Rancho Cordova City Council
December 5, 2022

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental 2022
Figure 2-1 Regional Location
ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental 2022
Figure 2-2 Project Site
ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Source: Prepared by BSB Design 2021
Figure 2-3 Site Plan
ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

 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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

This page intentionally left blank.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Source: Sacramento County et al. 2018.

Figure 3-1 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Baseline Landcover Types ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Source: Madrone Ecological Consulting 2022
Figure 3-2 South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan Landcover Types Identified Through Field Survey ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level by requiring cessation of work, implementation of proper data recovery, and/or preservation procedures upon discovery of previously unknown resources.
c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less than Significant. Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic-era marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the location of grave sites and Native American remains can occur outside of identified cemeteries or burial sites.

Therefore, there is a possibility that unmarked, previously unknown Native American or other graves could be present within the project site and could be uncovered by project-related construction activities.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.

These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered during any construction activities, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the Sacramento County coroner and Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified immediately, in accordance with to PRC Section 5097.98 and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by NAHC to be Native American, the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.

Following the coroner’s findings, the archaeologist, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant, and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.

The City’s General Plan, Action CHR 1.3.2, states the City will incorporate the following condition in applicable permits for all discretionary projects:

The Planning Department shall be notified immediately if any human remains are uncovered and all construction must stop in vicinity of the find. The Planning Division shall notify the County Coroner according to Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) shall be followed.

Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097, as directed by the conditions of approval required through application of General Plan Action CHR 1.3.2, would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.6 ENERGY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy.

Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, petroleum, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources:
 Natural gas: Almost two-thirds of California households use natural gas for home heating, and about half of California’s utility-scale net electricity generation is fueled by natural gas (EIA 2021).  Petroleum: Petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel), which are consumed almost exclusively by the transportation sector, account for almost 99 percent of the energy used in California by the transportation sector, with the rest provided by ethanol, natural gas, and electricity (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2017). Between January 2007 and May 2016, an average of approximately 672 billion gallons of gasoline were purchased in California (California State Board of Equalization 2016). Gasoline and diesel fuel sold in California for motor vehicles is refined in California to meet specific formulations required by the CARB (EIA 2021).  Electricity and renewables: The California Energy Commission estimates that 34 percent of California’s retail electricity sales in 2018 was provided by Renewable Portfolio Standard-eligible renewable resources (EIA 2021).  Alternative fuels: Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced (depending on the capability of the vehicle) with many alternative transportation fuels (e.g., biodiesel, hydrogen, electricity). Use of alternative fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 2017 Scoping Plan).

Electricity service in the City of Rancho Cordova is provided by Sacramento Municipal Utility District and natural gas service is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

3.6.2 Discussion
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant. The proposed project would increase energy use from existing conditions from both construction and operational activities.

Construction
Energy would be required to operate and maintain construction equipment and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical buildings and infrastructure associated with the ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Project would be nonrecoverable. Most energy consumption would result from operation of off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips associated with commutes by construction workers and haul trucks trips.

Table 3.6-1 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the construction of the project by construction year. Most of the construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and waste using on-road haul trucks for all phases of construction. An estimated 91,194 gallons of gasoline and 41,964 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (see Appendix D).

Table 3.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption
Year Diesel (Gallons) Gasoline (Gallons)
2022 14,524 5,372
2023 18,115 37,039
2024 1,377 36,759
2025 7,948 12,024
Total 41,964 91,194
Notes: Gasoline gallons include on-road gallons from worker trips. Diesel gallons include off-road equipment and on-road gallons from worker and vendor trips.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

Associated energy consumption would be typical of that associated with commercial and residential projects of this size in an urban setting. Automotive fuels would be consumed to transport people to and from the project site. Energy would be required for construction elements and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the project would be nonrecoverable. There is no atypical construction related energy demand associated with the proposed project.

Non-renewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region.

Operation
The project would increase electricity consumption in the region relative to existing conditions. However, the new facilities would, at a minimum, be built to 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are 53 percent more efficient than 2016 Standards (CEC 2018). In addition, all buildings (residential and non-residential) would participate in SMUD’s SolarShares program, increasing the amount of clean/renewable energy sources compared to projects that do not participate in the SolarShares program. Further, the residential buildings would be electric-only and the natural gas use associated with the community center would be limited to two outdoor fire pits, cooking appliances (i.e., grills), and heating for the pool/spa; thus, natural gas use would be minimal. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the operation of the project for the first full year (2026) of operations compared to the existing land uses.

Table 3.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption
Energy Type Energy Consumption Units
Electricity 1,597 MWh/year
Natural Gas 14,081 Therms/year
Gasoline 196,025 gal/year
Diesel 6,770 gal/year
Notes: MWh/year = megawatt-hours per year; gal/year = gallons per year.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Operation of the project would be typical of residential and commercial uses requiring electricity for lighting, climate control, kitchen facilities, and miscellaneous appliances. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would be integrated into the project to reduce the projects energy demands. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.17, “Transportation”, the project is in an area where the VMT is lower than 15 percent of the regional household average.

The net fuel consumption associated with project-related vehicle trips would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. State and federal regulations regarding fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in California are designed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy for transportation
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency
No Impact. Relevant plans that pertain to the efficient use of energy include the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which focuses on energy efficiency and building decarbonization (CEC 2019); as well as the City’s General Plan, which seeks to reduce per capita energy consumption through education and development of energy efficiency buildings.

As discussed in Impact 3.6-1, although implementation of the project has the potential to result in the overall increase in consumption of energy resources during construction and operation of new buildings and facilities, implementation of the project would ensure various energy conservation and generation features would be incorporated into new development including the installation of renewable energy features and the installation of energy efficient appliances and features, which would align with the Energy Efficiency Action Plan and City’s General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey
Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
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?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
According to the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR, there are no known active faults or Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Sacramento County (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b). Based on mapping by California Geologic Survey, the nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones include the Cordelia and Green Valley Faults, over 50 miles west of the project site (CGS 2021). The nearest active fault (i.e., faults with activity within the last 10,000 years) is the Dunnigan Hills fault, approximately 40 miles northwest of the project site. The project site is within an area that can expect to experience ground motion of low severity (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b).

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

According to the Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR, most soils in the city are the result of alluvial deposits, or river and lake deposits on various geomorphic surfaces. The majority of soil units within the City have low to moderate water holding capacities, slight to moderate erosion potential, very low to medium runoff rates, and high shrink-swell characteristics (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b).

The geology of the project site and surrounding area is characterized by dredge spoil sediments composed of gravels, cobbles, and boulders (CSS Environmental Services, Inc. 2020a). The site was dredged for gold recovery, resulting in gravel and cobble ridges, commonly referred to as "tailings windrows," and clays and silts were washed overboard and deposited in ponds between the ridges, referred to as "slickens deposits." Soil conditions are not uniform due to past dredging operations, and include potentially compressible clays and silts in the former slickens ponds as well as potential for buried undocumented debris. The project site slopes gently from east to west, but is generally flat. The depth to groundwater at the project site is expected to range from 50 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs) (MPE 2020).

Based on the soil characteristics, flat topography, depth to groundwater, and distance to active faults, there is low potential for geologic hazards from landslides, steep areas, rock falls, mud flows, liquefaction, and expansive soils at the project site. Review of recent geologic maps and data finds that the Project Area is underlain by Middle-to-Late Pleistocene (450 to 130 thousand years ago) alluvium of the Riverbank Formation. The Riverbank Formation is well represented by important paleontological remains. According to the Cultural and Paleontological Assessment prepared for the Residences Project, University of California Museum of Paleontology records indicate that no unique geologic features, fossil-bearing strata, or paleontological sites have been previously recorded within or near the Residences project site. Additionally, no paleontological resources of any kind were observed within the Residences project site during the field survey undertaken for the assessment (Natural Investigations Company 2022).

3.7.2 Discussion
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.7.1, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and is located over 50 miles east of the nearest Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones (CGS 2021). Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant The California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District has resulted in changes to CEQA with regard to the effects of existing environmental conditions (such as seismic hazards) on a project’s future users or residents. The effects of the environment on a project are generally outside the scope of CEQA unless the project would exacerbate these conditions, as concluded by the California Supreme Court (see California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369, 377 [“we conclude that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users.”]). Changes to the State CEQA Guidelines to reflect this decision were adopted on December 28, 2018. CEQA cannot be used by a lead agency to require a developer or other agency to obtain an EIR or implement mitigation measures solely because the occupants or users of a new project would be subjected to the level of hazards specified.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

As described in Section 3.7.1, the project site is not within an active fault zone; however, earthquakes in the region have potential to cause seismic ground shaking of low severity at the project site. Construction and building design of the project is subject to the City’s Building Code (Chapter 16.04 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code), which incorporates the 2019 California Building Code and 2018 International Building Code standards. The City’s Building Code requires implementation of seismic design standards in new development projects to reduce seismicallyinduced building damage and public safety risks. Project construction and operation would not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards, because the improvements would involve limited excavation that would not alter seismic and fault conditions in the region. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant. Liquefaction is the process in which water is combined with unconsolidated soils, generally from ground motion and pressure, which causes the soils to behave like quicksand. Liquefaction potential is determined from a variety of factors, including soil type, soil density, depth to the groundwater table, and the duration and intensity of ground shaking. Liquefaction is most likely to occur in deposits of water-saturated alluvium or areas of considerable artificial fill. Other types of seismic-related ground failure include ground lurching, differential settlement, and lateral spreading.

The potential for liquefaction and other seismic-related ground failure is considered low because 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 site is not located within a State Designated Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction (MPE 2020). Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site is an infill property surrounded by urban development. The potential for landslides to occur is negligible because the topography is generally flat and there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects from landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant. Soil erosion refers to the process by which soil or earth material is loosened or dissolved and removed from its original location. Erosion can occur by varying processes and may occur in the project site where bare soil is exposed to wind or moving water (both rainfall and surface runoff). The processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall or irrigation levels, surface drainage conditions, and general land uses.

All projects that result in a disturbance area of more than 1 acre (43,560 square feet [sq. ft.]) are required to obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which BMPs for erosion and sediment control. The Construction General Permit is issued and enforced by the appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB and the project would be subject to all existing regulations associated with the protection of water quality, including erosion and sediment control.

Project-related construction activities that include ground disturbance, such as excavation, grading, and trenching would increase the potential for erosion to occur. The project would involve the disturbance of 22.9 acres of soil; therefore, the project must comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The project would require preparation of a SWPPP with BMPs to control erosion. These requirements are consistent with the land grading and erosion control requirements outlined in Chapter 16.44 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Project would comply with the SMAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), which requires daily watering of unpaved areas to stabilize soil and prevent wind erosion events.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

there would be no impact related to soils incapable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant. As described in Section 3.7.1, no unique geologic features, fossil-bearing strata, or paleontological sites have been previously recorded or observed within or near the project site. Furthermore, excavation during project construction would occur in an area overlain by thick deposits of mining tailings and associated soils. The historic mining activities have so severely affected the condition of soils on the project site, the potential to encounter intact Pleistocene deposits is low (Natural Investigations Company 2022). Although unlikely, ground-disturbing activities during project construction may result in the unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources. The City’s General Plan, Action CHR 1.3.2, requires that the following condition be incorporated in permits for all discretionary projects:

The Planning Department shall be notified immediately if any cultural resources (e.g., prehistoric or historic artifacts) or paleontological resources (e.g., fossils) are uncovered during construction. All construction must stop in vicinity of the find and an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology or a paleontologist shall be retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate action.

The project would be required to comply with all permit conditions imposed by the City, including the above procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of paleontological resources; therefore, the project would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. GHG emissions contributing to global climate change are attributable, in large part, to human activities associated with on-road and off-road transportation, industrial/manufacturing, electricity generation by utilities and consumption by end users, residential and commercial on-site fuel usage, and agriculture and forestry. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (IPCC 2014:5).

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants because even local GHG emissions contribute to global impacts. GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years) and persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration (IPCC 2013:467).

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES AND SINKS
As discussed previously, GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities. CO2 is the main byproduct of fossil fuel combustion. Methane, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices, organic material decomposition in landfills, and the burning of forest fires (Black et al. 2017). Nitrous oxide emissions are largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water); respectively, these are the two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

REGULATORY SETTING
Statewide GHG Emission Targets and the Climate Change Scoping Plan Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the state government for approximately two decades (State of California 2018). GHG emission targets established by the state legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Senate Bill [SB] 32 of 2016). EO S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. EO B-55-18 calls for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. These targets align with the scientifically established levels needed globally to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (UN 2015).

