% 0.17% 89.94% 0.00% 8.67% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 2353 15 0 0 0 1583 0 0 1120 223 27 0 3 3 480 0 62 5869 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.935 0.536 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.787 0.000 0.000 0.809 0.753 0.482 0.000 0.375 0.250 0.723 0.000 0.574 0.885 0.938 0.787 0.876 0.778 PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM

0.906 0.899 0.894 0.926 0.868
AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
22-070003-006
1/11/2022
Streetlight Data - Totals
Zinfandel Dr Zinfandel Dr US-50 EB Ramps/Gold Center Dr US-50 EB Ramps/Gold Center Dr ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 869 of 1841 ends

National Data & Surveying ServicesIntersection Turning Movement Count Location: Zinfandel Dr & US-50 WB Ramps
City: Rancho Cordova Project ID:

Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 3 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.5 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
6:00 AM 0 50 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 10 0 161
6:15 AM 0 56 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 17 0 204
6:30 AM 0 80 0 0 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 33 0 275
6:45 AM 0 113 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 36 0 312
7:00 AM 0 123 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 47 0 324
7:15 AM 0 123 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 239 0 46 0 472
7:30 AM 0 163 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 191 0 35 0 474
7:45 AM 0 322 0 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 233 0 50 0 708
8:00 AM 0 249 0 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 60 0 634
8:15 AM 0 184 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 159 0 52 0 535
8:30 AM 0 150 0 0 0 126 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 0 36 0 455
8:45 AM 0 179 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 29 0 436

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1792 0 0 0 1030 0 0 0 0 0 0 1717 0 451 0 4990 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 79.20% 0.00% 20.80% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:30 AM 39 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 918 0 0 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 783 0 197 0 2351 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.713 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.809 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.840 0.000 0.821 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 1.5 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 367 0 0 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 68 0 817
4:15 PM 0 424 0 0 0 216 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 79 0 821
4:30 PM 0 397 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 89 0 852
4:45 PM 0 417 0 0 0 212 0 0 0 0 0 0 138 0 98 0 865
5:00 PM 0 572 0 0 0 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 95 0 1014
5:15 PM 0 360 0 0 0 234 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 87 0 805
5:30 PM 0 358 0 0 0 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 88 0 806
5:45 PM 0 353 0 0 0 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 73 0 754
6:00 PM 0 294 0 0 0 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 88 0 707
6:15 PM 0 243 0 0 0 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 143 0 75 0 766
6:30 PM 0 312 0 0 0 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 0 59 0 738
6:45 PM 0 354 0 0 0 188 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 72 0 710

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 4451 0 0 0 2774 0 0 0 0 0 0 8680 0 971 0 16876 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 89.94% 0.00% 10.06% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:15 PM 290 0 0 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 1365 0 0 0 895 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 0 336 0 3072 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.948 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.913 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.960 0.000 0.955 0.000 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
22-070003-007
1/11/2022
Streetlight Data - Totals
Zinfandel Dr Zinfandel Dr US-50 WB Ramps US-50 WB Ramps AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.830 0.713 0.809 0.866
04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
PM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND

0.953 0.948 0.913 0.958
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 870 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center City of Rancho Cordova,
Transportation Impact Study California

Appendix H

NCHRP-684 Internal Capture Data Sheets
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 871 of 1841 ends

Project Name: Organization:

Project Location: Performed By:

Scenario Description: Date:

Analysis Year: Checked By:

Analysis Period: Date:

ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0
Retail - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0
Restaurant 9 1,000 Sq Ft 81 45 36
Cinema/Entertainment - Screen(s) 0 0 0
Residential 417 Dwelling Unit(s) 172 41 131
Hotel - Room(s) 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses2
- 0 0 0 0
253 86 167
Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Retail 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Restaurant 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Residential 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Hotel 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
All Other Land Uses2 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 1 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0 0 9 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 253 86 167 Office N/A N/A
Internal Capture Percentage 8% 12% 6% Retail N/A N/A
Restaurant 20% 3%
External Vehicle-Trips5 233 76 157 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 2% 7%
External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A
6Person-Trips
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 1 Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2 Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-A vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-A, 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non-motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ).

Table 5-A: Computations Summary Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 0 0
0 0
Table 4-A: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 Origin (From)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
SD
AM Street Peak Hour 5/10/2022
Table 1-A: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use
Development Data (For Information Only ) Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Land Use
Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Opening Year plus Project 1/10/2022
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Residences at Capital Center Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Rancho Cordova, CA AB
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 872 of 1841 ends

Project Name:

Analysis Period:

Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Retail 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Restaurant 1.00 45 45 1.00 36 36
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 41 41 1.00 130.71 131
Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 11 5 1 1
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 3 1 26 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 0 10 0 0
Retail 0 23 1 0
Restaurant 0 0 2 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0 0 9 0
Hotel 0 0 3 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1
Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 9 36 45 36 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 1 40 41 40 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1
Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 1 35 36 35 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 9 122 131 122 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A 2Person-Trips
3 Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use
Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode* 0 0
0 Table 8-A (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 0
0 0
0 Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use
Table 7-A (D): Entering Trips Table 7-A (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-A (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Origin (From) Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 0
Residences at Capital Center
AM Street Peak Hour
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 873 of 1841 ends

Project Name: Organization:

Project Location: Performed By:

Scenario Description: Date:

Analysis Year: Checked By:

Analysis Period: Date:

ITE LUCs1 Quantity Units Total Entering Exiting
Office - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0
Retail - 1,000 Sq Ft 0 0 0
Restaurant 9 1,000 Sq Ft 77 47 30
Cinema/Entertainment - Screen(s) 0 0 0
Residential 417 Dwelling Unit(s) 191 118 73
Hotel - Room(s) 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses2
- 0 0 0 0
268 165 103
Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Veh. Occ.4 % Transit % Non-Motorized Office 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Retail 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Restaurant 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Residential 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Hotel 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
All Other Land Uses2 1.00 0% 0% 1.00 0% 0%
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office
Retail
Restaurant
Cinema/Entertainment
Residential
Hotel
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 5 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 0 0 7 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Total Entering Exiting Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips All Person-Trips 268 165 103 Office N/A N/A
Internal Capture Percentage 9% 7% 12% Retail N/A N/A
Restaurant 15% 17%
External Vehicle-Trips5 244 153 91 Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A External Transit-Trips6 0 0 0 Residential 4% 10%
External Non-Motorized Trips6 0 0 0 Hotel N/A N/A
6Person-Trips
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 1 Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual , published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2 Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 4Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. If vehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be 5Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. 3Enter trips assuming no transit or non-motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual ).

Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use 0 0
0 0
Table 4-P: Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix* Origin (From)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 Origin (From)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
SD
PM Street Peak Hour 5/10/2022
Table 1-P: Base Vehicle-Trip Generation Estimates (Single-Use Site Estimate) Land Use
Development Data (For Information Only ) Estimated Vehicle-Trips3 Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates
Land Use
Entering Trips Exiting Trips
Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Opening Year plus Project 1/10/2022
NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool
Residences at Capital Center Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Rancho Cordova, CA AB
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 874 of 1841 ends

Project Name:

Analysis Period:

Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle-Trips Person-Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Retail 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Restaurant 1.00 47 47 1.00 30 30
Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Residential 1.00 118 118 1.00 72.6 73
Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 1 12 5 2
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 3 31 15 2
Hotel 0 0 0 0
Office Retail Restaurant Residential Hotel
Office 0 1 5 0
Retail 0 14 54 0
Restaurant 0 0 19 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 1 5 0
Residential 0 0 7 0
Hotel 0 0 2 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1
Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 7 40 47 40 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 5 113 118 113 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Internal External Total Vehicles1
Transit2 Non-Motorized2
Office 0 0 0 0 0 0
Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 5 25 30 25 0 0
Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Residential 7 66 73 66 0 0
Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0
All Other Land Uses3 0 0 0 0 0 0
*Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Origin Land Use
Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
1Vehicle-trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P 2Person-Trips
3 Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) 0 0
0 0
0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use
Person-Trip Estimates External Trips by Mode*
Origin (From)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
Origin (From)
Destination (To)
Cinema/Entertainment
0 0
2 0
0 Table 8-P (D): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends Land Use
Table 7-P (D): Entering Trips Table 7-P (O): Exiting Trips Table 8-P (O): Internal Person-Trip Origin-Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Residences at Capital Center
PM Street Peak Hour
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 875 of 1841 ends

Sent Via E-Mail
October 17, 2022
Nick Sosa, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cordova Planning Division
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]
Subject: The Residences at Capital Center Major Design Review / 2022090063 / MND
Dear Mr. Sosa:

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for The Residences at Capital Center Major Design Review (Project, SCH 2022090063). SMUD is the primary energy provider for Sacramento County and the proposed Project area.

SMUD’s vision is to empower our customers with solutions and options that increase energy efficiency, protect the environment, reduce global warming, and lower the cost to serve our region. As a Responsible Agency, SMUD aims to ensure that the proposed Project limits the potential for significant environmental effects on SMUD facilities, employees, and customers.

It is our desire that the Project will acknowledge any impacts related to the following:
• Overhead and or underground transmission and distribution line easements. Please view the following links on smud.org for more information regarding transmission encroachment:
• https://www.smud.org/en/Business-Solutions-and-Rebates/Designand-Construction-Services • https://www.smud.org/en/Corporate/Do-Business-with-SMUD/LandUse/Transmission-Right-of-Way • Utility line routing
• Electrical load needs/requirements
• Energy Efficiency
• Climate Change
• Cumulative impacts related to the need for increased electrical delivery • The potential need to relocate and or remove any SMUD infrastructure that may be affected in or around the project area
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 876 of 1841 ends

Please ensure that the information included in this response is conveyed to the Project planners and the appropriate Project proponents.

Environmental leadership is a core value of SMUD and we look forward to collaborating with you on this Project. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this MND. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 916.732.7406, or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Jerry Park
Environmental Services Specialist
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
6201 S Street
Sacramento, CA 95817
cc: Entitlements
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 877 of 1841 ends

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
10 October 2022
Nicholas Sosa
City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION, RESIDENCES AT CAPITAL CENTER MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT, SCH#2022090063, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 6 September 2022 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Residences at Capital Center Major Design Review Project, located in Sacramento County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore, our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 878 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center - 2 - 10 October 2022
Major Design Review Project
Sacramento County
Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/ Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 879 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center - 3 - 10 October 2022
Major Design Review Project
Sacramento County
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “nonfederal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 880 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center - 4 - 10 October 2022
Major Design Review Project
Sacramento County
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 881 of 1841 ends

Residences at Capital Center - 5 - 10 October 2022
Major Design Review Project
Sacramento County
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 882 of 1841 ends

1 Nicholas Sosa
From: Joseph J. Hurley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 3:34 PM
To: Nicholas Sosa
Subject: Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Residences at Capital Center Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good Afternoon Mr. Sosa,
Thank you for providing the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Sac Metro Air District) with the opportunity to review the project routing for the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Residences at Capital Center. The project consists of developing a mixed‐use infill residential development with a destination commercial‐retail component. The Residences at Capital Center Project would result in 417 units comprised of 240 multifamily units, 177 townhome rental units, and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial. We offer the comments below on project development to benefit air quality and public health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

California Environmental Quality Act Review:

Construction
All projects undergoing CEQA review must implement Sac Metro Air District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices, also available on our website, to use the non‐zero particulate matter CEQA thresholds of significance.