The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), prepared by the CARB, outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emission target for 2030 and “substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals” (CARB 2017b). It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation, industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste). The State has also passed more detailed legislation addressing GHG emissions associated with industrial sources, transportation, electricity generation, and energy consumption. In May 2022, CARB released the Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update; however, at the time of preparing this checklist, CARB has not adopted the final version of this update.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMAQMD is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in Sacramento County–its role is discussed further in Section 3.2, “Air Quality.” SMAQMD also recommends measures for analyzing project-generated GHGs in CEQA analyses and offers multiple potential GHG reduction measures for land development projects.

SMAQMD developed thresholds of significance to provide a uniform scale to measure the significance of GHG emissions from land use and stationary source projects in compliance with CEQA, SB 32, and the 2017 Scoping Plan.

SMAQMD’s goals in developing GHG thresholds include ease of implementation, use of standard analysis tools, and emissions mitigation consistent with SB 32 (SMAQMD 2020b).

The City of Rancho Cordova is currently developing its Climate Action Plan in alignment with state GHG emission reduction goals. Therefore, the assessment of GHG emissions in this analysis is based on guidance from SMAQMD. In its 2020 Greenhouse Gas Thresholds for Sacramento County Justification Report, SMAQMD outlines the consistency between its thresholds of significance and the targets of the 2017 Scoping Plan. SMAQMD prepared an inventory for Sacramento County in 2030 and developed local emission reduction targets by sector in line with the local reductions needed to meet the goals of SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan. In its Justification Report, SMAQMD states that to “demonstrate consistency with the GHG targets by sector for new developments…project proponents shall commit to a menu of best management practices” (SMAQMD 2020b:39). These best management practices (summarized below) are intended to apply to all new land use development projects and are sufficient to mitigate a project’s long-term, operational emissions to the degree that it would not conflict with the long-term goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan and SB 32.

Based on SMAQMD’s guidance, which includes a tiered approach to determining project significance, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change if it would:

Construction
Result in construction emissions that exceed 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year.

Operation
Be inconsistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan by not implementing SMAQMD GHG reduction measures or equivalent on/off site mitigation. The following tiered approach shall be used to determine consistency:

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

 Tier 1 GHG Reduction Measures
 Projects shall be designed and constructed without natural gas infrastructure.  Projects shall meet the current CalGreen Tier 2 electric vehicle (EV) charging standards except all EV capable spaces1 shall instead be EV ready2
.
 Projects that exceed 1,100 MTCO2e after implementation of Tier 1 GHG reduction measures must implement Tier 2 GHG reduction measures.
 Tier 2 GHG Reduction Measures
 Residential projects shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in VMT per resident and office projects shall achieve a 15 percent reduction in VMT per worker compared to existing average VMT for the county, and retail projects shall achieve no net increase in total VMT to show consistency with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) SB 743.

3.8.2 Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant. GHG emissions associated with the project would be generated during construction and operation, discussed separately below.

Construction
Project-related construction activities would result in the generation of GHG emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, delivery trucks associated with materials transport, and vehicle use during worker commute during construction. As indicated in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of this checklist, the project would comply with SMAQMD’s construction BMPs for exhaust emissions control including, reducing idling to no more than 5 minutes and certification of compliance for CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation. Project-related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period (i.e., 36-months) in relation to the overall life of the project and would be considered temporary. Table 3.8-1 provides a summary of the total construction-related emissions that would occur as a result of new land uses.

Table 3.8-1 Construction-Generated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Year Total GHG MTCO2e per Year
2022 284
2023 663
2024 660
2025 243
SMAQMD Threshold of Significance 1,100
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas.

Source: Modeled conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022. 1 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11) requires EV capable parking spaces to install a “raceway” (the enclosed conduit that forms the physical pathway for electrical wiring to protect it from damage) and adequate panel capacity to accommodate future installation of a dedicated branch circuit and charging station(s). 2 2019 CALGreen, Title 24, Part 11 requires EV ready parking spaces to be equipped according to EV capable standards plus the installation of dedicated branch circuit(s) (electrical pre-wiring), circuit breakers, and other electrical components, including a receptacle (240-volt outlet) or blank cover needed to support future installation of one or more charging stations.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

As shown in Table 3.8-1 the project’s emissions would not result in an exceedance of the SMAQMD construction threshold and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in GHG emissions.

Operation
Operation of the project would result in mobile-source GHG emissions from vehicle trips (i.e., project-generated VMT), area-source emissions from the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, energy use emissions from consumption of electricity and natural gas, water-related energy consumption associated with water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater, and waste-generated emissions from the transport and disposal of solid waste. Regarding building-related energy use, the modeling assumed that all buildings would be electric-only, with the exception of natural gas use for up to two outdoor fireplaces, outdoor grills, heating the pool/spa associated with the club houses, and cooking appliances at the proposed restaurant. Table 3.8-2 below summarizes the project’s operational emissions for the buildout year of 2026. Based on the proposed land uses and using project-specific information where available (e.g., traffic study), operational emissions were estimated to be 2,322 MTCO2e/year.

Table 3.8-2 Unmitigated Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source Total MTCO2e per Year
Area 7
Electricity 404
Natural Gas 76
Mobile (Vehicular) 1,616
Waste 182
Water 37
Total 2,322
SMAQMD Screening Level Threshold 1,100
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas.

Source: Modeled conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

As explained above, SMAQMD uses a two-tiered approach to determining consistency with state targets intended to reduce the environmental impacts of GHG emissions. To satisfy Tier 1, projects should not include natural gas use and must meet the current CalGreen Tier 2 EV charging standards except all EV capable spaces shall instead be EV ready.

SMAQMD determined that by not eliminating natural gas from new development the project would not be consistent with the reduction targets of the 2017 Scoping Plan. Additionally, development is required to support zero emissions vehicles to help achieve 2017 Scoping Plan reduction targets. To be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, emissions from natural gas consumption must be mitigated and the project must ensure that it can be converted to all-electric in the future. The project also needs to ensure that CalGreen EV ready spaces are installed, or emissions must be mitigated off-site. The following project-design features would suffice SMAQMD’s Tier 1 GHG Reduction Measure, as demonstrated below.

Landscape and Shading
 The project includes 804 new tree plantings
Bicycle Parking/Storage
 The project will exceed CalGreen bike parking standards for short- and long-term bike parking/storage Building Energy
 All project buildings will participate in SMUD’s SolarShare program  All non-residential buildings will be designed with electrical capacity sufficient to support future electrification  All new structures will include cool roofs
ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

 At least 25 percent of paved area will have an albedo of no less than 0.25 EV Charging
 At least 12 EV Chargers
 At least 218 EV Ready Stalls (23 percent of total)
Considering the above project features, GHG reductions were applied as credits to the project for measures that are not required by other existing local or State law. Specifically, regarding EV charging, the project would meet and exceed the EV-ready SMAQMD requirement by including 218 EV Ready Stalls and at least 12 EV chargers. GHG reductions associated with the 12 chargers were estimated and applied to the project. Regarding building energy, participation in SMUD’s SolarShares program and considering SMUD’s 2030 carbon neutrality goals, electricity- GHG emissions would become zero in the future. Last, the inclusion of 804 trees on the project site would result in GHG reductions in the form of a credit from natural sequestration capacity. Table 3.8-3 summarizes these onsite GHG reductions applied to the project.

Table 3.8-3 Adjusted Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source Total MTCO2e per Year
Area 7
Electricity 404
Natural Gas 76
Mobile (Vehicular) 1,616
Waste 182
Water 37
GHG Reductions
Electricity -404
EV Chargers (12) -59
Sequestration -28
Total Onsite Reductions -491
Adjusted Project Total GHG Emissions 1,831
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas.

Source: Modeled conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Therefore, although the project would include use of natural gas, the modeling illustrates that project features would offset the emissions associated with this use. Therefore, Tier 1 GHG Reduction Measures would be satisfied.

Tier 2 reduction measures are triggered when projects exceed the 1,100 MTCO2e screening threshold after implementation of Tier 1 GHG reduction measures. Because the project emissions would be 1,831 MTCO2e after implementation of Tier 1 GHG reduction measures (see Table 3.8-3), the Tier 2 threshold also applies. Tier 2 is demonstrated to be achieved by adherence to the local VMT guidance for demonstrating consistency with SB 375.

The project is located in a VMT efficient area (in an area with at least 15 percent below the base year regional average household VMT per capita). This was determined based on screening maps prepared by the City using the focused version of SACOG’s SACSIM19 regional model. Therefore, no further action would be required to achieve consistency with the Tier 2 GHG Reduction Measure.

Because the project would include EV-Ready stalls that exceed CalGreen requirements and would be designed to allow the future electrification of non-residential buildings, the project would be consistent long-term climate goals outlined in the 2017 Scoping Plan and justified in SMAQMD’s CEQA guide, as summarized above under the heading “Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.” The inclusion of onsite EV charges and 804 trees would ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

offset emissions associated with natural gas. Last, the project was identified as being within a VMT efficient area consistent with SMAQMD Tier 2 GHG Reduction Measure and, therefore, would be consistent with the OPR SB 743 technical advisory de minimis criteria for VMT (Lum, pers. comm. 2022).

The 2017 Scoping Plan and SB 32 establish target emission levels under the presumption that achieving these targets through GHG emissions reduction would avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts on the environment. Based on the evidence provided in SMAQMD’s Justification Report linking the application of best management practices in new development to consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan, the project’s consistency with SMAQMD’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 GHG Reduction Measures indicates that it would not conflict with the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan. Moreover, consistency with SMAQMD’s Tier 1 and Tier 2 GHG Reduction Measures would result in GHG emission levels that do not have a significant impact on the environment. This impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
See response in item (a) above.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and/or accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

3.9.1 Environmental Setting

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) were completed for the 7.28-acre property encompassing APNs 072- 068-065 and 072-068-068 (CSS Environmental Services, Inc. 2020a) and for the 14.54-acre property encompassing APNs 072-026-051, 072-026-054, and 072-026-056 (CSS Environmental Services, Inc. 2020b). The Phase I ESAs were performed to evaluate whether recognized environmental conditions (REC) exist at the properties. A REC is defined by the American Society for Testing and Materials as the “presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.” No evidence of a REC was identified in connection with the properties. However, the following environmental conditions were identified:
 Land use restrictions have been recorded on APN 072-026-056.  Buried inert waste, concrete, and other debris were found on at least one parcel, and may need to be removed if underground construction activities are planned.
 Two offsite properties that are greater than 0.25-mile from the Residences project site (the Former Purity Oil Sales/Delta Gunite Site and the Aerojet General Corporation Site) have plumes of groundwater contamination that present the risk of creating a REC at the Residences project site. The groundwater contamination originating from these properties has potential to migrate to the subject property, potentially degrading groundwater quality and limiting the future use of groundwater.
 Soils impacted with oils were identified on APNs 072-026-054 and 072-026-056, and appropriate removal/remedial actions have been completed. If previously unidentified contamination is discovered at the property, additional assessment, investigation, and/or remediation may be required.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
The parcel in the northwest corner of the project site (APN 072-026-056) is listed as a voluntary cleanup site on the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2022). The Project Applicant established a voluntary agreement to investigate, remediate, and/or evaluate any hazardous substance that may be present at the parcel, under the oversight of DTSC (Ridenour, pers. comm., 2021). The voluntary agreement was intended to remedy the parcel to accommodate the uses proposed under the Residences Project.

Soil investigations completed at the parcel revealed elevated concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbon, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), perchlorate, and lead in site soils. Cleanup actions included the removal of impacted soil to a depth of 4 feet below grade. However, further testing revealed that total petroleum hydrocarbons as motor oil still exceeded the cleanup target levels and may be disturbed by future construction activities at the parcel. In 2013, subsequent remediation activities were performed at the parcel, which resulted in the removal of approximately 126 cubic yards of contaminated soil to approximate depth of 4 feet bgs (Wallace-Kuhl & Associates 2021).

In June 2010, a Land Use Covenant was established for the 3.02-acre parcel, which prohibits the following land uses:
residences, hospitals for humans, public and private schools for persons under 21 years of age, and day cares for children. The Land Use Covenant also requires preparation of a Soil Management Plan for future soil disturbances.

The Project Applicant prepared a Soil Management Plan for the parcel in August 2021, which includes procedures to be followed during site grading, excavation, stockpiling, soil sampling and laboratory analyses (if required), and backfilling activities associated with the handling of suspected or known contaminated soil (Wallace-Kuhl & Associates 2021). DTSC also identified the potential for adverse health effects from vapor intrusion at the parcel and recommended assessment of soil gas if human occupation of enclosed buildings may occur at the parcel (Amador, pers. comm., 2021).