Additionally, all projects are subject to Sac Metro Air District rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

Please visit our website to find a list of the most common rules that apply during the construction phase of projects Design Comments:

Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effects:

According to the Capital Region Transportation Sector Urban Heat Island Mitigation Project (UHI Project), the urban heat island effect already presents a severe challenge to our region, with urbanized areas in Sacramento some 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than their surrounding areas. Higher ambient temperatures increase the formation of ozone, a respiratory system irritant. These higher temperatures can lead to heat stress, heat stroke, and even heat mortality during extreme heat and extended heat waves, especially for the elderly, the young, and those with pre‐existing health conditions. The urban heat island results from converting undeveloped land to urbanized land.

For construction, we recommend (1) all new pavements, including sidewalks, roads, bike lanes, pedestrian paths, and parking lots, having an albedo of at least 0.25‐0.5, and (2) all new structures utilize certified cool roofs. The California Energy Commission’s Title 24, Part 6, suggests an aged solar reflectance of at least 0.63 for low‐sloped roofs and at least

0.20 for steep‐sloped roofs, with a minimum thermal emittance of 0.75. The Cool Roof Rating Council provides a product directory of roofs.

We recommend that the landscaping plan incorporate new trees to shade new pavements and structures to the extent feasible. The Sacramento Tree Foundation’s Shady Eighty guide is a directory of air‐quality supportive trees, a more extensive tree list is available on page 153 of the UHI Technical Analysis Report.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 883 of 1841 ends

2 We thank the City of Rancho Cordova for the opportunity to comment on this document. You may contact me at [email protected] or (279) 207‐1130 if you have questions regarding these comments.

Respectfully,
‐JJ Hurley
Joseph J. Hurley
Associate Air Quality Planner/Analyst
CEQA and Land Use Section
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 884 of 1841 ends

1 Nicholas Sosa
From: Lynn Keay <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 7, 2022 3:13 PM
To: Nicholas Sosa
Subject: Public Comment: The Residences at Capital Center Design Review Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr. Sosa and Rancho Cordova City Council Members,
In regards to above project under review and draft IS/MND, my comments below summarize my opposition to the proposed zoning use change and residential project.

Currently acreage zoning has GP Designation ‐ Office Mixed Use, (OMU) Zoning ‐ Office Professional Mixed Use (OPMU). The proposed extreme change of land use to 417 high density three level residential apartment and townhome units is NOT even close to meeting conditions considered or intended under the General Plan for Specific Plan Area. The human traffic, road congestion, RCPD and Fire/Emergency support, and consumption of all services for the area are in excess of reasonable use in this small area compared with OMU or OPMU which the entire area was designed to accommodate. The ratio of indoor square footage allocated to OPMU retail compared to total residential square footage is minuscule at less than 5% of the entire project. This is a high density residential proposal unfitting for the surrounding area of pure Office/Commercial and adjacent to the already massive Elliott Single Family Home development underway that will severely increase congestion as International Blvd is widened for direct route into Rio Del Oro with Rancho Cordova Parkway.

Additional traffic congestion of tractor trailer trucking for proposed distribution warehouses being considered would severely impact the community without adding another 417 high density residential units. There is a limit to what a community can absorb and thus a reason for General Plans and Specific Plan Areas. This mitigates ALL of the SPA goals for cohesion and Air Quality.

Would add unreasonable formerly unplanned increased demand for retail, gas, health care, public services, water, transportation, sewer, water treatment, fire, safety, and schools. We don't have enough space in schools for our current population as it is, especially for middle and high school level children.

Another objection is the legacy use intended for the development. OMU/OPMU zoning allows for a variety of future uses of developed structures and can be adapted to fit demand. High density residential development of apartments is much less flexible. Think 15‐25+ years from now. We need more businesses and employment here in Rancho Cordova to balance and serve the already aggressively planned residential needs. High density Residential Infill of vacant lots formerly zoned for OMU is not appropriate planning simply to satisfy Out of State developers thirst for investment profits. We already have significant residential multi‐family development planned for appropriately zoned areas in the most unaffordable state in the country to live in. Stick with the PLAN for stabilized use and growth, PLEASE! It affects ALL of us in the community.

Sincerely,
Lynn Keay
Homeowner and resident since 1989
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 885 of 1841 ends

September 30, 2022
Nicholas Sosa, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cordova Planning Division
2729 Prospect Park Dr.

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Subject: The Residences at Capital Center Design Review Project - Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
APN: 072-0260-051, -054, -056 & 072-0680-065, -068
Mr. Sosa,
The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) has reviewed the subject documents.

Cole Partners Development Company and The Grupe Company are proposing a mixed-use project located on a property zoned Office Professional Mixed Use (OPMU) within the Office Mixed Use (OMU) designation of the General Plan. The project will include an approx. 4,999 SF commercial building area with approx. 3,500 square feet of outdoor area and will have a total of 240 multifamily units with a 7,000 square foot two-story clubhouse with pool and fitness center. The multi-family portion also includes a dog park, barbecue area, and lounge areas. The project also includes 177 townhome units with a separate 7,000 square-foot single story clubhouse with pool and fitness center. Outdoor amenities also include a children's playground, dog park, barbecue area and lounge areas.

SacSewer expects that if the project is subject to currently established policies, ordinances, fees, and to conditions of approval, then mitigation measures within the Mitigated Negative Declaration will adequately address the sewage aspects of the project. SacSewer anticipates a less than significant impact to the sewage facilities due to mitigation.

Attached are minor comments on the Report.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (916) 876-6336.

Sincerely,
Yadira Lewis
Yadira Lewis
SacSewer Development Services

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 886 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-36 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study Once operational, the project site would be developed with approximately 15.2 acres of impervious area (70 percent of the total area), including buildings, asphalt parking lots, and concrete walkways (RSC Engineering, Inc. 2021a:

Appendix C). As described in the Preliminary Stormwater Quality Report, the project would be designed to meet the stormwater quality and low impact development (LID) requirements of the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region (RSC Engineering, Inc. 2021a). Proposed stormwater features, which include stormwater planter facilities, underground stormwater treatment devices, and disconnected roof drain systems, would reduce erosion potential from operational runoff. Furthermore, landscaping would reduce erosion potential in unpaved areas. With adherence to applicable rules and regulations and implementation of BMPs and LID practices, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to erosion and 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?
Less than Significant. Refer to Sections 3.7.2(a)(iii) and (iv) above. The project site is underlain with dredge spoil sediments composed of gravels, cobbles, and boulders (CSS Environmental Services, Inc. 2020a). The potential for on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction, or collapse is considered low because the topography of the project site and surrounding area is generally flat, the depth to groundwater is greater than 50 feet bgs, and the distance to the nearest active fault is over 40 miles from the project site.

The soils in the former slickens ponds are not considered suitable for support of proposed improvements and engineered fill, due to the risk of excessive settlement associated with the low-density soils. Deep deposits of clay and silt exist beneath proposed building footprints could result in settlement in response to fill and structural loads.

Therefore, slickens materials will require complete removal and recompaction. However, these soils would be suitable for use in engineered construction, if they are excavated, mixed with on-site gravels and cobbles, moisture conditioned and properly compacted. The project would include over excavation of soils within the building pads and placement of engineered fill to improve the uniformity of support and bearing capacity of the native soils, and to reduce the risk of differential settlement. The specific requirements will be developed in a design-level geotechnical investigation (MPE 2020).
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant. Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clayey soils that have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. Laboratory testing of the on-site clays indicates they possess a medium expansion potential when tested in accordance with the ASTM D4829 test method. These soils experience volume changes with varying soil moisture contents and are capable of exerting moderate expansion pressures upon foundations and concrete slabs-on-grade, including sidewalks (MPE 2020).

The Residences Project would be subject to California Building Code standards, which include common engineering practices requiring special design and construction methods that reduce or eliminate potential expansive soil related impacts. Therefore, substantial risks to life or property would not occur. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) provides sewer services within the City and operates utility lines within the roadways adjacent to the project site. In addition, the project site is within the service area of Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San), which provides regional wastewater conveyance and treatment services. Wastewater within the Regional San service area is treated at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) in the City of Elk Grove. The Residences Project would be served by SASD and Regional San and does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 887 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-81 water portfolio and implementation of the water shortage contingency plan provide GSWC Cordova with stable and reliable water service to meet its current and 2045 projected water demands in normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry year scenarios.

In 2020, the agency’s public water supply served a total of 14,759 connections (GSWC 2021: 1-2) for a population of approximately 44,050 people. In 2020, the water demand for the service area was 14,206 acre-feet (AF) (GSWC 2021:
4-1). In 2025 and 2045, the projected water demand for normal (non-drought conditions) is estimated to be 13,605 acre-feet per year (AFY) and 15,032 AFY, respectively (GSWC 2021: 4-6), for population estimates of 45,162, and 49,900. The UWMP determined that the agency would have sufficient water supply to meet projected demand for the service area through 2045, even in the event of multiple dry year conditions (GSWC 2021: 5-1).

WASTEWATER
Wastewater conveyance is provided by SASD, which manages and maintains the region’s sewer systems. Wastewater collected in SASD’s system is processed at the SRWTP, which is managed by Regional San located at 8521 Laguna Station Road in the City of Elk Grove. The network of pipelines comprising the sewer system collection pipelines are categorized based on their size, function, and flow capacity.  Collectors generally receive flow directly from individual homes and businesses, are generally 6-8 inches in diameter, designed to carry less than 1 million of gallons per day (mgd) wastewater flow.  Trunk sewers collect flows from collectors and are generally 12-36 inches in diameter, have a flow capacity between one and 10 mgd.
 Interceptors are between 36 and 144 inches in diameter and have a flow capacity of 10 mgd or greater.

DRY UTILITIES
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District would provide electricity and Pacific Gas and Electric would provide natural gas. AT&T would provide telecommunications services.

SOLID WASTE
Republic Services, Inc. would provide solid waste collection services to the project site, and Waste Management (WM) manages local recovery stations and landfills. The Kiefer Road Landfill is classified as a major landfill, which is defined as a facility that receives more than 50,000 tons of solid waste per year and is the only facility in Sacramento County that accepts solid waste from the public (City of Rancho Cordova 2021b: 4-180). Kiefer landfill currently has 117 million cubic yard (58 million tons) total capacity and is divided into 11 modules (City of Rancho Cordova 2021b: 4-180. To date, Kiefer has placed approximately 40 million cubic yards of waste into Modules 1-3, leaving 77 million cubic yards (38 million tons) of available capacity. The maximum tons per day (tpd) allowed at the Kiefer Road Landfill is 10,815 tpd, with an average intake of 6,362 tpd. Currently, the Kiefer Road Landfill is operating below permitted capacity and would have capacity for the next 30 to 40 years based on current disposal rates (City of Rancho Cordova 2021b).

Chapters 6.20, “Solid Waste Requirements,” 6.21, “Business and Multifamily Recycling and Organics Recycling” describe City requirements related to the provision of solid waste disposal services including collection and transport, waste diversion, and container requirements for commercial, single family residential, and multifamily residential waste generators. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) required a diversion of a minimum of 50 percent of discarded materials away from disposal in landfills.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 888 of 1841 ends

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 889 of 1841 ends

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 890 of 1841 ends

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 891 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental, Inc., 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814 Main: 916.444.7301 Fax: 916.444.3927 ascentenvironmental.com Residences at Capital Center
Response to Comments on the Initial Study/
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 INTRODUCTION
The proposed Residences at Capital Center Project (Residences Project) is a mixed-use infill residential development with a destination commercial-retail component. The Residences Project would result in the construction of 417 dwelling units (240 multifamily units and 177 townhome rental units) and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial development on a 22.9-acre site that is located along International Drive, east of Kilgore Road, and adjacent to the Folsom South Canal. The vacant property is located in the city’s Capital Center and surrounded by residential uses, park facilities, and office and industrial uses. The site is located near the Rancho CordoVan Village bus route, which provides access to the Zinfandel Light Rail Station.

The Residences Project site is designated as Office Mixed Use in the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram. As described in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, this designation encourages the integration of commercial and/or residential use in conjunction with office use. The zoning designation for the Residences Project site is Office Professional Mixed-Use (OPMU). The Residences Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning of the site.

The City prepared an Initial Study (IS) and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Residences Project to present decision-makers and the public with information about the environmental consequences of implementing the project. The City released the draft IS and proposed MND for public review and comment between September 9, 2022 and October 10, 2022.

The City received six comment letters regarding the Residences Project during the 30-day review period. This document provides responses to the concerns raised in each of the comments. 2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
9/30/2022

YADIRA LEWIS, SACRAMENTO AREA SEWER DISTRICT
The comment expresses concurrence with the conclusion that there would be a less than significant impact to sewage facilities and offers minor text clarifications for the IS/MND. In response to this comment, the document has been revised to replace “SASD” with “SacSewer.” In addition, the description of sewer system collection pipeline classification on page 3-81 has been revised to indicate that collectors are generally 6 to 10 inches in diameter. 10/10/2022

PETER MINKEL, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD The comment provides a summary of Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations. This information is consistent with the analyses in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” of the IS. The comment does not offer specific direction or comments regarding development of the Residences Project or comment on the ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 892 of 1841 ends

Page 2 ends

analysis or conclusions in the IS/MND. These comments are noted. No revisions to the IS/MND have been made in response to this comment.
10/10/2022
LAURA L. TAYLOR, CORDOVA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
The comment indicates that park fees would be applied to the proposed development through Chapter 22.170.020 of the City’s Municipal Code and that the project site would be annexed into the Villages at Zinfandel Community Facilities District No. 01-01. The comment recommends several specific text revisions to the IS to more accurately reflect Cordova Park and Recreation District’s (CRPD’s) conditions for approval of the project.

Specifically, the comment suggests that Cordova Park and Recreation District should be added to the list of public agencies whose approval is required in Section 2.6, “Project Approvals,” of the IS. The document has been revised as suggested. See page 2-7 on the Final IS.

The comment also suggests clarification of the discussion of the potential for impacts to parks in Section 3.15, “Public Services,” and Section 3.16, “Recreation,” so that the text more accurately reflects CRPD’s jurisdiction and requirements. These discussions have been revised as suggested. See pages 3-66, 3-68, 3-69, and 3-70 of the Final IS. 10/11/2022
JOSEPH J. HURLEY, SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT
The comment provides a summary of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air District’s requirement that projects implement Sac Metro Air District Basic Construction Emission Control Practices “to use the non-zero particulate matter CEQA thresholds of significance.”
The IS provides an analysis that is consistent with the requirements cited in the comment. As indicated in Section 3.3, “Air Quality:”
The project intends to implement SMAQMD’s best management practices of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions control including, but not limited to, watering the site two times daily, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, reduce idling to no more than five minutes, etc. With implementation of SMAQMD’s best management practices identified in Section 2.5 of Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the SMAQMD’s peak daily and annual thresholds increase from zero to 80 pounds per day (lb/day) or 14.6 tons per year (tpy) for PM10 and 82 lb/day or 15 tpy for PM2.5.

The comment also offers design suggestions related to the solar reflectance of hard surfaces including sidewalks and roofs and incorporating trees into the landscape plan. The proposed project includes these features. As described in the IS, Chapter 2, “Project Description,” (p.2-4 and p.2-6) all new structures developed in the Residences Project would have cool roofs and the landscape plans include 804 new tree plantings. In addition, at least 25 percent of paved area will have an albedo of no less than 0.25.
10/17/2022

JERRY PARK, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
The comments requests that the any conflicts with electrical transmission lines and easements are identified, as well as any impacts related to electrical demand, energy efficiency, and climate change. Refer to Sections 3.6, “Energy,”

3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” and 3.19, “Utilities and Service Systems,” in the IS for discussion of these topics. The ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 893 of 1841 ends

Page 3 ends

project would not conflict with existing electrical facilities. The comment does not provide specific comments on the analysis or conclusions in the IS. The comment is noted for the record. 10/7/2022

LYNN KEAY
The comment identifies the existing General Plan designation and zoning of the project site and indicates that the Residences Project is inconsistent with these designations, which could result in development that exceeds planning assumptions for this land use. This is an incorrect interpretation of the proposal and the allowable uses on the project site. As summarized above, the Residences Project is consistent with the existing land use designation; the OPMU zoning designation allows 18 dwelling units per acre. The comment that high-density residential and commercial mixed use is an “unfitting” land use between “pure Office/Commercial” and an existing development of single-family homes is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for consideration.

The comment specifically indicates that the Residences Project would result in traffic congestion that exceeds roadway capacity as a result of perceived inconsistencies with these existing land use planning documents. As stated above, the project is consistent with the land use a designation. Refer to Appendix F (Transportation Impact Study) of the IS for evaluation of traffic congestion due to the project. As indicated in the Transportation Impact Study, with adjustment to the signal timing of the intersection of Kilgore Road and White Rock Road, all intersections in the vicinity are expected to operate within the acceptable Level of Service (based on consistency with the threshold established in the City of Rancho Cordova’s General Plan).

The comment references the potential for increased demand for public services and utilities. These topics are addressed in Section 3.15, “Public Services,” and 3.19, “Utilities and Service Systems,” of the IS. No impacts associated with the need for new or altered facilities were identified in this analysis. As described in the IS, the City’s General Plan provides policies for ensuring adequate services in accordance with projected growth and development. Population growth, including student population, from the Residences Project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan. The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities. The commenter does not offer direct comments on this evaluation and no further response can be provided.

The comment states that approval of the Residences Project would commit the project site to residential uses in the future and suggests that the land use designation and zoning should not be changed. As stated above, the Residence Project is consistent with the established land use designations. The project would not require a General Plan amendment or change in zoning designation. The comment offers speculation about the balance of jobs to housing in the future and suggests that there is not a need for multi-family development, but offers no evidence to support this claim. This comment is noted.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 894 of 1841 ends

August 2022

INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The Residences at Capital Center
PREPARED FOR:

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 895 of 1841 ends

20210188.01
Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Residences at Capital Center
Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Contact: Nick Sosa, Associate Planner
Prepared By:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916/444-7301
Contact: Jessica Babcock, Project Manager
August 2022
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 896 of 1841 ends

City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Why this Document?.........................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Project Approvals .............................................................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.5 Document Organization ................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Overview................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Existing Setting......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Residences Project Features ......................................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Residences Project Construction................................................................................................................................. 2-6

2.6 Project Approvals ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-7 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources............................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 Air Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 Biological Resources...................................................................................................................................................... 3-18

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-27

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-30

3.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-33

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-38

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................................... 3-44

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................................................... 3-49

3.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................................................. 3-54

3.12 Mineral Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 3-55

3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-56

3.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................................................................. 3-63

3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-64

3.16 Recreation......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-69

3.17 Transportation................................................................................................................................................................. 3-70

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 3-78

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 3-80

3.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-85

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance......................................................................................................................... 3-87 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 REPORT PREPARERS .................................................................................................................................................................5-1 ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 897 of 1841 ends

Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
ii Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study
Appendices (included in a CD on back cover)
Appendix A – Architectural Exhibits
Appendix B – Aquatic Resource Assessment
Appendix C – South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Avoidance and Minimization Measures Appendix D – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Appendix E – Noise Modeling
Appendix F – Traffic Impact Study
Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location............................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Site.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Site Plan............................................................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 3-1 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Baseline Landcover Types................................................. 3-20 Figure 3-2 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Landcover Types Identified Through Field Survey................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-21 Tables
Table 3.3-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ......................................................................................... 3-12 Table 3.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Sacramento County................................................................................. 3-13 Table 3.3-3 Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Emissions Associated with Project Construction (lb/day) ..................................................................................................................................... 3-15 Table 3.3-5 Unmitigated Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions Associated with Project Operations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3-15 Table 3.4-1 Special Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Region and Their Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site.................................................................................................................................. 3-23 Table 3.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption.......................................................................................................................... 3-31 Table 3.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption............................................................................................................................ 3-31 Table 3.8-1 Construction-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions........................................................................................ 3-40 Table 3.8-2 Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................... 3-41 Table 3.8-3 Adjusted Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................. 3-42 Table 3.13-1 Acoustic Term Definitions............................................................................................................................................ 3-56 Table 3.13-2 Typical Noise Levels....................................................................................................................................................... 3-57 Table 3.13-3 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for Human Response....................................................................... 3-58 Table 3.13-4 Structural Damage Potential to Buildings at Various Groundborne Vibration Levels............................ 3-59 Table 3.13-5 City of Rancho Cordova Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources...................................... 3-59 Table 3.13-6 City of Rancho Cordova Maximum Transportation Noise Exposure............................................................ 3-59 Table 3.13-7 Summary of Modeled Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels ................................................................... 3-61 Table 3.15-1 Public School Facilities Serving the Residences Project Site ........................................................................... 3-65 Table 3.15-2 Public Parks and Recreational Facilities in Proximity to the Residences Project Site.............................. 3-65 Table 3.15-3 Student Yield Rates for the Residences Project................................................................................................... 3-67 ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 898 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study iii
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 899 of 1841 ends

Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
iv Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AQAP air quality attainment plans
Basin Plan Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
bgs below ground surface
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Rancho Cordova
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CRPD Cordova Recreation and Park District
CWD Carmichael Water District
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibel
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessments
EV electric vehicle
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
FCUSD Folsom Cordova Unified School District
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GSWC Golden State Water Company
IS/Proposed MND Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration lb/day pounds per day
lbs pounds
Leq Equivalent Noise Level
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 900 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study v
LID low impact development
Lmax Maximum Noise Level
LOS level of service
mgd million gallons per day
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
mph miles per hour
MRZ Mineral Resource Zones
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOX oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
RCPD Rancho Cordova Police Department
REC recognized environmental conditions
Regional San Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Residences Project Residences at Capital Center Project ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit
SASb South American Subbasin
SASD Sacramento Area Sewer District
SB Senate Bill
SCMDP Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMFD Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
SQDM Stormwater Quality Design Manual
SRWTP Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
SSHCP South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 901 of 1841 ends

Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
vi Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study
SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC toxic air contaminants
the Project Applicant GGC Project Ventures
TIS Transportation Impact Study
tpd tons per day
tpy tons per years
U.S. 50 United States Route
UDA Urban Development Area
VHFHSZ very high fire hazard severity zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WM Waste Management
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 902 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study vii
This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 903 of 1841 ends

City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY GUIDANCE
This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/Proposed MND) has been prepared for the City of Rancho Cordova (City), as the lead agency, to evaluate potential environmental effects resulting from the Residences at Capital Center Project. Under CEQA, the lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over approval of the project. Chapter 2 “Project Description” presents the detailed project information.