SCHOOLS
There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest school is Capitol Academy, a private educational institution located at 3063 Gold Canal Drive in the City Rancho Cordova, approximately 0.3 mile north of the project site.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

AIRPORTS
The Mather Airport is a public airport approximately 1.3 miles south of the project site. The project site is within the airport influence area of the Mather Airport, which is the area where noise, safety, airspace protection, and overflight notification policies and compatibility criteria may affect land uses or necessitate restrictions on those uses (SACOG 2020).

EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The City adopted the Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan (SCMDP), which was established to address planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents.

The SCMDP focuses on operational concepts relative to large-scale disasters, which can pose major threats to life and property requiring unusual emergency responses. The SCMDP was designed to include Sacramento County as a part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System, which assigns responsibilities to support implementation of the SCMDP and to ensure successful response during a major disaster.

WILDLAND FIRE RISKS
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is within a non-very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) in a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2008).

3.9.2 Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant. A hazardous material is defined as any material that due to its quantity, concentration, physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health or to the environment if released. Project-related construction may involve the temporary use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials in the form of inorganic and organic chemicals, solvents, paints, oil, gasoline, cleansers. However, the constructionrelated transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be temporary, occurring over approximately 36 months. All materials would be used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and manufacturers’ instructions. Furthermore, any emissions from the use of such materials would be temporary in nature and localized to the project site.

Land uses that involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials include but are not limited to manufacturing plants, dry cleaning facilities, gas stations, agricultural properties, recycling centers, refineries, and shipyards. Once constructed, the proposed residential and commercial land uses would not involve activities that involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any hazardous materials needed for ongoing maintenance and landscaping activities (e.g., solvents, paints, and pesticides) would be used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and manufacturers’ instructions. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant. Refer to Section 3.9.2(a) above. Project-related construction and operation activities would involve the temporary use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. The project would be required to comply with federal, state, Sacramento County, and City of Rancho Cordova regulations relating to control of hazardous materials. Compliance with these regulations would reduce the likelihood of accidents and risks associated with ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

release of hazardous materials. Potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations.

As identified in the Phase I ESAs, no RECs were identified in connection with the project site. The environmental conditions described in Section 3.9.1 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment for the following reasons:
 Proposed development on APN 072-026-056 would be compatible with the land use restrictions recorded for the parcel.
 All buried inert waste, concrete, and other debris encountered during ground-disturbing activities would be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.  Groundwater contamination from offsite properties has potential to migrate to the Residences project site; however, this groundwater is not used for water supply and there is no exposure pathway to human receptors. It is not likely that groundwater would be encountered during construction activities because the depth to groundwater at the project site is expected to range from 50 to 100 feet bgs. Although over excavation of clay and silt soils may be required, the maximum depth of these soils identified in the Geotechnical Engineering Report (MPE 2020) is 21 feet bgs. If future remediation of contaminated groundwater is warranted, the property owners of the Former Purity Oil Sales/Delta Gunite Site and the Aerojet General Corporation Site would be responsible for remediation costs.
 Construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the 2021 Soil Management Plan, as required by the land use covenant, which includes procedures to be followed during site grading, excavation, stockpiling, soil sampling and laboratory analyses (if required), and backfilling activities associated with the handling of suspected or known contaminated soil (Wallace-Kuhl & Associates 2021).

Once operational, the proposed residential and commercial land uses would not involve activities that often give rise to concerns regarding hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.1, there are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the project site.

Therefore, the project would have no impact related to the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.9.1, a portion of the Residences Project site (APN 072-026-056) is listed as a voluntary cleanup site on the DTSC EnviroStor database (DTSC 2022) and is subject to land use restrictions established in a 2010 Land Use Covenant. The proposed land uses that would be constructed on APN 072-026-056 would include the following: community swimming pool, community open space, community park/playground, community dog park, community parking, community clubhouse, and commercial development. These land uses are allowed under the Land Use Covenant for the parcel. All proposed residential uses would be located outside of the boundaries of the Land Use Covenant. In addition, all construction activities occurring on this parcel would be conducted in accordance with the 2021 Soil Management Plan and to the satisfaction of DTSC. Furthermore, all enclosed buildings intended for human occupation would be located outside the area where vapor intrusion may occur.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than Significant. The project would result in the development of residential and commercial uses within the Airport Influence Area of Mather Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SACOG 2020), the project site is partially within Safety Zone 6 (Airport Traffic Pattern Zone). Within Safety Zone 6, residential and commercial development are considered compatible land uses, and there are no limits on the density, intensity, or lot coverage for this type of development. Furthermore, the project site is outside of the 60 to 75+ decibel Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise exposure range for Mather Airport. The acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports is a CNEL of 65 decibels. Because the project would be consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Mather Airport, impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area would be less than significant. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant. The SCMDP addresses planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. The SCMDP focuses on operational concepts relative to large-scale disasters, which can pose major threats to life and property requiring unusual emergency responses. The Residences Project would develop housing and commercial uses in a manner consistent with the existing zoning for the site and planned population growth for the region. There is no element of the project that would impair or physically interfere with implementation of the SCMPD (e.g., no alteration of project area roadways that could hinder emergency response or evacuation). Furthermore, as addressed in Section 3.17.2, the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District (SMFD) would review the proposal to ensure traffic safety and adequate emergency access. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. As described in Section 3.9.1, the project site is within a non-VHFHSZ and is not in an area susceptible to wildland fires. The surrounding properties are fully developed. Vegetation associated with adjacent development consists of ornamental landscaping that is regularly irrigated and maintained and is not considered a fire hazard.

Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or
siltation;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
According to the U.S. Geological Survey Watershed Boundary Dataset, the project site is in the American River Watershed and the Lower American River Subwatershed. The nearest surface water is the Folsom South Canal, located immediately east of the project site. Other nearby surface waters include the American River and Morrison Creek, approximately 2.5 miles north and 2.3 miles south of the project site, respectively.

The project site is within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, South American Subbasin (SASb). This subbasin has been designated by the California Department of Water Resources as high priority, but is not critically overdrafted.

Groundwater quality in the SASb is generally of good quality and meets local needs for municipal, domestic, and agricultural uses. Groundwater levels in the western portion of the SASb have been generally increasing since the ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

1980s despite a turn towards drier conditions and increasing population. The recent increase in groundwater levels has been largely attributed to a combination of conjunctive use projects (i.e., the combined use of groundwater and surface water sources), construction of the Freeport diversion facility and Vineyard surface water treatment plant, urban conservation plans, and changes in use of previous agricultural land. Groundwater levels in some areas of the eastern portion of the SASb, where the project site is located, show decreases in groundwater levels despite the lack of significant changes in land or water use. The causes of these declines are not well understood but may be attributed to the combination of remediation activities at the Inactive Rancho Cordova Test Site, Aerojet Superfund Site, and Kiefer Landfill and the aquifer becoming thin and low-yielding in this area. Areas of groundwater recharge to the subbasin include the American River to the north, the Sacramento River to the west, and the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers to the south (South American Subbasin et al 2021).

The key finding of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the subbasin released in 2012 is that the basin will be sustainable over the next 20 years as long as planned recycled water, recharge and other projects are implemented.

These projects are anticipated to raise groundwater above current levels; maintain storage volumes; and protect ecosystems, interconnected surface water, and shallow well users. Although projected climate change conditions will increase groundwater use, these effects are not expected to cause the SASb to become unsustainable or to cause notable decreasing trends in groundwater conditions (South American Subbasin et al 2021).

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Residences project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2012). The project site is not within a tsunami hazard area (Cal OES 2021) and is not in proximity to an enclosed body of water that is susceptible to seiche.

3.10.2 Discussion
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project site is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB. The Central Valley RWQCB adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) in 1975, and the most recent edition reflects amendments through May 2018. The purpose of the Basin Plan is to designate beneficial uses of waters within the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins, establish water quality objectives to protect those beneficial uses, and implement a program needed to achieve those objectives. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for both surface and ground waters (Central Valley RWQCB 2018).

The City of Rancho Cordova, along with the cities of Citrus Heights, Folsom, and Galt, and the County of Sacramento, operate under a NPDES municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit to discharge stormwater runoff from storm drains within their jurisdictions (NPDES No. CAS082597). The NPDES MS4 Permit establishes waste discharge requirements needed to attain water quality standards and protection of beneficial uses consistent with the Basin Plan. To comply with the NPDES MS4 Permit, the City imposes water quality and watershed protection measures for all new development projects. The Stormwater Quality Design Manual (SQDM) for the Sacramento Region (2018) includes guidance for the selection, siting, design, operation, and long-term maintenance of stormwater quality control measures implemented to meet the standards established in the NPDES MS4 Permit.

The Residences Project would include development of approximately 15.2 acres of new impervious cover, which is approximately 70 percent of the project site. According to the Preliminary Stormwater Quality Report, the project design would include stormwater planter facilities, disconnected roof drains (i.e., drains to pervious areas), and other treatment devices (Contech Stormfilters and Filterra units) to treat stormwater runoff from the project site (RSC Engineering, Inc. 2021a). The proposed stormwater infrastructure would fulfill the requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region (2018), ensuring that project operations would not violate water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Construction activities that include ground disturbance, such as excavation, grading, and trenching increase the potential for degradation of water quality. All projects that result in a disturbance area of more than 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). The Residences Project would involve the disturbance of 22.9 acres of soil; therefore, the project must comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The project would require preparation of a SWPPP with BMPs to prevent stormwater contamination, control sedimentation, and erosion, and comply with stormwater discharge requirements. These requirements are consistent with the stormwater management and discharge control requirements outlined in Chapter 15.12 and the land grading and erosion control requirements outlined in Chapter 16.44 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Residences Project would protect water quality through daily watering of unpaved areas to stabilize soil and prevent erosion during construction. Through compliance with the NPDES MS4 and Construction General Permits, the Residences Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than Significant. Interference with groundwater recharge typically occurs with introduction of new impervious surfaces. The Residences Project would include development of approximately 15.2 acres of new impervious cover, which is approximately 70 percent of the project site. According to the Preliminary Stormwater Quality Report, the project design would include stormwater planter facilities, disconnected roof drains (i.e., drains to pervious areas), and other treatment devices (Contech Stormfilters and Filterra units) to treat stormwater runoff from the project site and allow it to percolate back into the soil (RSC Engineering, Inc. 2021a). The proposed stormwater infrastructure would fulfill the requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region (2018). Therefore, the Residences Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge.

Groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the SASb, where the project site is located are affected by ongoing remediation of several large contaminant plumes. Refer to Section 3.10.2(e), below, for further discussion of sustainable management of the basin. Refer to Section 3.20, “Utilities and Services Systems,” for discussion of groundwater demand associated with the project. Water would be provided by the local water purveyor, which manages a portfolio of water supplies.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.7.2(b), project-related construction activities that include ground disturbance, such as excavation, grading, and trenching would increase the potential for erosion to occur. The project would involve the disturbance of 22.9 acres of soil; therefore, the project must comply with the provisions of the NPDES Construction General Permit issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The project would require preparation of a SWPPP with BMPs to control erosion. These requirements are consistent with the land grading and erosion control requirements outlined in Chapters 15.12 and 16.44 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code. Furthermore, the Project would comply with Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD (Fugitive Dust), which requires daily watering of unpaved areas to stabilize soil and prevent wind erosion events.

Once operational, the project site would be developed with approximately 15.2 acres impervious area, including buildings, asphalt parking lots, and concrete walkways. As described in the Preliminary Stormwater Quality Report, the project would be designed to meet the stormwater quality and LID requirements of the SQDM 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 ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 siltation. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.10.2(b) above, the Residences Project would include development of approximately 15.2 acres of new impervious cover, which is approximately 70 percent of the project site. According to the Preliminary Stormwater Quality Report, the project design would include stormwater planter facilities, disconnected roof drains (i.e., drains to pervious areas), and other treatment devices (Contech Stormfilters and Filterra units) to treat stormwater runoff from the project site and allow it to percolate back into the soil (RSC Engineering, Inc. 2021a). The proposed stormwater infrastructure would fulfill the requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region. Therefore, the Residences Project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.10.2(b) above, the Residences Project would include development of approximately 15.2 acres of new impervious cover, which is approximately 70 percent of the project site. According to the Preliminary Stormwater Quality Report, the project design would include stormwater planter facilities, disconnected roof drains (i.e., drains to pervious areas), and other treatment devices (Contech Stormfilters and Filterra units) to treat stormwater runoff from the project site and allow it to percolate back into the soil (RSC Engineering, Inc. 2021a). The proposed stormwater infrastructure would fulfill the requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region. Therefore, the Residences Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, the project site is within an area of minimal flood hazard (FEMA 2012).