This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). An Initial Study is prepared by a lead agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[a]), and thus to determine the appropriate environmental document. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a “public agency shall prepare…a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration…when: (a) The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence…that the project may have a significant impact on the environment, or (b) The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects but revisions to the project plans or proposal are agreed to by the applicant and such revisions would reduce potentially significant effects to a less-than-significant level.” In this circumstance, the lead agency prepares a written statement describing its reasons for concluding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). By contrast, an EIR is required when the project may have a significant environmental impact that cannot clearly be reduced to a less-than-significant effect by adoption of mitigation or by revisions in the project design.

1.2 WHY THIS DOCUMENT?
As described in the environmental checklist (Chapter 3), the project would not result in any unmitigated significant environmental impacts. Therefore, an IS/Proposed MND is the appropriate document for compliance with the requirements of CEQA. This IS/Proposed MND conforms to these requirements and to the content requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15071.

The purpose of this document is to present to decision-makers and the public information about the environmental consequences of implementing the project. This disclosure document is being made available to the public for review and comment. This IS/Proposed MND will be available for a 30-day public review period from September 9, 2022 to October 10, 2022.

Supporting documentation referenced in this document is available for review at:

City of Rancho Cordova
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Comments should be addressed to:

Nick Sosa, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cordova Planning Division
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
E-mail comments may be addressed to: [email protected] If you have questions regarding the IS/Proposed MND, please call Nick Sosa at: (916) 851-8753. If you wish to send written comments (including via e-mail), they must be postmarked by October 10, 2022.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 904 of 1841 ends

Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
1-2 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study
After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, the City of Rancho Cordova may (1) adopt the MND, mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), and approve the project; (2) undertake additional environmental studies, potentially including preparation of an Environmental Impact Report; or (3) deny the project. If the project is approved, the project proponent may proceed with the project.

1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Chapter 3 of this document contains the analysis and discussion of potential environmental impacts of the project.

Based on the issues evaluated in that chapter, it was determined that the project would have either no impact or a less-than-significant impact related to most of the issue areas identified in the Environmental Checklist included as Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. These include the following issue areas:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
 Air Quality
 Energy
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Noise
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
Potentially significant impacts were identified for biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and tribal cultural resources; however, mitigation measures included in the IS/Proposed MND would reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant level.

1.4 PROJECT APPROVALS
The project would require the subject to the following actions:
 City of Rancho Cordova City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Major Design Review  Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District: Project Approval  Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District: Plan Review
 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan permit

1.5 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/Proposed MND is organized as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter provides an introduction to the environmental review process. It describes the purpose and organization of this document as well as presents a summary of findings.

Chapter 2: Project Description. This chapter describes the purpose of and need for the proposed project, identifies project objectives, and provides a detailed description of the project.

Chapter 3: Environmental Checklist. This chapter presents an analysis of a range of environmental issues identified in the CEQA Environmental Checklist and determines if project actions would result in no impact, a less-than-significant impact, a less-than-significant impact with mitigation incorporated, or a potentially significant impact. If any impacts were determined to be potentially significant, an EIR would be required. For this project, however, none of the impacts were determined to be significant after implementation of mitigation measures.

Chapter 4: References. This chapter lists the references used in preparation of this IS/Proposed MND.

Chapter 5: List of Preparers. This chapter identifies report preparers.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 905 of 1841 ends

City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
GGC Project Ventures (the Project Applicant) has submitted an application to the City of Rancho Cordova (City) (the Lead Agency) for development of the Residences at Capital Center Project (Residences Project). The Residences Project has been designed as a modern mixed-use infill residential development with a destination commercial-retail component. It would result in the construction of 417 dwelling units (240 multifamily units and 177 townhome rental units) and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial development.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING SETTING
The Residences Project would develop housing within the City of Rancho Cordova, in a location that is approximately 1 mile south of U.S. Highway 50, 9 miles east of downtown Sacramento, and 10 miles southwest of Folsom Lake (Figure 2-1). The project site is 22.9 acres located along International Drive, east of Kilgore Road, and adjacent to the Folsom South Canal (Figure 2-2). The project site is a vacant infill property in the city’s Capital Center that is surrounded by residential uses, park facilities, and office and industrial uses. Specific uses include the San Juan Soccer Club complex to the north, industrial development including Costco and California Northstate University College of Pharmacy east of the Folsom South Canal, single family development to the south, and medical office buildings to the west. The site is located near the Rancho CordoVan Village bus route, which provides access to the Zinfandel Light Rail Station.

2.2.1 General Plan and Zoning
The Residences Project site is designated as Office Mixed Use in the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram. As described in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, this designation encourages the integration of commercial and/or residential use in conjunction with office use. The zoning designation for the Residences Project site is Office Professional Mixed-Use (OPMU).

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Specific project objectives, as stated by the Project Applicant, include the following:
 Develop a high-quality walkable rental community on an infill site at Capital Center.  Design a community that is complementary in look and feel to the existing office park through attractive modern architectural design and landscaping.
 Provide an open-air, community-oriented commercial space proximate to the proposed residential development, existing office park, and soccer facilities.
 Provide diverse rental housing opportunities in an infill location that is proximate to prominent employment and retail nodes that promotes walking and cycling as alternatives to driving, as well as a “live-work-play” environment.
 Take advantage of pedestrian and cycling connectivity opportunities through improved utilization of existing Rancho Cordova infrastructure. Promote increased cycling between the Residences Project and nearby amenities, shopping at Capital Village, office buildings at Capital Center and Prospect Park, and the Folsom South Canal Recreational Trail.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 906 of 1841 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
2-2 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study
Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental 2022
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 907 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 2-3
Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental 2022
Figure 2-2 Project Site
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 908 of 1841 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
2-4 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

2.4 RESIDENCES PROJECT FEATURES
As described above, the Residence Project would consist of residential and commercial components. The northern portion of the site, adjacent to the San Juan Soccer Club, would include 177-units consisting of townhomes and the southeast portion of the site would include a 240-unit multi-family development. There would also be commercial and retail uses in the northeast corner of the site. Each of these project features is shown in Figure 2-3 and discussed below.

2.4.1 Residential
The residential component is conceptualized as two separate residential projects acting as one community.

TOWNHOMES
The townhomes portion of the project would be located on approximately 12 acres just south of the San Juan Soccer Club complex on the northern portion of the Residences Project site. It would include 149 three-story townhome units and 28 two-story townhome units. The three-story units would feature large patios, or lanais, while the two-story units would include enclosed backyards with wood fences. The townhomes portion of the community would also have an approximate 7,000 square foot single-story clubhouse building with pool and fitness center. Outdoor amenity areas would include a pool/spa, children’s playground, dog park, and barbeque and lounge areas.

MULTI-FAMILY
The multi-family portion of the community would be located on approximately 9 acres immediately east of the existing commercial building at the northeast corner of Kilgore Road and International Drive. This site would include an approximately 7,000 square foot, two-story clubhouse building with pool and fitness center. Outdoor amenity areas would include a dog park, barbeque, and lounge areas. The clubhouse would feature a large deck area that runs contiguous to a pool and a large community lawn area for residents to congregate and socialize. There would be nine, three-story, garden style walk- up apartment buildings.

2.4.2 Commercial-Retail
The commercial-retail component of the project would be situated on Kilgore Road, adjacent to the townhomes and south of the San Juan Soccer Club complex. It would be located on approximately 1 acre site on the northwest corner of the Residences Project site and would be accessible by motor vehicles via the shared access drive with the San Juan Soccer Club. The proposed commercial development would have approximately 5,000 square feet of building area with approximately 3,500 square feet of outdoor area. The planned open space is designed to buffer the townhomes’ clubhouse parking lot from the commercial development; it is envisioned to be a community oriented open-air food and beer garden.

2.4.3 Open Space and Trails
A green space is planned at the center of the project, and wide pedestrian pathways and paseos would wind throughout the project site. At the south side of the Residences Project site, access to the city’s pedestrian sidewalk system would connect to the existing Folsom South Canal bike path to the east (providing bicyclists access to the American River Bike Trail and Lake Natoma to the north, and terminating at Cosumnes River to the south). A proposed pedestrian crosswalk on Kilgore Road would provide access to a city-contemplated pathway that would lead to Capital Village in the future. The project also includes 804 new tree plantings.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 909 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 2-5
Source: Prepared by BSB Design 2021
Figure 2-3 Site Plan
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 910 of 1841 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
2-6 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

2.4.4 Architecture and Design
The proposed building design is modern-contemporary. The structures would be white stucco, which is intended to result in a modern look. Dark metal accents and wood tiling would complement the surrounding landscape. The exterior elevation of the apartments would be approximately 37 feet. The town homes would be between approximately 20 and 30 feet tall. The clubhouse for the apartments would be between these two elevations. The buildings would use varied massing to add visual interest to the large structures. See Appendix A for detailed site design.

BUILDING ENERGY
All project buildings would participate in Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s SolarShare program and would include cool roofs. The residential units would be all electric, but gas hook-ups are proposed for the restaurant, heating the pool and spa, two fire pits, and the clubhouse kitchen. All non-residential buildings will be designed with electrical capacity sufficient to support future electrification. At least 25 percent of paved area will have an albedo of no less than 0.25.

2.4.5 Access and Parking
Primary vehicle access to the Residences Project would be from three points off of Kilgore Road (see Figure 2-3). The commercial portion of the Residences Project would be accessed via the existing drive to the San Juan Soccer Club.

The entrance to the townhomes would be through a grand promenade entrance south of the commercial area.

Access to the multi-family project would be via Crawford Drive, an existing, tree-lined private road located just north of the existing commercial building on the northeast corner of Kilgore Road and International Drive. Emergency vehicle access would be provided to International Drive just east of the existing commercial building.

At least 218 of the parking spaces would be electric vehicle ready stalls (23 percent of total) and at least 12 electric vehicle chargers would be installed. In addition, the project would exceed CalGreen bike parking standards for shortand long-term bike parking/storage.

2.5 RESIDENCES PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Construction is estimated to occur over 3 years, beginning in August of 2022. The entire site would be graded, with a maximum of 3 acres graded in a single say and approximately 1,500 cubic yards of daily cut and fill. All construction activities would occur between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9:00 a.m.– 6:00 p.m. on Sunday.

Construction practices would adhere to established regulations and permit requirements. In addition, the following specification would be required to reduce emissions following Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District guidelines:
 All exposed surfaces would be watered twice daily.
 Trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site would cover or maintain at least 2 feet of free board space. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways would be covered.  Wet power vacuum street sweepers would be used to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day.
 Vehicle speeds on unpaved roads would be limited to 15 miles per hour.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved would be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads would be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 911 of 1841 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 2-7
 All construction equipment would be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment would be checked by a certified mechanic and determine to be running in proper condition before it is operated.

2.6 PROJECT APPROVALS
The project would require the following approvals:
 City of Rancho Cordova City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Major Design Review  Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District: Project Approval  Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District: Plan Review
 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan permit
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 912 of 1841 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
2-8 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study
This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 913 of 1841 ends

City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Residences at Capital Center

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cordova 2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Nick Sosa, Associate Planner (916) 851-8750

4. Project Location: East of Kilgore Road, west of the Folsom South Canal and Sunrise Boulevard, and north of International Drive (assessor parcel numbers (APNs) 072-0260-051, -054, -056; 072-0680-065, -068)

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: GGC Project Ventures LLC 2484 Natomas Park Drive, #101
Sacramento, CA 95833

6. General Plan Designation: Office Mixed Use (OMU)

7. Zoning: Office Professional Mixed-Use (OPMU)

8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
GGC Project Ventures LLC (project applicant) is proposing the development of a mixed-use infill residential development with a destination commercial-retail component on 22.9 acres. The Residences Project would result in a total of 417 units comprised of 240 multifamily units, 177 townhome rental units, and approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial. Refer to Chapter 2, “Project Description,” for a complete project description.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
(Briefly describe the project’s
surroundings)
The project site is surrounded by residential uses, park facilities, and office and industrial uses. Specific uses include the San Juan Soccer Club complex to the north; industrial development, including Costco and automotive and laboratory uses east of the Folsom South Canal; single family development to the south; and medical office buildings to the west.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is
required: (e.g., permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement)
 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District:

Project Approval
 Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District: Plan Review
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 914 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-2 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

Yes; consultation was requested on February 15, 2022 and completed April 8, 2022.

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” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Where checked below, the topic with a potentially significant impact will be addressed in an environmental impact report.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
None None with Mitigation
Incorporated
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 915 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-3
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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 project proponent. 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” impact 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Agency
ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 916 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-4 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-than-Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 917 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-5

3.1 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics.

Except as provided in Public Resources Code section 21099 (where aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant for qualifying residential, mixed-use residential, and employment centers), would the project:
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
points.) 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?

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a vacant property with non-native grasses and ruderal vegetation. The project site has been previously disturbed from past management activities, including grading, dredging, and vegetation trimming/removal. The topography of the project site is relatively flat and views from the project site are limited to immediately adjacent properties. Single- and multi-story buildings (less than three stories) on adjacent commercial, residential, and industrial properties and associated ornamental landscaping (e.g., shrubs and mature trees) are visible from the project site. In addition, recreational fields, roadways and bike paths, and the Folsom South Canal are visible from the project site.

The City of Rancho Cordova General Plan identifies views of major peaks and natural landmarks in the region as important scenic vistas, including views of the American River, Sierra Nevada mountain range, Mt. Diablo, Pine Hill, Flagstaff Hill, Pyramid Peak, Carson Spur, Jackson Butte, Mt. Vaca, and Goat Mountain/Snow Mountain (City of Rancho Cordova 2006a). These scenic vistas are not visible from the project site or from adjacent properties due to the distance to these resources, as well as the intervening development and flat topography.

There are no officially designated or eligible state scenic highways in proximity to the project site. The nearest officially designated state scenic highway is a segment of State Route 160 that travels along the Sacramento River, located approximately 15 miles southwest of the project site (Caltrans 2019). The project site is not within the viewshed of State Route 160, based on the distance, intervening development, and flat topography.

The project site is currently vacant, with no existing onsite sources of light or glare. Light sources in the vicinity of the project site are typical of an urban environment, and include street lights and lights from motor vehicles traveling on adjacent roadways, including Kilgore Road, International Drive, and White Rock Road. Other light sources include interior and exterior building lighting and parking lot lighting from adjacent commercial, industrial, and residential ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 918 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-6 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study
land uses. Existing sources of glare in the vicinity of the project site are minimal and include light reflected from building windows and vehicles.

3.1.2 Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, scenic vistas are not visible from the project site or from adjacent properties due to the distance to scenic resources, as well as the intervening development and flat topography. Furthermore, the Residences Project would introduce new structures that would be of similar height to the single- and multi-story buildings situated on adjacent properties. Views of the project site would be consistent with views of other development in the project vicinity. Therefore, the Residences Project would not 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? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, the project site is not within the viewshed of an officially designated state scenic highway. The project site is vacant and does not include any scenic resources. Therefore, the Residences Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, such as 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? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project site is located in an urbanized area and is within the Office Professional Mixed-Use (OPMU) Zoning District. According to Chapter 23.313 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, this district is intended for the development of larger office buildings and business parks; however, commercial service and residential uses may be integrated into office buildings or as freestanding buildings. The Residences Project would consist of a mixed-use infill residential development with a destination commercial-retail component. The proposed multifamily units, townhome rental units, and commercial space would be an allowed use of the OPMU district.

The Residences Project would be designed in accordance with the City’s Design Guidelines, which ensures that the visual character and quality of new development is compatible with surrounding communities. The City’s Design Guidelines include architectural recommendations for building massing, scale, form, and style. Specifically, the design guidelines provide that projects with a large building volume should be broken into smaller components and multistory buildings should incorporate changes in vertical mass to add interest. The guidelines also require an appropriate transition between new and existing adjacent buildings. In addition, the City’s Design Guidelines include recommendations for site design, including circulation, building placement and orientation, public spaces, pedestrian amenities, and parking areas (City of Rancho Cordova 2005).

The architectural style of the Residences Project would consist of a modern-contemporary design that is intended to complement the existing office park designation and surroundings (See Appendix A). The proposed structures would meet the height and density requirements of the OPMU district. As required in the City’s Design Guidelines, the project is broken into smaller pieces and has been designed to incorporate massing principles. The site layout also places the shorter townhomes and community buildings adjacent to the San Juan Soccer Club and the taller apartments near the existing commercial uses along International Drive. The site plan includes walking paths that would provide pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and to adjacent land uses. The landscape plan includes trees throughout the site, which would provide shade, privacy screening, and visual accents. The landscaping would meet the requirements of Chapter 23.716 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, which includes landscaping standards to enhance the appearance of developments.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 919 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-7
Based on the above discussion, the Residences Project would not conflict with the zoning or other regulations in the City’s Municipal Code governing scenic quality of the project site. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.1.1, the project site is currently vacant, with no existing onsite sources of light or glare. Light sources in the vicinity of the project site are typical of an urban environment, including lighting from adjacent roadways and commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. Existing sources of glare in the vicinity of the project site are minimal and include light reflected from building windows and vehicles.

The Residences Project would introduce new lighting associated with buildings, walkways, and parking lots/structures.

These new light sources would be consistent with existing light sources in the project vicinity and typical of the existing urbanized environment. The project design would be consistent with the City of Rancho Cordova Zoning Code lighting standards. Specifically, the project design would comply with Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Zoning Code, which requires that illumination is shielded and not directed onto adjacent properties. In addition, the project design would be consistent with Title III (Use Regulations and Development Standards) of the Zoning Code, which requires that lighting be directed away from residential areas to maintain the privacy and well-being of residents and away from public streets to reduce glare that could interfere with motorists. A photometric plan has been completed that demonstrates the extent of illumination and compliance with the City’s standards.

Additionally, the Residences Project would not include surfaces with potential to cause substantial new glare. The project design would be consistent with other nearby development and with the City’s Design Guidelines (City of Rancho Cordova 2005).

Based on the discussion above, the Residences Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 920 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-8 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the project:
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?

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the project site is classified as Urban and Built Up Land (CDOC 2016). The project site is currently vacant and zoned OPMU.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 921 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-9

3.2.2 Discussion
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? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, there are no lands designated as Important Farmland and there are no agricultural uses within the project site. Therefore, the project would not convert Important Farmland to nonagricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the project site is zoned OPMU. The project site is vacant and not enrolled in Williamson Act contracts. Therefore, the project would not 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))?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the project site is zoned OPMU. The project site is vacant and does not contain forest land or timberland. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the project site is vacant and does not contain forest land. Therefore, the project would not 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?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the project site is vacant and located within an urban, built-up area.

Therefore, the project would not result in conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 922 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-10 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

3.3 AIR QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the applicable air district available to rely on for significance
determinations?
Yes No
Would the project:
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?

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which includes the counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba. Ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are the criteria air pollutants of primary concern in this analysis because of their nonattainment status with respect to the applicable national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) in the SVAB.

The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for planning to meet NAAQS and CAAQS in Sacramento County, where the project is located. SMAQMD works with other local air districts in the Sacramento region to maintain the region’s portion of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone. The SIP is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region and State will comply with the Clean Air Act requirements to attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone. The Sacramento region has been designated as a “moderate” 2015 8-hour ozone nonattainment area with an extended attainment deadline of June 15, 2019 (EPA 2019). The 2018 Sacramento Regional 2008 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Further Reasonable Progress Plan was approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on November 16, 2017. The previous 2013 Update to the 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan was approved and promulgated by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard. The EPA has not released a notice of approval and promulgation of the 2017 SIP (CARB 2017a).

SMAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for use by lead agencies when preparing environmental documents. The guidelines contain thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), and also make recommendations for conducting air quality analyses. As the resource agency related to air quality, lead agencies that do not have adopted CEQA thresholds, rely on guidance and established thresholds from the air districts.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 923 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-11 All projects are subject to adopted SMAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction of the proposed Project may include but are not limited to the following:
 Rule 201: General Permit Requirements. Any project that includes the use of equipment capable of releasing emissions to the atmosphere may be required to obtain permit(s) from SMAQMD before equipment operation.

The applicant, developer, or operator of a project that includes an emergency generator, boiler, or heater should contact SMAQMD early to determine whether a permit is required, and to begin the permit application process.

Portable construction equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, pile drivers, lighting equipment) with an internal combustion engine greater than 50 horsepower must have a SMAQMD permit or CARB portable equipment registration.
 Rule 202: New Source Review. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the issuance of authorities to construct and permits to operate at new and modified stationary air pollution sources and to provide mechanisms, including emission offsets, by which authorities to construct such sources may be granted without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards.  Rule 207: Federal Operating Permit. The purpose this rule is to establish an operating permitting system consistent with the requirements of Title V of the United States Code and pursuant to 40 FR Part 70. Stationary sources subject to the requirements of this rule are also required to comply with any other applicable federal, state, or SMAQMD orders, rules and regulations, including requirements pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration pursuant to Rule 203, requirements to obtain an authority to construct pursuant to Rule 201, or applicable requirements under SMAQMD’s new source review rule in the SIP.  Rule 402: Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause or have natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.  Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The developer or contractor is required to control dust emissions from earthmoving activities or any other construction activity to prevent airborne dust from leaving the project site. Fugitive dust controls include the following:
 Water all exposed surfaces two times daily.
 Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site.
 Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day.
 Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.  All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes.  Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications.  Rule 442: Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds from the use of architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within Sacramento County.
 Rule 902: Asbestos. The developer or contractor is required to notify SMAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. Rule 902 contains specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 924 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-12 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

HEALTH EFFECTS
SMAQMD has also issued Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District, Sacramento, California (SMAQMD 2020a), which contains guidance on how to address the California Supreme Court decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502 (2018)—a court decision often referred to as the Friant Ranch decision. In that decision, the California Supreme Court held that an EIR should “relate the expected adverse air quality impacts to likely health consequences or explain in meaningful detail why it is not feasible at the time of drafting to provide such an analysis.” SMAQMD’s guidance recommends using the Minor Project Health Effects Tool to estimate the level of health effects for an emissions source that results in emissions at or below criteria air pollutant and precursor thresholds of significance. The sole input for the Minor Project Health Effects Tool is the project’s geographical location, and the output of the Minor Project Health Effects Tool is based on that location and modeled emissions at 82 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), reactive organic gases (ROG), or PM, which are the highest thresholds of significance for each of these pollutants in the SMAQMD and neighboring air districts.