Therefore, the Residences Project would not result in impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, the Residences project site is not within a flood hazard zone, a tsunami hazard area, or in proximity to an enclosed body of water that is susceptible to seiche (FEMA 2012; Cal OES 2021).

Therefore, the Residences Project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project would be designed to meet the stormwater quality and LID requirements of the SQDM for the Sacramento Region. In addition, BMPs would be implemented during construction activities to prevent stormwater contamination, control sedimentation, and erosion, and comply with stormwater discharge requirements. Because the Residences Project would comply with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 and Construction General Permits, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan.

As described above, the SASb has been designated by the California Department of Water Resources as high priority but is not critically overdrafted. The project site is not within or near the key areas of groundwater recharge to the subbasin (i.e., the American River, Sacramento River, and Cosumnes River). Further, the project would not conflict with ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

the projects identified in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan as important to raise groundwater above current levels; maintain storage volumes; and protect ecosystems, interconnected surface water, and shallow well users. Although projected climate change conditions will increase groundwater use, these effects are not expected to cause the SASb to become unsustainable or to cause notable decreasing trends in groundwater conditions.

Water supplied to the project would be sourced from a diverse water portfolio, including groundwater. As described in Section 3.20, “Utilities and Services Systems,” the project is consistent with the population projections assumed in Golden State Water Company’s water management planning. The Residences Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is a vacant infill property in the City’s Capital Center and 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, office, laboratory, and automotive industries) east of the Folsom South Canal, single family development to the south, and medical office buildings to the west. The project site is designated as OMU in the City’s General Plan Land Use Diagram and the zoning designation for the project site is OPMU.

3.11.2 Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. As described in Section 3.11.1, the project site consists of a vacant infill property surrounded by residential uses, park facilities, and office and industrial uses. All project improvements would be contained within the existing privately-owned parcel. The project would be compatible with surrounding land uses and would not include physical features that would restrict access to neighboring communities. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.11.1, the project site is designated for OMU land uses and is zoned OPMU.

According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, the OMU land use designation encourages the integration of commercial and/or residential use in conjunction with office use of a site (City of Rancho Cordova 2015). According to Chapter 23.313 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code, the OPMU zoning 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 modern 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.

In addition, as demonstrated through this environmental checklist, the project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies. See, for example, Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” Section 3.8, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” and Section 3.17, “Transportation.” In addition, the project would be conditioned to require compliance with the SSHCP, City and State water quality control standards, and would be reviewed by SMAQMD for consistency with the SIP. Because the project would be consistent with existing land use and zoning designations for the project site and all applicable policies from the City’s General Plan, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources.

Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) according to the known or inferred mineral potential of that land. Areas classified as MRZ-2 include areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence. The process is based solely on geology, without regard to existing land use or land ownership. The primary goal of mineral land classification is to ensure that the mineral resource potential of land is recognized by local government decision-makers and considered before land-use decisions that could preclude mining are made.

The site was extensively dredged for gold recovery sometime between 1947 and 1952. Large, floating dredges excavated river deposited sediments as they moved across the site in a north-south direction. Gravel and cobbles were screened off and deposited with sand in long ridges, and clays and silts were washed overboard and deposited in ponds between the ridges. The site was mined for aggregate from at least 1981 through at least 1984 (MPE 2020).

According to the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR, the project site is within an area classified as MRZ-2 (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b). Based on mapping completed by the Division of Mines and Geology (now known as the California Geological Survey), the project site is within an area where Portland cement concrete-grade aggregate operations have occurred (Division of Mines and Geology 1999). However, the project site is currently vacant and no active mining operations occur on the project site.

3.12.2 Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Less than Significant. As described in Section 3.12.1, mining has occurred on the site and recoverable deposits of gold and aggregate have been removed. The project site is zoned for office professional mixed-use land uses and is surrounded by urban development that precludes mineral resource extraction. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of regional value or of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a land use plan.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? See response in item (a) above.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.13 NOISE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise.

Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other
applicable local, state, or federal standards?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?

3.13.1 Environmental Setting

ACOUSTIC FUNDAMENTALS
Acoustics is the scientific study that evaluates perception, propagation, absorption, and reflection of sound waves.

Sound is a mechanical form of radiant energy, transmitted by a pressure wave through a solid, liquid, or gaseous medium. Sound that is loud, disagreeable, unexpected, or unwanted is generally defined as noise. Noise is typically expressed in decibels (dB), which is a common measurement of sound energy. Definitions of acoustical terms used in this section are provided in Table 3.13-1.

Table 3.13-1 Acoustic Term Definitions
Term Definition
Noise Noise is generally defined as sound that is loud, disagreeable, unexpected, or unwanted.

Decibel (dB) Sound levels are measured using the decibel scale, developed to relate to the range of human hearing. A decibel is logarithmic; it does not follow normal algebraic methods and cannot be directly summed. For example, a 65-dB source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65-dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by 3 dB). A sound level increase of 10 dB corresponds to 10 times the acoustical energy, and an increase of 20 dB equates to a 100-fold increase in acoustical energy.

A-weighted
decibel (dBA)
The human ear is not equally sensitive to loudness at all frequencies in the audible spectrum. To better relate overall sound levels and loudness to human perception, frequency-dependent weighting networks were developed, identified as A through E. There is a strong correlation between the way humans perceive sound and A-weighted sound levels.

For this reason, the A-weighted sound levels are used to predict community response to noise from the environment, including noise from transportation and stationary sources, and are expressed as A-weighted decibels. All sound levels discussed in this section are A-weighted decibels unless otherwise noted.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Term Definition
Equivalent Noise
Level (Leq)
The average noise level during a specified time period; that is, the equivalent steady-state noise level in a stated period of time that would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying noise level during the same period (i.e., average noise level).

Maximum Noise
Level (Lmax)
The highest instantaneous noise level during a specified time period.

Source: Caltrans 2013a.

Noise Generation and Attenuation
Noise can be generated by many sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes and stationary sources such as activity at construction sites, machinery, and commercial and industrial operations. As sound travels through the atmosphere from the source to the receiver, noise levels attenuate (i.e., decrease) depending on ground absorption characteristics, atmospheric conditions, and the presence of physical barriers. Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Noise from a line source, such as a road or highway, propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective-wave canceling provides additional attenuation associated with geometric spreading. For acoustically absorptive sites such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees, additional ground-attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the attenuation rate associated with cylindrical spreading, the additional ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. This would hold true for point sources, resulting in an overall drop-off rate of up to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance.

Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, turbulence, temperature gradients, and humidity also alter the propagation of noise and affect levels at a receiver. Furthermore, the presence of a barrier (e.g., topographic feature, intervening building, and dense vegetation) between the source and the receptor can provide substantial attenuation of noise levels at the receiver. Natural (e.g., berms, hills, and dense vegetation) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) may function as noise barriers.

To provide some context to noise levels described throughout this section, common sources of noise and associated noise levels are presented in Table 3.13-2.

Table 3.13-2 Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90
Diesel truck moving at 50 mph at 50 feet 80 Food blender at 3 feet, garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, gas lawnmower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet, normal speech at 3 feet Commercial area, heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office, dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library, bedroom at night, concert hall (background) Quiet rural nighttime 20 Broadcast/recording studio
10 Threshold of human hearing 0 Threshold of human hearing Notes: dB = A-weighted decibels; mph = miles per hour
Source: Caltrans 2013a.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Effects of Noise on Humans
Exposure to excessive noise may result in physical damage to the auditory system, which may lead to gradual or traumatic hearing loss. Gradual hearing loss is caused by sustained exposure to moderately high noise levels over a period of time; traumatic hearing loss is caused by sudden exposure to extremely high noise levels over a short period. Non-auditory behavioral effects of noise on humans are primarily subjective effects such as annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction, which lead to interference with activities such as communications, sleep, and learning.

EXISTING NOISE SOURCES AND LEVELS
The predominant noise sources in the area are the San Juan Soccer Club, vehicular traffic along the surrounding roadways, and commercial truck traffic from the retail land uses nearby. The traffic noise levels along Kilgore Road, White Rock Road, and Sunrise Boulevard are 66 dBA, 72 dBA, and 76 dBA, respectively (Appendix E).

NOISE- AND VIBRATION-SENSITIVE LAND USES AND RECEPTORS
Noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses generally include those uses where noise exposure could result in healthrelated risks to individuals, places where a quiet setting is an essential element of the intended purpose (e.g., schools and libraries), and historic buildings that could sustain structural damage due to vibration. The project is in a sparsely populated area where land is generally undeveloped. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project area include nearby residents and the Charter School of Morgan Hill. The closest sensitive receptor to the project area are the existing residences across International Drive, which are a minimum of 200 feet south of the project area.

AIRPORTS AND PRIVATE AIRSTRIPS
There are no public airports or private airstrips within the project vicinity. The nearest airport is the Mather Airport, which is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project area.

REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Regulations
Federal Transit Administration
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides guidance on evaluating human response to ground vibration. The FTA has set forth guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses where people live or work. These guidelines are presented in Table 3.13-3.

Table 3.13-3 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for Human Response Land Use Category
Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels for Human Response (VdB re 1 microinch/second)
Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations. 654 654 654 Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. 72 75 80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. 75 78 83 Notes: VdB re 1 microinch/second = vibration decibels referenced to 1 microinch/second and based on the root mean square velocity amplitude. 1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day. 4 This criterion is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define acceptable vibration levels.

Source: FTA 2018.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

State Regulations
California Department of Transportation
In 2013, Caltrans published the Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, which provides general guidance on vibration issues associated with construction and operation of projects in relation to human perception and structural damage (Caltrans 2013b). Table 3.13-4 presents recommendations for levels of vibration that could result in damage to structures exposed to continuous vibration.

Table 3.13-4 Structural Damage Potential to Buildings at Various Groundborne Vibration Levels Structure and Condition Transient Sources PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources PPV (in/sec) Extremely Fragile Historic Buildings, Ruins, Ancient Monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile Buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and Some Old Buildings 0.5 0.25
Older Residential Structures 0.5 0.3
New Residential Structures 1.0 0.5
Modern Industrial/Commercial Buildings 2.0 0.5
Note: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2013b.

Local Regulations
Rancho Cordova General Plan
The General Plan Noise Element identifies noise criteria for various stationary and transportation noise sources.

Performance standards for stationary noise sources and maximum allowable noise exposure from transportation noise sources, are included below in Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6, respectively.

Table 3.13-5 City of Rancho Cordova Performance Standards for Stationary Noise Sources Source Nosie Level Descriptor Daytime (7 a.m. – 10 p.m.) Nighttime (10 p.m. – 7 a.m.) Typical Hourly Leq dB 55 45
Tonal, impulsive, repetitive, or consist
primarily of speech or music Hourly Leq dB 50 40
Notes: dB = decibels; Leq= energy-equivalent noise level.

Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2006a
Table 3.13-6 City of Rancho Cordova Maximum Transportation Noise Exposure Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas1
Ldn/CNEL, dB
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB2
Residential 603 45 -
Residential subject to noise from railroad tracks,
aircraft overflights, or similar noise sources which
produce clearly identifiable, discrete noise events
(e.g., the passing of a single train)
603
405 -
Transient lodging 604 45 -
Hospitals, nursing homes 603 45 -
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls - - 35
Churches, meeting halls 603 - 40
Office Buildings - - 45
Schools, libraries, museums - - 45
ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Land Use Outdoor Activity Areas1

Ldn/CNEL, dB
Ldn/CNEL, dB Leq, dB2
Playgrounds, neighborhood parks 70 - -
Note: CNEL = community equivalent noise level; dB = decibels; Ldn= day-night average noise level; Leq = energy-equivalent noise level 1 Where the location of outdoor activity areas is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the outdoor activity area. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 Where it is not possible to reduce noise in outdoor activity areas to 60 dB Ldn/CNEL or less using a practical application of the best available noise reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL may be allowed provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with this table. 4 In the case of hotel/motel facilities or other transient lodging, outdoor activity areas such as pool areas may not be included in the project design. In these cases, only the interior noise level criterion will apply. 5 The intent of this noise standard is to provide increased protection against sleep disturbance for residences located near railroad tracks.

Source: City of Rancho Cordova 2006a.