Therefore, the Minor Project Health Effects Tool is used for projects with emissions at or below air district thresholds of significance.

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. Emission source types and health effects are summarized in Table 3.3.-1 and Sacramento County’s attainment status for the CAAQS and the NAAQS are shown in Table 3.3.-2.

Table 3.3-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from reaction of
ROG and NOX in presence of sunlight. ROG
emissions result from incomplete combustion
and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels;
NOX results from the combustion of fuels
increased respiration and pulmonary
resistance; cough, pain, shortness of
breath, lung inflammation
permeability of respiratory
epithelia, possibility of
permanent lung impairment
Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor vehicle
exhaust
headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea,
vomiting, death
permanent heart and brain
damage
Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
combustion devices; e.g., boilers, gas turbines,
and mobile and stationary reciprocating
internal combustion engines
coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting,
headache, eye irritation, chemical
pneumonitis or pulmonary edema;
breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis,
chest pain, rapid heartbeat, death
chronic bronchitis,
decreased lung function
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) coal and oil combustion, steel mills, refineries, and pulp and paper mills
Irritation of upper respiratory tract,
increased asthma symptoms
Insufficient evidence linking
SO2 exposure to chronic
health impacts
Respirable particulate
matter (PM10),
Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and
stationary sources, construction, fires and
natural windblown dust, and formation in the
atmosphere by condensation and/or
transformation of SO2 and ROG
breathing and respiratory symptoms,
aggravation of existing respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases, premature death
alterations to the immune
system, carcinogenesis
Lead metal processing reproductive/ developmental effects (fetuses and children)
numerous effects including
neurological, endocrine, and
cardiovascular effects
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. 1 “Acute” refers to effects of short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at fairly high concentrations. 2 “Chronic” refers to effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations.

Sources: EPA 2016.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 925 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-13 Attainment Status
As shown in Table 3.3-2, Sacramento County is designated as a nonattainment for ozone with respect to both the NAAQS (8-hour standard) and CAAQS (1-hour Classification and 8-hour standard), nonattainment for PM10 with respect to the CAAQS, and nonattainment for PM2.5 with respect to the NAAQS.

Table 3.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Sacramento County Pollutant National Ambient Air Quality Standard California Ambient Air Quality Standard Ozone Attainment (1-hour)1 Nonattainment (1-hour) Classification-Serious2 Nonattainment (8-hour)3 Classification=Severe Nonattainment (8-hour) Nonattainment (8-hour)4 Classification=Severe Nonattainment (8-hour) Nonattainment (8-hour)5 Classification=Moderate Nonattainment (8-hour) Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (24-hour) Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (Annual)
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment (24-hour) (No State Standard for 24-Hour) Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (8-hour) Attainment (8-hour)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
6 (Attainment Pending) (1-Hour) Attainment (1-hour)
(Attainment Pending) (1-Hour) Attainment (24-hour)
Lead (Particulate) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (30 day average) Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified (1-hour) Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment (24-hour)
Visibly Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Unclassified (8-hour) Vinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Unclassified (24-hour) 1 Air Quality meets federal 1-hour Ozone standard (77 FR 64036). EPA revoked this standard, but some associated requirements still apply.

SMAQMD attained the standard in 2009. SMAQMD has requested EPA recognize attainment to fulfill the requirements. 2 Per Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 40921.5(c), the classification is based on 1989 – 1991 data, and therefore does not change. 3 1997 Standard.
4 2008 Standard.
5 2015 Standard.
6 2010 Standard.

Source: EPA 2019 and CARB 2018.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
At the local level, air districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures for TACs. Under SMAQMD Rule 201 (“General Permit Requirements”), Rule 202 (“New Source Review”), and Rule 207 (“Federal Operating Permit”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SMAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including New Source Review standards and air toxics control measures. SMAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SMAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people or facilities that generally house people (e.g., schools, hospitals, residences) that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 926 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-14 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study ODORS
Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and SMAQMD. SMAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance) regulates odorous emissions.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are generally considered to include those land uses where exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks to sensitive individuals, such as children or the elderly. Residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, and similar facilities are of primary concern because of the presence of individuals particularly sensitive to pollutants and/or the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to pollutants. The closest sensitive receptor to the project area is the existing residences across International Drive, which are approximately 200 feet south of the project area and 850 south of the proposed commercial site.

3.3.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. SMAQMD has developed air quality attainment plans (AQAPs) (i.e., Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8- Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan), which present comprehensive strategies to reduce volatile organic compounds, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from stationary, area, mobile, and indirect sources to achieve attainment status of the SIP, CAAQS, and NAAQS. SMAQMD has not prepared a similar plan for particulate matter attainment. The emission inventories used to develop the applicable AQAPs are based primarily on projected population and employment growth and associated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the SVAB. This growth is estimated for the region, based in part, on the planned growth identified in regional and local land use plans such as general plans or community plans. Projects whose growth is included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQAPs are considered to be consistent with the AQAPs and would not interfere with its attainment plans.

The project would consist of a mixed-use infill residential development with a destination commercial-retail component.

The proposed multifamily units, townhome rental units, and commercial space would be an allowed use of the OPMU district. Because the project would be consistent with existing land use and zoning for the project site, the project would be consistent with SMAQMD’s AQAPs. Furthermore, as discussed for item b), the short-term construction and long-term operation of the project would not generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors that would exceed the SMAQMD-established mass emission thresholds, which were developed to determine whether a project’s emissions would cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations in the SVAB. 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?
Less than Significant. Sacramento County is currently designated as nonattainment with respect to the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone, the NAAQS for PM2.5, and the CAAQS for PM10. The SMAQMD CEQA Guidelines identifies whether a project would violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through pounds per day significance thresholds. Project level thresholds were developed to bring the SVAB into attainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS and to be protective of human health. Project-generated construction and operational emissions, in comparison to SMAQMD thresholds, are presented below. Construction activities would result in temporary generation and emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors. Constructionand operational-related emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 computer program (CAPCOA 2021), in accordance with recommendations by SMAQMD. Modeling was based on project-specific information where available and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the project’s location and land use type. Construction and operational impacts are discussed separately below.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 927 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-15 Construction
Project construction is anticipated to occur over 36-month period. Construction-related activities would result in project-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 from construction activities (e.g., site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating), off-road equipment, material delivery, and worker commute trips. The project intends to implement SMAQMD’s best management practices of fugitive dust and exhaust emissions control including, but not limited to, watering the site two times daily, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, reduce idling to no more than five minutes, etc. With implementation of SMAQMD’s best management practices identified in Section 2.5 of Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the SMAQMD’s peak daily and annual thresholds increase from zero to 80 pounds per day (lb/day) or 14.6 tons per year (tpy) for PM10 and 82 lb/day or 15 tpy for PM2.5. As shown in Table 3.3-3, emissions resulting from construction of the project would not exceed applicable thresholds and construction associated with the project would not contribute substantially to the nonattainment status of the SVAB.

Table 3.3-3 Maximum Daily Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Emissions Associated with Project Construction (lb/day)
Construction Year ROG (lb/day)
Emissions
NOX (lb/day)
Emissions
PM10 (lb/day)
Emissions
PM10 (tpy)
Emissions
PM2.5 (lb/day)
Emissions
PM2.5 (tpy)
Emissions
2022 4 39 21 <1 12 <1
2023 3 17 3 <1 1 <1
2024 3 16 3 <1 1 <1
2025 100 15 3 <1 1 <1
SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance None 85 801 14.61 822 152 Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; lb/day = pounds per day; SMAQMD = Sacramento Air Quality Management District; tpy = tons per year 1 If all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied, then 82 lb/day and 15 tpy. 2 If all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied, then 80 lb/day and 14.6 tpy.

Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Operation
Long-term emissions sources associated with project operation would include area sources (landscape equipment, consumer products, maintenance activities) and mobile sources (vehicle trips to the project area). The project would comply with SMAQMD’s BMPs for PM reduction through implementation of California Energy Efficiency Standards and Green Building Code, compliance with SMAQMD Rules, and CARB anti-idling regulations (for deliveries to the commercial site). These measures have been included for the purpose of this analysis as they would be required through the building permit and inspection process. As shown in Table 3.3-5, operational emissions are well below the SMAQMD maximum daily thresholds for all criteria pollutants and the project would not contribute substantially to the nonattainment status of the SVAB.

Table 3.3-5 Unmitigated Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions Associated with Project Operations Source ROG (lb/day) NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (lb/day) PM2.5 (tpy) Area 11 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 8 6 10 2 3 <1
Total 20 7 10 2 3 1
SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance 65 65 801 14.61 822 152 Notes: ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; lb/day = pounds per day; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 1 If all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied, then 82 lb/day and 15 tpy. 2 If all feasible BACT/BMPs are applied, then 80 lb/day and 14.6 tpy.

Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 928 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-16 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study The Minor Project Health Effects Tool was used to evaluate potential health effects of mass emissions associated with implementation of the project; the outputs reflect the potential increase in premature deaths over the background health incidence rate of each health endpoint in the region. However, The Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District, Sacramento, California (SMAQMD 2020a) notes that, by default, the model generates conservatively high health effects. As explained in the guidance, the outputs are based on simulation of a full year of exposure at the maximum daily average of increases in air pollutant concentrations. In the Minor Projects Health Effects Tool, emissions are assumed to be at 82 pounds per day of NOX, ROG, or PM. As described above, the project emissions would, in actuality, be substantially less than SMAQMD’s recommended mass thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the model output of additional mortality (i.e., additional mortality of 2 persons due to ozone and PM2.5 exposure) unequivocally overstates the potential cardiovascular and respiratory health impacts of the project, and it is possible there would be no cardiovascular and respiratory health impacts (i.e., zero cases of additional mortality) attributable to mass emissions of the project (SMAQMD 2020a). The SMAQMD guidance also notes that the model output includes only health effects with sufficient research to provide quantification. Other health effects are linked to emissions of PM2.5 and ozone that are not quantified in the Minor Projects Health Effects Tool (SMAQMD 2020a). Other health effects of criteria air pollutants and ozone are discussed in Section 3.3.1, “Environmental Setting,” above. The linkage between mass emissions and other health effects are not quantifiable, and the project would not result in sizeable quantifiable health effects if it resulted in health effects at all.

Therefore, it is presumed that these other health effects would also not be sizeable or would be zero. There also may be no health effects due to the conservative nature of the modeling.

Summary
The project would not result in a SMAQMD threshold of significance exceedance or substantially contribute to a nonattainment status of the SVAB for construction or operations. Furthermore, health effects are unlikely. Although the modeling predicts some consequences from development of the project, this is likely attributable to the conservative nature of the modeling.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant. Sensitive receptors are generally considered to include those land uses where exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks to sensitive individuals, such as children or the elderly. Residential dwellings, schools, hospitals, playgrounds, and similar facilities are of primary concern because of the presence of individuals particularly sensitive to pollutants and the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to pollutants. The closest sensitive receptor to the project area is the San Juan Soccer Club adjacent to the project site and the existing residences across International Drive, which are approximately 200 feet south of the project area.

The potential cancer risk from inhaling diesel PM outweighs the potential for all other diesel PM–related health impacts (i.e., non-cancer chronic risk, short-term acute risk) and health impacts from other TACs (CARB 2003). With regard to exposure to diesel PM, the dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher level of health risk for any exposed receptor. Thus, the risks estimated for an exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, when a health risk assessment is prepared to project the results of exposure of sensitive receptors to selected compounds, exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions should be based on a 70- or 30-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the duration of activities associated with the proposed project if emissions occur for shorter periods (OEHHA 2015). Construction- and operational-related projectgenerated health risks are discussed separately below.

Construction
Construction-related activities would result in temporary, intermittent emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of offroad, heavy-duty diesel equipment. Construction activities would occur at approximately 200 feet away from the ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 929 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-17 nearest sensitive receptor. Construction activities would occur this close to a sensitive receptor temporarily during the site preparation and grading construction phases.

The results of emissions modeling show that maximum daily emissions of exhaust PM2.5 would not exceed 6 lb/day during construction. Considering the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM, the relatively low mass of diesel PM emissions that would be generated at any single place during project construction, the relatively short period during which diesel PM–emitting construction activities would take place, and the fact that the nearest sensitive receptor (occupied residence) is 200 feet away, construction-related TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in one million or an exposure to non-carcinogens Hazard Index greater or equal to 1.0.

Operation
Project operations would result in the long-term emissions of diesel PM from the increase in vehicle trips and associated diesel PM emissions. In particular, diesel-powered trucks associated with the proposed commercial land uses could emit diesel PM at the project site. However, the frequency of diesel-powered truck trips to and from the project area would be intermittent, few in quantity, and occur a substantial distance away from receptors (850 feet or more). As a result, operation of the project would not result in a substantial increase in concentrations of diesel PM at or near the project area. Thus, operational TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in one million or a Hazard Index greater or equal to 1.0.

Summary
Because of the dispersive properties of diesel PM, the relatively low mass diesel PM emissions that would be generated in one place during the construction and operation of proposed land uses, and the relatively short construction period, it is not anticipated that project-related TACs would expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in one million or a Hazard Index of 1.0 or greater. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant. The project would include the development of an infill multi-family residential and commercial property and would not result in the introduction of any new permanent sources of odors to the area. Because construction-related odors would be intermittent, temporary, and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, construction-related odors would not result in the frequent exposure of a substantial number of individuals to objectionable odors.

With respect to operation, odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants (SMAQMD 2016). Residential and commercial uses are not land uses that typically generate odors. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 930 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-18 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources.

Would the project:
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 the 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, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or the U.S. 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
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native 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 Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located at an elevation of between 109 and 120 feet above mean sea level in the Sacramento Valley, on the north side of the Great Valley Ecoregion. The United States Department of Agriculture, National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey indicates that the project site is underlain primarily by mining dredge tailings, comprising 100 percent of the soil composition (NRCS 2022) The project site appears to have never been developed but has sustained historical disturbance in the form of mining dredge tailing deposits. Vegetation onsite consists of uplandnon-native annual grasses and forbs associated with fallow and previously disturbed areas such as wild oat (Avena fatua), tarplant (Holocarpha virgata), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). There are no trees within the boundary of the project site.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 931 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-19 The project site supports approximately 21.6 acres of annual grassland. The project site’s annual grassland provides suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, Swainson’s hawk, and white-tailed kite. The site may also provide suitable breeding habitat for burrowing owl, although a thorough burrow survey has not been completed. Although the site does not support trees or shrubs, nearby shrubs and trees could provide suitable nesting habitat for loggerhead shrike, Swainson’s hawk, and white-tailed kite.

The project site is within the Plan Area of the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan (SSHCP). The SSHCP Plan Area is defined as the area in which all conservation actions will be implemented and where all incidental take will occur and includes portions of unincorporated Sacramento County, Galt, and the southern half of Rancho Cordova.

The SSHCP Plan Area is divided into two components: inside and outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). The City of Rancho Cordova began implementing the SSHCP in late 2019. The site is within the UDA mapped in the SSHCP, which is where all proposed urbanization will occur and where a limited amount of habitat preservation focused mainly on the protection of vernal pools and streams will occur. The proposed development (i.e., urban development in the UDA) is a covered activity under the SSHCP. Covered Activities are projects or activities that are allowable under the SSHCP’s Incidental Take Permits and thus can use the SSHCP to mitigate for impacts that result from implementation of the Covered Activity.

3.4.2 Discussion
Information on sensitive biological resources previously recorded near the study area was collected through a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and review of the SSHCP (Sacramento County et al. 2018).

Databases and background reports reviewed include the following:
 CNDDB record search within the Rio Linda, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Sacramento East, Carmichael, Buffalo Creek, Florin, Elk Grove, and Sloughhouse U.S. Geological Service 7.5-minute quadrangles (CDFW 2022);  California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Inventory search of the Rio Linda, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Sacramento East, Carmichael, Buffalo Creek, Florin, Elk Grove, and Sloughhouse U.S. Geological Service 7.5-minute quadrangles (CNPS 2022);
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Conservation project planning tool (USFWS 2022a);  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. (USFWS 2022b); and
 Aquatic Resources Assessment for the Capitol Center Project, City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento County, California (Appendix B).

The SSHCP includes baseline landcover mapping, which was done at a coarse, regional scale to inform the plan and subsequent permit requests. The baseline landcover mapping for the site shows valley grassland and high density development with three vernal pools on the project site (Figure 3-1). Because conditions may have changed since the SSHCP baseline mapping was completed, site-specific studies are necessary to determine the actual, existing landcovers present on specific sites.

The SSHCP baseline land cover mapping shows that the site may support three small aquatic resources that total about

0.1 acre (Figure 3-1). To determine whether the land cover has changed from the baseline condition and whether vernal pools or other aquatic resources may be present on the project site, an Aquatic Resources Assessment (Appendix B) was performed in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ methodology for delineation of wetlands. The assessment determined that there are no wetlands on the project site, as shown on Figure 3-2. The National Wetland Inventory also does not include any wetlands within the project site. While the existing land cover as shown on Figure 3- 2 does not include any aquatic resources, the City will evaluate the updated land cover mapping as part of the SSHCP authorization process and assign mitigation for impacts to land cover, including aquatic resources if present, consistent with the SSHCP’s mitigation programs.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 932 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-20 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study Source: Sacramento County et al. 2018.

Figure 3-1 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Baseline Landcover Types ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 933 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-21 Source: Madrone Ecological Consulting 2022
Figure 3-2 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Landcover Types Identified Through Field Survey ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 934 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-22 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study Based on the SSHCP species models, 13 species have a likelihood of occurring on the project site. The CNDDB query returned 21 species as occurring within the nine-quad search area. However, of these species only four have a likelihood of occurring based on existing habitat and known nearby occurrences and these are burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Species for which suitable habitat is absent from the project site or whose known range does not include the project site were determined not to be affected by project implementation. The CNDDB and California Native Plant Society query results indicate that there are 13 special-status plants with potential to occur in the project area. However, all 13 plants are dependent on wetlands or vernal pools. Because there is no suitable habitat in the project area for wetland dependent species, these species are unlikely to occur. 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site supports annual grassland that provides suitable foraging habitat for burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike, both California species of special concern; Swainson’s hawk, which is listed as a threatened species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act; and white-tailed kite, a California fully protected species. Implementation of the project would result in direct loss of approximately 21.6 acres of annual grassland. Although the project site soils consist mostly of mine tailings, the area still provides suitable foraging habitat for these species. The loss of foraging habitat for these species would result in substantial negative effects to the sustainability of these species and, thus, impacts to special-status birds are potentially significant.

Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a species that has a high potential for occurrence because of suitable foraging and nesting habitat present within the project site and vicinity. The potential presence of burrowing owl cannot be ruled out without protocol-level surveys. Adults, eggs, and juveniles could be killed during site grading and other ground disturbance that destroys occupied burrows or nest sites. Burrowing owls always need burrows to survive and displacing individuals from their burrows can result in indirect impacts such as predation, increased energetic costs, increased stress, and risks associated with having to find and compete for burrows, all of which can lead to take or reduced reproduction. Construction disturbances could also cause pairs nesting nearby to abandon their nests resulting in mortality of chicks and eggs. The loss of occupied burrowing owl habitat or mortality of adults, chicks, or eggs would be a potentially significant impact.

Swainson’s Hawk
For determining impacts to and establishing mitigation for nesting Swainson’s hawks in Sacramento County, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recommends implementing the measures set forth in the CDFW Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (November 1, 1994). These measures state that no intensive new disturbances, such as heavy equipment operation associated with construction, should be initiated within 0.25 mile of an active Swainson’s hawk nest in an urban setting or within 0.5 mile in a rural setting between March 1 and September 15. Trees adjacent to the project site represent potential nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Although no Swainson’s hawks have been recorded as nesting within the project site, there are 38 records of Swainson’s hawks nesting within 10 miles of the project site. Six of these occurrences were recorded within the last five years (CDFW 2022). Although no tree removal would occur as part of the project, project construction could disturb active nests near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. Construction noise can cause abandonment of nests up to 0.5 mile away in rural settings and 0.25 mile away in more urban settings. Development of the site would result in a potentially significant impact to nesting Swainson’s hawk.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 935 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-23 White-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike
Although white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike are not known to nest within the project site and no suitable nesting habitat is present on the project site, trees and shrubs adjacent to the project site represent potential nesting habitat for these species respectively. These two species have a moderate to high potential for occurrence in the project vicinity because suitable nesting and foraging habitat are present in the area. Project construction could disturb active nests of these special-status birds, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. Loss of chicks and eggs of these special-status species could reduce population levels and contribute to a trend toward these species becoming threatened or endangered in the future, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Special-Status Plants
To date, a special-status plant survey has not been completed to confirm the presence or absence of any specialstatus plant species that the CNPS identifies as potentially occurring in the project area. However, as indicated above and in Table 3.4-1, the 13 species identified in the database search are considered unlikely to occur. Though unlikely, it is possible that one or more of these species could occur in the project area. If these species are present and project construction would result in the direct loss of individual plants and/or populations, the impact could be potentially significant depending on the listing status and nature of impact.

Table 3.4-1 Special Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Region and Their Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site
Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 CRPR1
Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area2
Peruvian dodder
Cuscuta obtusiflora var.
glandulosa
-- -- 2B.2 Wetland. Marshes and swamps
(freshwater). Freshwater marsh. 49–919 feet
in elevation. Blooms July–October.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support wetland,
freshwater marshes, and swamp
habitat suitable for this species.

Dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
-- -- 2B.2 Wetland. Valley and foothill grassland
(mesic sites), vernal pools. Vernal lake and
pool margins with a variety of associates. In
several types of vernal pools. 3–1,608 feet
in elevation. Blooms March–May.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool or
mesic habitat suitable for this
species.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
Gratiola heterosepala
-- SE 1B.2 Wetland. Marshes and swamps
(freshwater), vernal pools. Clay soils; usually
in vernal pools, sometimes on lake margins.
33–7,792 feet in elevation. Blooms April–
August.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support wetland
habitat suitable for this species.

Woolly rose-mallow
Hibiscus lasiocarpos var.
occidentalis
-- -- 1B.2 Wetland. Marshes and swamps (freshwater).