Rancho Cordova Noise Ordinance
The City Noise Ordinance establishes maximum allowable exterior and interior noise levels for affected land uses. The ordinance limits exterior noise levels (measured at residential land and agricultural land uses) to a maximum of 55 dBA during any cumulative 30-minute period during the daytime hours (7 a.m.–10 p.m.), and 50 dBA during any cumulative 30-minute period during the nighttime hours (10 p.m.–7 a.m.). Daytime construction activities are generally exempt from the noise standards.

3.13.2 Discussion
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? Less than significant. Project-related noise would be generated by heavy equipment used onsite during project construction and by increased vehicle trips associated with project operation. These types of noise sources are discussed separately below.

Construction
In the project area, the dominant noise source is roadway traffic, primarily from vehicles along White Rock Road and International Drive and events at the San Juan Soccer Club field. The project would result in temporary increase in noise levels during construction as a result of heavy equipment movement and pavement removal, but no permanent increases in ambient noise levels would occur during operation. Construction-related noise sources would include both mobile and stationary on-site equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, generators). Construction noise would be shortterm and temporary, and operation of heavy-duty construction equipment would be intermittent throughout the day during construction.

Within the City of Rancho Cordova, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 6.68 exempts certain activities, including construction, from the City’s noise standards as long as the activities are limited to the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at 8:00 p.m. through and including 7:00 a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of 8:00 p.m. This exemption provides that construction equipment must include appropriately maintained exhaust and intake silencers. However, the City does not specify limits in terms of maximum noise levels that may occur during the allowable construction hours.

Project construction activities would involve the use of heavy equipment, such as graders, cranes, dozers, tractors, forklifts, generator sets, paving equipment, rollers, welders, mixers, and air compressors. However, the specific construction equipment used would vary depending on the project phase and specific activities occurring. The loudest ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

pieces of equipment that would be used during construction would be dozers, graders and tractors, all which generate noise levels ranging from 84 to 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet (FHWA 2006:3). Noise modeling conservatively assumed the simultaneous operation of the three loudest pieces of heavy construction equipment (i.e., a grader, a dozer, and a tractor) operating at the boundary of the project area (see Appendix E). At a distance of 140 feet to the nearest structure, construction related activities could result in hourly average noise levels of approximately 77 Leq and 81 Lmax.

There is noise generated by traffic on International Drive, which separates the southern boundary of the project site from the nearest sensitive receptors and an existing sound wall between those existing residences and International Drive. Construction activities would occur within the timeframe identified by the City’s noise ordinance when construction noise is exempt from noise standards. Thus, the project would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of allowable standards in the vicinity of the project.

Operation
Traffic Noise
Project-generated vehicle trips would result in an increase in average daily traffic volumes and associated increases in traffic noise levels along affected roadway segments near the site. To analyze the impact of project-generated operational transportation noise sources, traffic noise levels under existing and existing-plus-project conditions were modeled for affected roadway segments. For further details on traffic volumes and conditions, see Section 3.16, “Transportation.” Refer to Appendix E for detailed noise modeling input parameters.

Table 3.13-7 summarizes the modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest applicable offsite receptors from the roadway centerlines under existing and existing plus project conditions, along with the overall net change in noise level as a result of project-generated traffic. As shown in Table 3.13-7, the addition of project-generated traffic to the surrounding roadway network would not result in any of the roadway study segments experiencing noise increases above 3 dBA. Thus, the project would not result in a perceptible noise increase as a result of new vehicle trips generated from the project.

Table 3.13-7 Summary of Modeled Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment Segment Description Existing Condition
Noise Levels (Ldn)
Existing plus Project
Conditions (Ldn)
Traffic Noise
Level Increase
Zinfandel Dr White Rock Rd to International Dr 72.9 72.9 0.0 Zinfandel Dr US-50 EB Ramps to White Rock Rd 75.3 75.4 0.1 Zinfandel Dr US-50 EB Ramps to US-50 WB Ramps 74.5 74.6 0.1 Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd to US-50 WB Ramps 73.4 73.5 0.0 White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr to Kilgore Rd 71.8 72.1 0.3
White Rock Rd Kilgore Rd to Sunrise Blvd 71.9 72.2 0.3
Kilgore Rd Folsom Blvd to White Rock Rd 68.4 68.4 0.0
Kilgore Rd White Rock Rd to International Dr 67.9 70.0 2.2 White Rock Rd Sunrise Blvd to Grant Line Rd 68.9 69.1 0.2 Sunrise Blvd White Rock Rd to Douglas Rd 76.3 76.3 0.0
Sunrise Blvd Folsom Blvd to White Rock Rd 77.8 77.9 0.1 Sunrise Blvd US-50 EB Ramps to Folsom Blvd 78.2 78.2 0.1 Sunrise Blvd US-50 WB Ramps to US-50 EB Ramps 76.7 76.8 0.1 Sunrise Blvd US-50 EB Ramps to Coloma 79.6 79.7 0.0
Notes: Ldn = Day-Night Level
All modeling assumes average pavement, level roadways (less than 1.5% grade), constant traffic flow, and does not account for shielding of any type or finite roadway adjustments. All noise levels are reported as A-weighted noise levels. For additional details, refer to Appendix E for detailed traffic data, and traffic-noise modeling input data and output results.

Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Stationary Noise
The loudest operational noise from non-transportation sources is often generated by onsite mechanical equipment such as HVAC equipment. Noise levels generated from HVAC equipment vary substantially depending on unit efficiency, size, and location. Generally, HVAC equipment generates noise levels of 60 dBA at six meters (19.6 feet).

The specific location of the HVAC equipment relative to adjacent sensitive receptors are not known at this time.

HVAC equipment at the project site could exceed the City’s nighttime Leq standard (Table 3.13-5) if located within 75 feet of noise-sensitive land uses during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) occurring for more than 30 minutes. The nearest sensitive receptor is 200 feet south of the site. Noise levels generated from HVAC equipment at the nearest noise-sensitive land use would be 34 dBA at 200 feet and below the City’s stationary noise standard. As a result, operation of the HVAC equipment would not exceed the City’s threshold for stationary noise sources. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than significant. Project construction would not involve the use of ground vibration–intensive activities, such as pile driving or blasting. Pieces of equipment that generate lower levels of ground vibration, such as dozers and pavers, would be used during construction. These types of common construction equipment do not generate substantial levels of ground vibration that could result in structural damage, except at extremely close distances (i.e., within at least 10 feet). The most ground vibration–intensive activity performed during project construction would be use of a roller. Rollers generate a ground vibration level of 0.21 in/sec PPV and 94 VdB at 25 feet (FTA 2018:184).

Vibration from rolling could exceed the threshold of significance of 0.2 in/sec PPV for building structural damage within 26 feet of activities and the threshold of significance for human annoyance of 80 VdB within 73 feet of activities. No sensitive land uses or permanent structures are located within 140 feet of areas where construction activity would take place at the site. No rolling would occur within 26 feet of an existing building or within 73 feet of a residence. Operation of the project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Therefore, construction and operational generated vibration would not result in structural damage or human annoyance. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is not located within the 60 dB CNEL contour for Mather Airport (SACOG 2021), and as such, on-site residences would not be exposed to airport-related noise in excess of City standards.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing.

Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

3.14.1 Environmental Setting
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2020 population in the City of Rancho Cordova was 79,332 residents. Based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, there were approximately 25,508 households and the average household size was 2.85 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2021).

According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, approximately 60 percent of the existing housing is single-family and the remaining 40 percent is predominately multi-family. To meet housing demands, the Land Use Element identifies the need for a more diverse, higher-density housing supply, including townhomes, condominiums, and mixed-use housing above ground floor retail or office spaces (City of Rancho Cordova 2015). According to the Housing Element, the 2014-2018 American Community Survey vacancy rate in the City of Rancho Cordova was 0.6 percent for homeownership and 3.9 percent for rental housing, which is considered low to very low (City of Rancho Cordova 2021a).

3.14.2 Discussion
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project would result in the construction of 417 residential units, comprised of 240 multifamily units and 177 townhome rental units. Based on the City’s average household size of 2.85 residents, the project would have a residential population of approximately 1,043 residents. These residents could include people relocating from other cities in the region or from within the City of Rancho Cordova itself.

The project site is a vacant infill property within an area planned for development. As discussed in Section 3.11, “Land Use,” residential development in conjunction with office uses is consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the project site. Although the Residences Project could contribute to population growth in the City of Rancho Cordova, the project is intended to provide diverse rental housing opportunities to meet current and future housing demand. Because the City has low to very low vacancy rates and identified the need for a more diverse housing supply, the Residences Project is anticipated to be growth-accommodating rather than growth-inducing. Therefore, the Residences Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site is currently vacant and does not contain existing housing units. Therefore, the project would not displace people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services.

Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
SMFD provides fire protection services, fire suppression, inspection, plan checking, emergency transportation and medical services, public education, advanced life support, and rescue services to the City of Rancho Cordova.

According to SMFD’s Community Annual Report for the 2019-2020 fiscal year, the fire district served a population of approximately 757,000 residents over an area of 359 square miles. SMFD operated 41 stations and employed approximately 552 fire, medical, and rescue personnel in the 2019-2020 fiscal year. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, SMFD established a goal for a response time of 5 minutes or less for 80 percent of the time in the urbanized portions of the city (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b). Response times for the 2019-2020 fiscal year averaged 4 minutes and 28 seconds for structure fires and 6 minutes and 8 seconds for medical aid (SMFD 2020). SMFD Station 66 is the closest fire protection facility, located immediately west of the project site at 3180 Kilgore Road.

Police protection services within the City of Rancho Cordova are provided by the City of Rancho Cordova Police Department (RCPD), which is contracted through the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department Patrol Services. RCPD employs 55 officers to enforce State statutes and City codes and ordinances (RCPD n.d.). According to the City’s General Plan EIR, RCPD established a goal of providing one police officer for every 1,000 citizens and of achieving a response time of 5 minutes or less for Priority One calls (i.e., calls for violent crimes or emergencies requiring an immediate response to save a life) (City of Rancho Cordova 2006b). The Rancho Cordova Police Station is located at 2897 Kilgore Road, approximately 0.7 mile north of the project site.

The project site is within the boundaries of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District (FCUSD). FCUSD enrolls approximately 20,800 students at 22 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 3 high schools, 6 alternative schools, and 1 charter school (FCUSD n.d.). The enrollment capacity for City of Rancho Cordova schools is 9,972 students and the enrollment capacity for the overall district is 21,527 students (FCUSD 2021). The Residences Project would be within the attendance boundaries of the FCUSD schools listed in Table 3.15-1.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Table 3.15-1 Public School Facilities Serving the Residences Project Site Name Address Distance to Project Site 2018-2019, 2019-2020 Student Enrollment1
2013 Student
Capacity2
Navigator
Elementary School
10679 Bear Hollow Dr,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 1.1 miles southwest of the project site 374 558 W.E. Mitchell Middle
School
2100 Zinfandel Dr,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 1.6 miles north of the project site 885 843 Cordova High School 2239 Chase Dr,
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 2.1 miles northwest of the project site 1,855 1,951 1 Student enrollment data is based on the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years and was obtained from U.S. News & World Report in 2022 2 Student capacity data is based on the district optimal capacity from the FCUSD 2013 Facilities Master Plan, Appendix B, “Facility Inventory” Source: Compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022
The Cordova Recreation and Park District (CRPD) provides and maintains public recreation facilities and services within the City of Rancho Cordova. CRPD operates over 600 acres of open space and over 43 parks and recreational facilities, which include neighborhood and community parks, a community barn, a dog park, a sports complex, community pools, community centers, and a golf course (CRPD 2022). CRPD parks and recreational facilities within 1 mile of the Residences project site are summarized in Table 3.15-2.

Table 3.15-2 Public Parks and Recreational Facilities in Proximity to the Residences Project Site Name Address Distance to Project Site Amenities
Renaissance Park 3125 Mowbray Way,
Rancho Cordova, CA

0.4 mile southwest of
the project site
Neighborhood park with picnic pavilion, playground, half-court basketball court, and open grass area
Tuscany Park 3460 Corvina Dr,
Rancho Cordova, CA

0.4 mile south of the
project site
5-acre park with a playground, basketball court, soccer field, picnic areas, and open green space
The Village Green 3141 Bridgeway Dr,
Rancho Cordova, CA

0.5 mile west of the
project site
Park with large outdoor amphitheater, splash pad plaza, open grass area, and picnic areas
Cobblestone Park
10900 Barden Dr,
Rancho Cordova, CA
95670

0.6 mile southwest of
the project site

1.6-acre neighborhood park with shade trees, an open grass area, picnic areas, a playground, a fitness station, and a multiuse field
Stone Creek
Community Park
3625 Spoto Drive,
Rancho Cordova, CA

0.9 mile southwest of
the project site
21 acres of open space and recreational amenities, which include an open-air amphitheater, aquatic splash park, skate park, playgrounds, picnic areas, and athletic fields
Source: Information obtained from the CRPD and compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2022 Other public facilities in proximity to the project site include the Rancho Cordova Library, which is part of the Sacramento Public Library System. The Rancho Cordova Library is located at 9845 Folsom Boulevard in the City of Sacramento, approximately 3.2 miles west of the project site.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.15.2 Discussion
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities because the Residences project site is within a developed area and would be served by the SMFD. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the Residences Project is anticipated to have a residential population of approximately 1,043 residents. In addition, the Residences Project would add new commercial-retail development that could accommodate some additional visitors to the project site at any given time. This increase in population would increase the demand for SMFD services, which could adversely affect SMFD service ratios and response times.