Moist, freshwater-soaked riverbanks and low
peat islands in sloughs; can also occur on riprap
and levees. In California, known from the delta
watershed. 0–509 feet in elevation. Blooms
June–September.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support wetland,
freshwater marsh, and swamp
habitat suitable for this species.

Ahart's dwarf rush
Juncus leiospermus var.
ahartii
-- -- 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland. Restricted to the edges of vernal pools in grassland. 98–
328 feet in elevation. Blooms March–May.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species.

Alkali-sink goldfields
Lasthenia chrysantha
-- -- 1B.1 Vernal pools. Alkaline. 0–656 feet in
elevation. Blooms February–June.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species.

Legenere
Legenere limosa
-- -- 1B.1 Vernal pools, wetland. In beds of vernal
pools. 3–2,887 feet in elevation. Blooms
April–June.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 936 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-24 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study Name Federal
Status1
State
Status1 CRPR1
Habitat Potential to Occur in the
Survey Area2
Heckard's pepper-grass
Lepidium latipes var.
heckardii
-- -- 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Grassland, and sometimes vernal pool
edges. Alkaline soils. 3–98 feet in elevation.

Blooms March–May.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool
habitat suitable for this species.

Pincushion navarretia
Navarretia myersii ssp.
myersii
-- -- 1B.1 Vernal pools, wetland. Clay soils within
non-native grassland. 148–328 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–May.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool or
wetland habitat suitable for this
species.

Slender Orcutt grass
Orcuttia tenuis
FT SE 1B.1 Vernal pools, wetland. Often in gravelly
substrate. 82–5,758 feet in elevation.

Blooms May–September (October).

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool or
wetland habitat suitable for this
species.

Sacramento Orcutt grass
Orcuttia viscida
FE SE 1B.1 Vernal pools, wetland. 49–279 feet in
elevation. Blooms April–July (September).

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool or
wetland habitat suitable for this
species.

Sanford's arrowhead
Sagittaria sanfordii
-- -- 1B.2 Wetland. Marshes and swamps. In standing
or slow-moving freshwater ponds, marshes,
and ditches. 0–2,133 feet in elevation.

Blooms May–October (November).

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool or
wetland habitat suitable for this
species.

Saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
-- -- 1B.2 Wetland. Marshes and swamps, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools. Mesic,
alkaline sites. 0–984 feet in elevation.

Blooms April–June.

Not expected to occur: The project
site does not support vernal pool or
wetland habitat suitable for this
species.

Notes: CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database 1 & 2 Legal Status Definitions
Federal:

FE Endangered (legally protected)
FT Threatened (legally protected)
State:

SE Endangered (legally protected)
California Rare Plant Ranks:
1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA)
2B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA)
Threat Ranks:

0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened; high degree and immediacy of threat)

0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened; moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) 2
Potential for Occurrence Definitions
Not expected to occur: Species is unlikely to be present within the project survey area due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species.

May occur: Suitable habitat is available within the project survey area; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present.

Likely to occur: All of the species life history requirements can be met by habitat present within the survey area, and populations/occurrences are known to occur in the immediate vicinity.

Sources: CNDDB 2022; CNPS 2022.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 937 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-25 Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Obtain coverage for the project under the SSHCP In addition to payment of development fees in accordance with the SSHCP, the Project Applicant shall implement all applicable Avoidance and Minimization Measures codified in the SSHCP at the time permits are obtained. Avoidance and Minimization Measures currently provided in the SSHCP are included in Appendix C.

Significance after Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to loss of foraging habitat for special-status birds because this measure would require the Project Applicant to participate in the SSHCP reserve system through fee payment or land dedication to offset habitat loss in a coordinated conservation strategy to maintain species viability in the region over the long term. Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would result in preservation of nesting and foraging habitat in a coordinated and interconnected SSHCP reserve system that considers the species requirements at a regional scale, rather than project-by-project, and presents a coordinated conservation strategy to maintain species viability in the region over the long term. The SSHCP conservation strategy includes surveys, nest buffers, and monitoring that would meet the requirements for CDFW to issue an incidental take permit for the project.

The specific Avoidance and Minimization Measures required to obtain coverage for the project under the SSHCP would be determined through the permitting process. Avoidance and Minimization Measures that may apply to the project include WBO-1 through WBO-7, which require burrowing owl surveys to map burrows, pre-construction surveys, specific avoidance measures to follow in the breeding and non-breeding season, construction monitoring requirements, and passive relocation. Avoidance and Minimization Measures specific to Swainson’s hawk include:

SWHA-1, which requires surveys for nesting sites within 0.25-mile of in modeled habitat; SWHA-2, which outlines preconstruction survey requirements; and SWHA-3, SWHA-4, and SWHA-5 related to establishing nest buffers, buffer monitoring, and nest tree avoidance. White-tailed kite and loggerheaded shrike are addressed through Avoidance and Minimization Measures RAPTOR-1 through RAPTOR-4, which layout requirements for nesting site surveys, preconstruction surveys, establishing buffers, and monitoring. Finally, special-status SSHCP covered plant species would be addressed through Avoidance and Minimization Measures PLANT-1 and PLANT-2 (if PLANT-1 surveys are positive). While the project area is within 1 mile of the Mather Core area, because suitable habitat for Orcutt grasses is not present, the SSHCP Orcutt-grass specific Avoidance and Minimization Measures are not applicable. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. There are no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities within the boundaries of the project site. As such, implementation of the project would have no effect on these resources. 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Based on a site survey conducted by Madrone Ecological Consulting, there are no wetlands or aquatic features within the boundaries of the project site. However, the SSHCP baseline land cover map shows that three small wetlands historically occurred in the area. Based on the results of an October 2021 field visit and on updated existing conditions mapping, two of these wetlands are in an area that has been graded and filled, and the third feature is in an area has also been graded but has reverted to valley grassland (see Figure 3-2). No evidence of ponding or saturated soils were present at the time of the October 2021 survey. The SSHCP authorization process requires review of the baseline land cover mapping and existing land cover documentation and will assign mitigation for impacts based on the confirmed land covers present at the time of authorization. If during the SSHCP review and authorization process any aquatic resources are determined to be present, the project will be required to comply with the mitigation requirements for aquatic resource land cover impacts. Implementation of the SSHCPrequired mitigation would reduce any potential impacts to aquatic resources to a less than significant level.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 938 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-26 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. The Project site does not serve as a corridor between habitat areas, and upland habitat development within an infill site would not substantially interfere with movement of terrestrial or aquatic animals or with use of an established migratory corridor or native wildlife nursery site. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. There are no trees or other biological resources protected under local ordinances present within the boundaries of the project site nor would the project require the removal of any trees. As such, implementation of the project would not conflict with an adopted tree preservation ordinance or policy, and no other policies or ordinances related to biological resources are applicable to the project. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is within the SSHCP Plan Area and within the UDA.

The proposed development (i.e., Urban Development in the UDA) is a covered activity under the SSHCP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of the adopted SSHCP if all of the appropriate Avoidance and Minimization Measures are implemented as part of the project.

Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Obtain coverage for the Project under the SSHCP Implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 above.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would ensure that the project would be consistent with the SSHCP. The City of Rancho Cordova, as an implementing party of the SSCHP, would process the SSHCP permit. During this process, the City would review the Aquatic Resources Assessment (Appendix B) performed for the site to evaluate the land cover analysis (and proposed elimination of wetlands from the mapping of the project site) and determine the final list of Avoidance and Minimization Measures required to permit the project. This impact would be less than significant.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 939 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study 3-27

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the project:
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 an archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The City’s General Plan Cultural and Historic Resources Element lists the city’s identified historic resources and properties. Most of the prehistoric sites are located along the American River and creeks, and some of the sites are known to contain human remains (City of Rancho Cordova 2006a). General Plan Draft EIR Figure 4.11-1 identifies that there are no archaeological or culturally sensitive areas in the project area (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b).

A cultural resources literature search was conducted in November 2021 by the North Central Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Sacramento. The records search was conducted to determine if prehistoric or historic cultural resources had been previously recorded within the project site, the extent to which the project site had been previously surveyed, and the number and type of cultural resources within a 0.25-mile radius of the project area.

The North Central Information Center records search indicated that two prior cultural resource studies have been completed within the project area, and an additional nine studies have been completed within the 0.25-mile records search radius. The records search also revealed that one cultural resource (Folsom Mining District-P-34-000335H) has been previously recorded within the project area, and one cultural resource has been recorded within the 0.25-mile records search radius.

Resource P-34-000335H consists of the Folsom Mining District, which was originally recorded in 1969. The District has undergone various updates which have added mining features including several huge dredge fields, massive tailings piles, buildings, mines, tunnels, canals, camps, cemeteries, and other related features. In 1995, it was recommended that some of the features and dredge fields within the District be eligible under National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) criteria.

An intensive pedestrian survey of the project area was conducted on December 27, 2021. During the survey, all visible ground surfaces were carefully examined for cultural material (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, or fire-affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), and historic-era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances (e.g., animal burrows, dirt roads) were also visually inspected. No new cultural resources were identified within the project area during the field survey. Further, no indication of subsurface archaeological remains was noted in areas of past ground-disturbance.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 940 of 1841 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Rancho Cordova
3-28 Residences at Capital Center Project Initial Study A portion of the Folsom Mining District (i.e., tailings piles) falls within the project site. The tailings are a contributor to the District (NRHP/CRHR criterion A/1 and C/3); however, the portion of the tailings in the project area has lost integrity through past grading and disturbance. Additionally, the surrounding urbanized development visually detract from any integrity of setting, feeling, or association (NIC 2022).

3.5.2 Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact. Historical resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges). “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; determining significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources is described in the State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). No historic structures were identified within the project site during records search review or surveys of the project site (NIC 2022). Thus, the project would not damage or otherwise change the significance of historical resources.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described above, a portion of the Folsom Mining District (i.e., tailings piles) falls within the project site. The tailings serve as a contributor to the District under CRHR criterion A/1 and C/3; however, they have lost integrity through past grading and disturbance in the area. Therefore, implementation of the project would not damage the portion of the tailings, because the portion within the project site has already lost integrity. Impacts to the Folsom Mining District (P) would be less than significant.

As previously discussed, no indication of subsurface archaeological remains was present during an intensive pedestrian survey of the project area. As such, the potential for discovery of archaeological material is estimated to be low (NIC 2022). Nevertheless, the possibility remains that archaeological materials could be encountered during construction-related ground disturbing activities. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Protection of Known and Unknown Archaeological Resources The following shall be implemented during any ground-disturbing activities associated with project construction:
 In the event that unknown buried cultural deposits (e.g., prehistoric stone tools, milling stones, historic glass bottles, foundations, cellars, privy pits) are encountered during project construction, all ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 61) and appropriate Native American tribal representative shall be notified immediately and retained to assess the significance of the find. Construction activities could continue in other areas.  If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist or Native American tribe (i.e., because it is determined to constitute either a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall develop appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource and ensure that no additional resources are affected. Procedures could include but would not necessarily be limited to preservation in place, archival research, subsurface testing, or contiguous block unit excavation and data recovery.  If the qualified archaeologist determines the archaeological material to be Native American in nature, the City of Rancho Cordova shall contact the culturally affiliated Native American tribe for their input on the preferred treatment of the find.

ITEM 11.1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 941 of 1841 ends

Rancho Cordova City CouncilNovember 21, 2022

Rancho Cordova City Council
November 21, 2022