Plans for proposed development projects are subject to review and approval by the City’s Development Services Team, which is made up of multiple City departments and partner agencies, including the SMFD. The project design would be required to comply with the most current building and fire codes, which include requirements for hydrant spacing, fire flow, access and roadway requirements, and limitations on materials used. Compliance with these requirements would reduce fire-related hazards associated with the proposed development.

Furthermore, new construction and development projects served by the SMFD are required to pay a Capital Fire Facilities Fee. This fee is intended to finance capital improvements for fire protection and emergency medical services that are needed to accommodate a growing service population. The project proponent would be required to pay a Capital Fire Facilities Fee as a condition of project approval, which would offset any impacts to SMFD service ratios, response times, or performance objectives.

The City’s General Plan provides policies for ensuring adequate fire protection in accordance with projected growth and development. The population growth from the Residences Project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Residences Project could be served by existing fire protection facilities and new facilities proposed under the City’s General Plan. Based on the discussion above, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection and emergency services facilities.

Police protection?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project would not result in the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities because the project site is within a developed area and would be served by the RCPD. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the Residences Project is anticipated to have a residential population of approximately 1,043 residents. In addition, the Residences Project would add new commercial-retail development that could accommodate up to some additional visitors to the project site at any given time. This increase in population would increase the demand for RCPD services, which could adversely affect RCPD service ratios and response times.

Plans for proposed development projects are subject to review and approval by the City’s Development Services Team, which is made up of multiple City departments and partner agencies. The City would coordinate with RCPD during the review of the Residences Project development plan. In addition, the City encourages the incorporation of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles in the design and siting of new buildings. Incorporation of these design principles would reduce crime and improve security within the proposed development.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

Furthermore, new construction and development projects served by the RCPD are required to pay a development impact fee. This fee is intended to finance capital improvements for law enforcement related services that are needed to accommodate a growing service population. The project proponent would be required to pay this fee as a condition of project approval, which would offset any impacts to RCPD service ratios, response times, or performance objectives.

The City’s General Plan provides policies for ensuring adequate police protection in accordance with projected growth and development. Population growth from the Residences Project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Residences Project could be served by existing police protection facilities and new facilities proposed under the City’s General Plan. Based on the discussion above, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities.

Schools?
Less than Significant. The Residences project site is within the district boundaries of FCUSD. Based on student yield factors from the FCUSD Facility Master Plan (2013), the Residences Project would generate approximately 162 students. This increase in the student population would increase student enrollment at FCUSD schools, which could cause enrollment to reach or exceed capacity or adversely affect student to teacher ratios.

Table 3.15-1 Student Yield Rates for the Residences Project School Type Number of Students
177 Single-Family Attached Units 240 Multi-Family Units All Units Elementary School (K-5) 57 (0.32/unit) 27 (0.11/unit) 84 Middle School (6-8) 18 (0.10/unit) 20 (0.08/unit) 38
High School (9-12) 25 (0.14/unit) 8 (0.03/unit) 33
Special Education 4 (0.02/unit) 3 (0.01/unit) 7
Total 104 58 162
Source: FCUSD 2013; Page E-2
Government Code Section 65995 and 65996 require payment of development impact fees to offset the overcrowding of schools from new elementary, middle, and high school students generated from the project. The project proponent would be required to pay this fee as a condition of project approval, which would offset any impacts to FCUSD enrollment.

The City’s General Plan provides policies for ensuring adequate school facilities in accordance with projected growth and development. Student population growth from the Residences Project would be consistent with the type of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Residences Project could be served by existing schools and new schools proposed under the City’s General Plan. Based on the discussion above, the project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities.

Parks?
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the Residences Project is anticipated to result in a population of approximately 1,043 residents. This increase in population would increase the use of existing CRPD parks and open spaces.

According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires all new residential development to dedicate 1.75 acres of open space land and 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The City reviews proposals for new residential development to ensure compliance with the City’s minimum open space and parkland standards. As described in Section 2, “Project Description,” the Residences Project would provide recreational amenities for residents, including a central green space; pedestrian pathways and paseos; two clubhouses, each with a pool and fitness center; dog parks; a children’s playground; and barbeque and lounge areas. These recreational amenities are intended to meet City ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

requirements for open space and parkland. Furthermore, the City may require payment of development impact fees to fund CRPD park improvements to offset the increased use of parks from new residential development. Because the Residences Project would be subject to City requirements for minimum open space and parkland standards, the Residences Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public park facilities.

Other public facilities?
Less than Significant. The Residences Project does not propose new or expanded public facilities because the Residences project site is within a developed area and would be served by existing City facilities, such as the Rancho Cordova Library. The anticipated population of approximately 1,043 residents would increase the use of existing public facilities, such as libraries, in the City. The Residences Project would be subject to development impact fees to fund public facilities improvements to offset their increased use from new residential development. Therefore, the Residences Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.16 RECREATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. Recreation.

Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
that might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Section 3.15.1 includes a summary of the existing public parks and recreational facilities within 1 mile of the project site.

3.16.2 Discussion
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant. As discussed in Section 3.15.2(a), the Residences Project is anticipated to have a residential population of approximately 1,043 residents that could increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities.

According to the City’s General Plan, the City requires all new residential development to dedicate 1.75 acres of open space land and 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. The City reviews proposals for new residential development to ensure compliance with the City’s minimum open space and parkland standards. As described in Section 2, “Project Description,” the Residences Project would provide recreational amenities for residents, including a central green space; pedestrian pathways and paseos; two clubhouses, each with a pool and fitness center; dog parks; a children’s playground; and barbeque and lounge areas. These recreational amenities are intended to meet City requirements for open space and parkland. Furthermore, the City may require payment of development impact fees to fund CRPD park improvements to offset the increased use of parks from new residential development. Because the Residences Project would be subject to City requirements for minimum open space and parkland standards, the Residences Project would not cause substantial physical deterioration of existing parks or recreational facilities to occur or be accelerated.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant. As described in Section 3.16.2(a), the Residences Project would provide recreational amenities for residents. The environmental impacts associated with construction of these recreational amenities are evaluated in Sections 3.1 through 3.21 of this Initial Study and no significant adverse physical effects were identified.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The transportation impact analysis presented in this section is based primarily on the Residences at Capital Center Transportation Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Kimley Horn (2022). The TIS, which is included as Appendix F, provides additional data and information related to the transportation analysis.

ROADWAY NETWORK
Access to the Residences Project site is provided by the surrounding roadway network which includes highway United States Route (U.S. 50), Sunrise Boulevard, Zinfandel Drive, and White Rock Road.

Highways
The following highway is operated and maintained by Caltrans and provides regional access to the Residences Project site:
 U.S. 50 is an east-west freeway that traverses the United States from Sacramento, California to Ocean City, Maryland. In the vicinity of the Residences Project, U.S. 50 connects the City of Rancho Cordova with the City of Sacramento to the west and the County of El Dorado to the east. Located approximately three quarters of a mile north of the Residences Project site, U.S. 50 can be accessed via the Sunrise Boulevard and Zinfandel Drive interchanges. U.S. 50 has five lanes in each direction within the vicinity of the Residences Project site.

Roadways
The primary roadways in the vicinity of the Residences Project site include:
 Sunrise Boulevard is a bidirectional six-lane arterial roadway east of the Residences Project site connecting to north Rancho Cordova and Placer County while providing access to U.S. 50. The speed limit on Sunrise Boulevard is 45 miles per hour (mph).
 Zinfandel Drive is a bidirectional six to eight-lane arterial roadway that serves travel in the north-south directions connecting the Residences Project site to U.S. 50 via White Rock Road. The speed limit is 40 mph.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

 White Rock Road is a six-lane east-west arterial roadway. White Rock Road connects Sunrise Boulevard and Zinfandel Drive within the southern half of City’s jurisdictional limits. White Rock Road is located north of the Residences Project site. There are no bicycle facilities present on White Rock Road between Zinfandel Drive and Sunrise Boulevard; however, pedestrian facilities exist along the roadway.  Kilgore Road is a bidirectional, four-lane roadway with no median accommodating north-south travel. Kilgore Road is located along the west boundary of the Residences Project site and has a posted speed limit of 40 mph.

Primary vehicle access to the Residences Project would be provided from Kilgore Road. Class II bike lanes and pedestrian facilities are present on each side of Kilgore Road.  International Drive, located south of the Residences Project site, is an east-west bidirectional six-lane roadway.

Emergency vehicle access would be provided to International Drive. Class II bike lanes and pedestrian facilities are located along each side of International Drive.
 Crawford Drive is an existing bidirectional, two-lane private roadway located just north of the existing commercial building. Crawford Drive would provide access to the multi-family residential portion of the Residences Project.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The bicycle network in the City is composed of pathways, bike lanes, and bike routes. These bicycle facilities are classified in the Bicycle Master Plan as follows:
 Class I Pathways are off street facilities dedicated exclusively to use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and in some cases, equestrians, and other non-motorized travel such as roller skating and skateboarding.  Class II Bike Lanes delineate a portion of the street for bicyclists.  Class III Bike Routes are routes where the travel lane is shared by drivers and bicyclists. Class III routes are generally designated on roadways with low levels of motor vehicle traffic where bicycles may share the travel lane.

As of 2016, the City had 235 total miles of roadways and 17 miles of on-street bikeways and 14 miles of off-street paths (City of Rancho Cordova 2016:2-3). In the vicinity of the Residences Project site, Class II bike lanes exist on Kilgore Road and International Drive. Pedestrian facilities exist on Kilgore Road, International Drive, White Rock Road, and Zinfandel Drive. Sunrise Boulevard has pedestrian facilities present on the west side of the roadway between the U.S. 50 eastbound and westbound ramps. The Folsom South Canal bike path, a 15.5-mile Class I bicycle facility, is located east of the Residences Project site.

TRANSIT SYSTEM
Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) provides transit services in the Sacramento region. SacRT operates over 80 bus routes, 43 miles of light rail, and provides paratransit services for individuals who are American with Disabilities Act certified.

Bus routes 175, 176, and 177, also known as CordoVan, operate in the vicinity of the Residences Project site. Bus route 175 operates between the hours of approximately 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with one-hour headways. Bus route 176 operates between the hours of approximately 5:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday with one-hour headways. Bus route 177 operates between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday with 15-minute headways. Bus routes 175, 176, and 177 do not provide service on Saturday or Sunday.

Bus routes 175, 176, and 177 connect riders originating south of U.S. 50 near the Zinfandel Drive exit with the Zinfandel light-rail station. The Zinfandel light-rail station is served by the SacRT light rail Gold Line which provides service to both Sacramento and Folsom in either direction, and is approximately 1.5 miles north of the Residences Project site. The Sunrise Station and Cordova Town Center Station are both 1.6 miles north of the Residences Project site.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

REGULATORY SETTING
Senate Bill 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required OPR to develop new State CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” In December of 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (Technical Advisory) which provides guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated State CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies had an opt-in period until July 1, 2020 to implement the updated guidelines as they related to VMT. As of July 1, 2020, implementation of Section 15064.3 of the updated CEQA Guidelines is required statewide.

The OPR Technical Advisory states that lead agencies may screen out VMT using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. Many agencies use these screening thresholds to identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. These screening thresholds are identified below:
 Small Project – Projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact.
 Map-Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects – Residential and office projects located in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are currently below threshold VMT. Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps can be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.
 Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Stations – Lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.
 Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development – Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT. Further, low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace if one is available. In areas where existing jobs-housing match is closer to optimal, low-income housing nevertheless generates less VMT than market-rate housing. Therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

City of Rancho Cordova Transportation Impact Guidelines The City developed and adopted the Transportation Impact Guidelines following the passage of SB 743, which shifted the evaluation of transportation impacts from LOS to VMT. The Transportation Impact Guidelines describe the CEQA analysis for transportation impacts that shall be used in the City including the following screening criteria applicable to the Residences Project which describes project-types that can be presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact pertaining to VMT:
 Residential Located in a VMT Efficient Area: The project is a residential project located in a VMT “efficient area” (in an area with 15% or more below the base year regional average household VMT/capita) based on locationbased screening maps prepared by the City using the focused version of SACOG’s SACSIM19 regional model.  Office/Business Professional Employment Project Located in a VMT Efficient Area: The project is an office/business-professional project located in a VMT “efficient area” (15% or more below the base year city-wide ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

average VMT/employee) based on the location-based screening maps prepared by the City using its focused version of SACOG’s SACSIM19 regional model.
 Proximity to Transit: A residential, retail, and office/business professional projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses, that are located within ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit stop (or along a highquality transit corridor).  Small Project: The project is a small project defined as generating less than 237 daily unadjusted trips ends using the latest ITE trip generation rates/procedures or a project-specific trip generation analysis reviewed and accepted by the City.
 Local-Serving Retail Project: A retail (or recreational) project is local-serving if it is consistent with the land uses listed in Appendix A and has a gross floor area no more than the following:
 125,000 sq. ft., if located within the City’s Infill Area  200,000 sq. ft., if located within the City’s Growth Area A retail project may also be defined as local-serving if a market study demonstrates that it is based on the size of its market area. Adding retail square footage (even if it is less than the gross floor area listed above) to an existing “regional” retail shopping area is not screened out. Hotels and motels are not considered local serving retail.  Affordable Housing: The project is affordable based on the City’s criteria for affordable housing. Only the portion of the project that meets the City’s criteria is screened out. For example, if the project is 100 units with 10 affordable housing units, transportation VMT analysis would not be necessary for the 10 affordable units but would be necessary for the remaining 90 units (unless they meet one of the other screening criteria). For purposes of applying the small project screening criteria, the applicant would only include the trip generation for the nonaffordable housing portion of the project (since the affordable housing portion is screened out).  Mixed Use Project Screening Considerations: The project’s individual land uses should be compared to the screening criteria above. It is possible for some of the mixed-use project’s land uses to be screened out and some to require further analysis. For purposes of applying the small project screening criteria, the applicant would only include the trip generation for portions of the project that are not screened out based on other screening criteria. For example, if a project includes residential and retail, and the retail component was screened out because it is locally serving; only the trip generation of the residential portion would be used to determine if the project meets the definition of a small project (City of Rancho Cordova 2020:Table 1).

City of Rancho Cordova General Plan
The Circulation Element, updated in 2015, provides goals, policies, and actions regarding the City’s transportation network. The policies and actions within the General Plan relevant to the Residences Project are provided below:
 Policy C.2.1: Create a system of on- and off-street trails and multi-use paths, as generally illustrated on Figure C2, that are used for walking and bicycling and that are attractive, natural, and safe transportation corridors.  Policy C.2.2: Require bicycle and pedestrian connections to public transit systems at stops, stations, and terminals; carpool/vanpool park-and-ride lots; and activity centers (e.g., schools, community centers, medical facilities, senior residences, parks, employment centers, high-density residential areas, commercial centers).  Policy C.2.3: In designing development projects, design for the pedestrian first.  Action C.2.3.1: Require pedestrian circulation routes to be designed into all land plans and subdivisions to ensure that access for the pedestrian is provided. Pedestrian routes shall be interconnected and may include open spaces, parks, and trails as otherwise required by the City.  Action C.2.3.2: Require and site pedestrian crossings of major roads at key intersections and at locations that provide priority and efficiency to the pedestrian, even at the expense of improved vehicular circulation.  Action C.2.3.3: Ensure safe, efficient pedestrian connections are made between the sidewalk, parking areas, and entrances to stores, offices, and other uses as part of development design review.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

 Policy C.2.8: Promote bicycling and walking as a safe and attractive activity. Educate all road users to share the road and interact safely.
 Action C.2.8.5: Provide signage, alternative routes, etc. during construction activities affecting bikeways to ensure the safety of cyclists.
 Policy C.3.3: Promote the integration of transit facilities into new development.  Action C.3.3.1: Require new development and redevelopment to include public transit stations, especially light rail stations, and to promote pedestrian activity and connection between public transit and retail, office, and residential uses.
 Action C.3.3.2: Consistent with the Transit section of the Circulation Plan and the Transit Master Plan, require development to dedicate the necessary right-of-way needed to accommodate planned transit services.

City of Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan
The Bicycle Master Plan presents existing conditions, proposes infrastructural and programmatic improvements, and recommends funding mechanisms to increase bicycle safety and use in the City. The following policies are relevant to the Residences Project:
 Policy 1.1: Ensure all bicycle facilities, including grade separated crossings, meet the City of Rancho Cordova’s design and construction standards.
 Policy 2.2: All development projects shall be reviewed by City staff for consistency with the goals, policies and actions of the Bicycle Master Plan.
 Policy 2.2: Where construction is adjacent to Class II or Class III bikeways, require the developer or contractor to maintain a clear and clean travelway for cyclists.
 Policy 2.4: Ensure bicycle trail projects minimize environmental impacts, to the extent feasible.  Policy 3.2: All development projects shall include bicycle support facilities, to the extent feasible.  Policy 3.3: Bicycle parking shall be provided at all major employment and retail sites.  Policy 3.3: Encourage all employers to offer showers and changing facilities.  Policy 7.2: Encourage development projects that make bicycling a convenient and desirable form of transportation by providing a mix of land uses in close proximity to one another, and safe bicycle network connections and support facilities (City of Rancho Cordova 2016:A-2).

3.17.2 Discussion
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less than significant.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Residences Project would provide green space and pedestrian pathways throughout the project site connecting bicyclists and pedestrians with the Class I Folsom South Canal bike path to the east of the project site. Additionally, the Residences Project would provide off-site improvements on Kilgore Road to accommodate a pedestrian crosswalk providing access to a future pathway which would lead to Capital Village that include employment and retail uses. As required by Municipal Code Section 23.719.110 (Bicycle Parking Requirements), the Residences Project would provide bicycle parking stalls for short term use in the commercial area and secure bicycle parking stalls in the residential portion for long-term tenant use, satisfying City Bicycle Master Plan Policy 3.3. The Residences Project does not involve any additional bicycle facility improvements; however, the project would enhance the environment for pedestrians and bicyclists in the vicinity of the project and facilitate connections between visitors, residents, and ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

the regional bicycle network. The Residences project would construct a mix of residential and retail uses within the project site aligning with City Bicycle Master Plan Policy 7.2, which encourages the use of active transportation by locating different land uses within close proximity of one another and providing safe connections for people walking and bicycling in the area. Therefore, the Residences Project would not conflict with any programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Transit Service
The Residences Project is located approximately 1.6 miles from the nearest Gold Line light rail transit station along Folsom Boulevard. From the Residences Project site, visitors and residents would have access to the Gold Line light rail service via CordoVan bus routes 175 and 176 operated by SacRT. The Residences Project would encourage transit use in the area due to it being mixed-use, infill development. The Residences Project would promote pedestrian activity and connection between commercial and residential uses as described in General Plan Action C.3.3.2 and comply with the policies regarding transit service. Additionally, the Residences Project would not reconstruct or reconfigure the surrounding roadway network including the alteration of any existing transit stops. Therefore, the Residences Project would not conflict with any programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing transit service or facilities.

Summary
The Residences Project would provide an enhanced environment for pedestrians by including open space and pathways within its internal circulation design. The pathways would integrate with the existing bicycle network including the Class I Folsom South Canal bike path to the east of the Residences Project site. Additionally, the Residences Project would provide supporting bicycle facilities such as bicycle parking in the commercial area to comply with municipal code requirements and Bicycle Master Plan policies. The Residences Project would not conflict with transit facilities and all nearby bus stops would remain as is. For these reasons, the Residences Project would not conflict with the programs, plans, policies, or ordinances addressing the circulation system. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
Less than Significant. As described below, construction of the Residences Project is not expected to substantially increase regional VMT. In addition, the City has determined that the project satisfies two of the screening criteria in the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines, indicating that the project would result in less-than-significant operational VMT impacts.

Construction
The VMT of construction workers is not newly generated; instead, it is redistributed throughout the regional roadway network based on the different work sites to which workers travel to each day. Therefore, construction workers are not generating new VMT each day, only redistributing it. Additionally, even if the trips generated during construction were considered to be new trips, construction workers are expected to generate an average of 99 trips per day, assuming that construction workers would not carpool and would generate two trips per worker per day. Therefore, the number of daily construction trips generated would be fewer than the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines screening threshold for small projects (i.e., 237 trips per day) and OPR’s Technical Advisory threshold of 110 daily trips.

Further, Residences Project construction activities would be temporary and intermittent in nature occurring over 3 years; and thus, would not result in long-term increases in vehicular trips. Therefore, construction activities are not expected to substantially increase VMT in the region.

Operation
As presented above, the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines describe project-types that can be presumed to cause a less than significant VMT impact. The City has determined that the Residences Project satisfies two of the screening criteria; it would be located in a VMT-efficient area and is in proximity to transit. As detailed above, the Residences Project site would be served by CordoVan bus routes 175, 176, and 177. Bus route 177 operates on weekdays with 15-minute headways providing direct access to the Gold Line light rail service at Zinfandel Station. The City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines screen projects within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop or ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. A high-quality transit corridor is defined as “a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours” (City of Rancho Cordova 2020:8). The nearest Route 177 bus stop is located at the intersection of International Drive and Prospect Park Drive approximately 0.4 miles west of the Residences Project site’s proposed southern access point along International Drive. Moreover, an analysis performed in 2020 using location-based screening maps prepared by the City determined that the project site is in a residential area with less than significant VMT impact based on proximity to transit and VMT per capita less than 85 percent of the regional average (Lum, pers. comm. 2022). c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant. As described below, construction and operations of the Residences Project would be required to follow all local regulations related to design and safety. The Residences Project design is subject to plan review and an encroachment and traffic control permit is required for all off-site improvements. Additionally, the TIS found that the Residences Project would result in minimal turn movement and ingress/egress conflicts at the project’s access points.

Construction
Construction activities are anticipated to occur over a 3-year period beginning in August of 2022. The Residences Project applicant is required to obtain an encroachment permit for any construction activity within roadway right of way (City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Section 12.08.020) including off-site improvements, such as the proposed pedestrian crosswalk on Kilgore Road. The encroachment permit requires the submittal of a traffic control permit for review and approval by the City Public Works Department for any work requiring modification of existing traffic patterns. The traffic control permit would demonstrate appropriate traffic handling during construction activities for all work that will or may impact the traveling public and mandates that pedestrian and bicycle access must be maintained at all times (City of Rancho Cordova 2010). Therefore, the Residences Project would not substantially increase hazards during construction.

Operation
The Residences Project would include a 240-unit multi-family development, 177-units of townhomes, and a commercial-retail component with open space and pathways provided throughout the project site. Internal circulation for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be required to follow the City’s Design Guidelines: Provisions for a Quality Community. Additionally, the Residences Project would follow site design standards set forth in the City Municipal Code including those in Section 23.707.040 pertaining to pedestrian access and open space, Section

23.719.090 regarding parking design standards, and Section 23.722.050 related to on-site pedestrian pathway standards. Vehicular access would be provided via two separate gated entrances from side streets off of Kilgore Road. As identified by the TIS, minimal turn movement/access conflicts are anticipated for the analysis scenarios as both entrances are set back from Kilgore Road. Access to the Residences Project commercial component would be provided via a dedicated driveway on the northern edge of the site connecting directly to Kilgore Road. The Residences Project would provide adequate site distance at all access points. Additionally, the Residences Project plans are subject to review by the City Building & Safety Division and Public Works Department ensuring City standards including those pertaining to site accessibility and safety are met. Therefore, the Residences Project would not substantially increase hazards during operations.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant. The project site is in an urban area with an established roadway network. The surrounding roadways provide adequate circulation and access for emergency response. Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in short-term, temporary impacts to surrounding roadways from partial lane closures or the presence of construction vehicles, which may cause temporary traffic slowdown. Any impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary in nature and would be generally confined to the project site.

Furthermore, construction activities would not affect access on any major roadways that may serve as emergency evacuation routes for the region, such as U.S. 50. All construction activities would be subject to emergency access standards and requirements of SMFD to ensure traffic safety. Chapter 33 of the 2019 California Fire Code contains ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

applicable standards for fire safety during construction and demolition including required provisions for emergency access. As detailed in item c, the Residences Project is required to obtain an encroachment permit and submit a traffic control plan for work within public right of way which would demonstrate safe traffic handling during construction including maintaining adequate emergency access. Additionally, emergency access would be subject to review by the City and responsible emergency service agencies; thus, ensuring the project would be designed to meet all applicable emergency access and design standards.

The final site plan for the project would also be subject to approval by the SMFD. Three emergency vehicle access points are provided for the residential components of the Residences Project including access to International Drive and Crawford Drive. The Residences Project design is required to follow the standards and regulations set forth in the 2019 California Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 9 (2019 California Fire Code) as adopted by the City (City of Rancho Cordova Municipal Code Chapter 17.04). Appendix D of the 2019 California Fire Code provides minimum dimensions and design standards for fire apparatus roads in order to maintain adequate emergency access during operations of commercial and residential developments. For these reasons, the Residences Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

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

Has a California Native American Tribe requested
consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code
section 21080.3.1(b)?
Yes No
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe?

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
AB 52, signed by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in September 2014, established a new class of resources under CEQA:
“tribal cultural resources.” AB 52, as provided in Public Resource Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American Tribe, begin consultation once the lead agency determines that the application for the project is complete, prior to the issuance of a NOP of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.

The NAHC was contacted to request a Sacred Lands File search for known cultural resources within or near the project site. The results of the search returned by the NAHC on December 28, 2021 were positive for Native American cultural resources in the project vicinity. The NAHC provided contact information for tribal members and organizations affiliated with the region, and recommended that they be contacted for more information on the potential for Native American cultural resources within or near the project area. The following tribes were contacted on February 1, 2022, for consultation under AB 52:
 United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria  Ione Band of Miwok Indians
 Wilton Rancheria
Wilton Rancheria replied on February 15, 2022. Coordination with the tribe indicated no knowledge of tribal cultural resources that may be affected by the project, however, because the NAHC Sacred Lands File search was positive, Wilton Rancheria did request mitigation measures, discussed below. No other tribe responded and, therefore, no tribal cultural resources have been identified in the project area.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.18.2 Discussion
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a,b) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? Less than significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although consultation under AB 52 did not result in the identification of tribal cultural resources as defined by PRC Section 21074, the NAHC Sacred Lands File search was positive. Therefore, the possibility exists that tribal cultural resources could be encountered during constructionrelated ground disturbing activities. This impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 3.18-1: Retain a Native American Tribal Monitor The Applicant shall contact Wilton Rancheria at least 30 days prior to ground disturbance to retain a Native American Tribal monitor. The Tribal monitor shall be approved by the Wilton Rancheria and listed under the NAHC’s Tribal Contact list for the Project area. A minimum of seven days prior to ground disturbance, the Applicant shall notify Wilton Rancheria of the impending groundwork. Construction activities shall proceed if no response is received within 48 hours.

The Tribal monitor shall only be present onsite during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities.

The Tribal monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that describe each day’s activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The onsite monitoring shall end when the grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal representatives and monitor have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting tribal cultural resources. The Applicant shall compensate the Tribal monitor for services.

Mitigation Measure 3.18-2: Protection of Known and Unknown Archaeological Resources Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 above.

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.18-1 and 3.18-2 would reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to a lessthan-significant level by requiring the retention of a tribal monitor and, in the case of a discovery, appropriate treatment (including options for data recovery, mapping, capping, or avoidance) and proper care of significant tribal cultural resources.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is an infill property surrounded by urban development and is already within the service areas of providers for water, wastewater, electricity, solid waste, and telecommunications. Existing utility lines for water, sewer, electricity and gas, and telecommunications, and are located in a joint trench within the roadway right-of-way adjacent to the project site.

WATER
Th project site is within the approximately 12-square-mile Cordova Service Area of the Golden State Water Company (GSWC). GSWC adopted the Cordova Service Area 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP) in 2021. The UWMP assumes that development and redevelopment of the existing service area will occur as incremental infill in existing commercial areas along major thoroughfares. Growth is based on the growth rates established in SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS.

GSWC Cordova’s water supply portfolio consists of pre-1914 appropriative right from the South Fork of the American River established by the Natoma Water Company in 1851; groundwater supplies from the South American Subbasin of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin; Aerojet GET Settlement Agreement remediated water supply, treated by Carmichael Water District (CWD); and contingent replacement Aerojet supplies. Active management of this diverse ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

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 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.19.2 Discussion
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant. The project would result in the construction of 417 housing units, consisting of 240 multifamily units and 177 townhome units, supporting community facility uses, and 5,000 sq. ft. of commercial space in a vacant parcel surrounded by existing urban development. The residential land use on the vacant project site would result in demand for water, wastewater, electricity, and telecommunications facilities. Connections to main lines for water, sewage, telecommunications, and electricity exist in the right-of-way of the roadways adjacent to the project site. For example, an existing water main is located along Kilgore Road, adjacent to the west side of the project site.

Utility infrastructure improvements to the site would consist of placing pipe connections from the project site to the existing water main, sanitary sewer interceptors, and existing storm drainage features. Other improvements would include the connection of fire hydrants and related water connections, manholes to access utility lines, and water meters.

The effects of constructing on-site utility connections and stormwater drainage are included in the analysis of other ground-disturbing construction activities associated with development of the project. Impacts pertaining to grading, soils, and stormwater are addressed in Section 3.7, “Geology and Soils,” and 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” As discussed in items b) through c) below, the capacity of off-site infrastructure for utilities including water supply, sewage treatment plant capacity, and landfill capacity supporting the project site would be sufficient to accommodate the project. Impacts pertaining to energy are discussed in Section 3.6, “Energy”- the construction of new or expanded energy production facilities would not be required. New capacity for utility services including water, wastewater, electricity and gas, and solid waste disposal would not be required and, therefore, the construction of new, off-site utility infrastructure that could result in significant environmental effects would not be required. b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant. As described above, GSWC Cordova’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assumed infill development and population growth based on SACOG population projections. The Residences Project is the type of development anticipated in the plan and represents approximately 18 percent of the population growth assumed in the UWMP between 2020 and 2045.

The 2020 UWMP identified the following average Unit Demand Factors based on the 2016 to 2020 period: 3.46 AFY for multifamily connections and 3.50 AFY for commercial/industrial connections demand (GSWC 2021: 4-5). The project would construct 177 single-family townhomes and 240 multi-family apartment units with an estimated 29 total connections and a commercial component for which two connections are assumed. The estimated annual water demand would be 107.34 AFY. The water demand from the Residences Project would be approximately 13 percent of the increase in water demand anticipated during normal years between 2020 and 2045.

The 2020 UWMP estimated that, in the event of multiple-year drought conditions, the supplier would have reliable water supplies for the service area through 2045 for a projected population of 49,900. Due to conjunctive management and a Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the 2020 UWMP projects adequate supply to meet demand in all water years through 2045.

The proposed project is consistent with the type of infill development assumed in GSWC Cordova’s 2020 UWMP.

Normal water year demand is assumed in increase by 826 AFY (from 14,206 to 15, 032 AFY) between 2020 and 2045.

Based on the historic demand per connection factors used in the UWMP, the project would require 107.34 AFY of water. This is accounted for in the projected increase in water demand evaluated in the UWMP, which concludes that there is sufficient supply to serve anticipated development through 2045. Therefore, while the project would result in ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

additional demand for water, existing water supplies are estimated to be sufficient to serve the project site, even within the event of multiple dry-year conditions.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Less than Significant. The project is located within the service area of SASD, which manages the sewer system and serves much of Sacramento County, including the City of Rancho Cordova. Wastewater treatment services are provided by the SRWTP. An upgrade of the SRWTP is currently under way. The upgrade, known as the EchoWater Project, must be built by 2023 to meet new water quality requirements that were issued by the Central Valley RWQCB as part of Regional San’s 2010 NPDES permit. The requirements are designed primarily to help protect the Delta ecosystem downstream by removing most of the ammonia and nitrates and improving the removal of pathogens from wastewater discharge. The upgrade will include deployment of new treatment technologies and facilities, and will increase the quality of effluent discharged into the Sacramento River and ensure that the SRWTP discharge constituents are below permitted discharge limits specified in the NPDES permit. Flows to the SRWTP have decreased as a result of water conservation efforts over the last 10 years. Further, adequate capacity for wastewater is anticipated well into the future. Flows in 2014 were approximately 141 million gallons per day (mgd), compared to the current permitted capacity of 181 mgd. It is not anticipated that Regional San will need to consider further improvements to the SRWTP until after 2050. The SRWTP has a permitted dry weather flow design capacity of 181 mgd (Rancho Cordova 2006b: 4.12-38).

Wastewater would be conveyed off the project site using a network of collectors (up to 1 mgd flow capacity) and trunk sewers (1-10 mgd flow capacity). These sanitary sewer lines would then connect to the district’s sewer system by connecting to an existing interceptor line located along Kilgore Road that is 72 inches in diameter (RSC Engineering, 2021b), which has a flow capacity of greater than 10 mgd.

The project would construct 417 housing units and 5,000 sq.ft. (or 0.1149 acres) of commercial space. The City’s 2006 general plan identified that a single-family dwelling generated approximately 310 gallons per day of wastewater flows, called Equivalent Single-Family Dwellings, and that commercial development generated approximately 6 Equivalent Single-Family Dwelling worth of wastewater flows per acre. Using these factors, the project is estimated to generate approximately 129,500 gallons per day, which is equivalent to 0.13 mgd.

The project would collect the 0.13 mgd generated wastewater from each connection through the series of collectors and trunk sewer lines, which would flow into the existing interceptor along Kilgore Road with a flow capacity of greater than 10 mgd. The wastewater generated by the project would be 0.01 percent of a 10 mgd flow capacity.

Therefore, existing utility infrastructure, including the interceptor sewer line on Kilgore Road and the SRWTP would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the wastewater flows that the project is estimated to generate. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant. Municipal waste services to the project site are provided by WM and Republic Services, Inc.

Municipal and commercial waste generated at the site would be disposed of at the Kiefer Road Landfill. The project would generate household and commercial solid waste, including organic waste and recyclable material.

CalRecycle determined that the average disposal rate, after waste diversion efforts occur in compliance with state regulations, was 4.2 pounds per person per day (CalRecycle 2021). The project is estimated to add an additional population of 1,126 people which would produce 4,729 lbs/day or 2.4 tons per day (tpd). Since the number of employees resulting from the proposed commercial spaces are not yet determined, a per area generation rate is used.

CalRecycle (2019) provides a generation rate of 5 pounds (lbs)/1000 sq.ft./day for commercial land uses. Per this estimate, 5,000 sq.ft. of commercial space would generate approximately 25 lbs/day. The total solid waste produced from the project would be approximately 4,750 lbs/day, or approximately 2.4 tons/day. The Keifer Landfill receives approximately 6,300 tpd, and is permitted to accept up to 10,800 tpd (City of Rancho Cordova 2019: 3.14-20) and is ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

expected to accept waste until 2064. The project would not generate waste in excess of local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure and would not impair the attainment of the City’s per capita waste reduction goals. e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant. Municipal solid waste services to the project site are provided by WM and Republic Services, Inc.

Municipal and commercial waste generated at the site would be disposed of at the Kiefer Road Landfill. The project’s residential and commercial land uses would be provided with trash, recycling, and organics disposal services in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. The project would, therefore, comply with regulations including the City’s ordinances and AB 939. The Project would not fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction regulations related to solid waste.

ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1

3.20 WILDFIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire.

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

Yes No
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary
or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the project site is within a non-VHFHSZ in a local responsibility area (CAL FIRE 2008). The project site is not in an area susceptible to wildland fires and the surrounding properties are fully developed. Vegetation associated with adjacent development consists of ornamental landscaping that is regularly irrigated and maintained and is not considered a fire hazard. The topography of the project site is generally flat and there are no steep slopes within or adjacent to the project site.

As discussed in Section 3.9.1, the City adopted the SCMDP to address planned response to emergency situations.

Major roadways, such as U.S. 50, may serve as emergency evacuation routes for the region.

3.20.2 Discussion
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, no impact would occur. As discussed in Section 3.9.3(f), the project site is in an urban area with an established roadway network. The surrounding roadways provide adequate circulation and access for emergency response. Project-related construction activities have the potential to result in short-term, temporary impacts to surrounding roadways from partial lane closures or the presence of construction vehicles, which may cause temporary traffic slowdown. Any impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary in nature ITEM 21.1. ATTACHMENT 1