Sutter Creek City Council
August 26, 2024

Special City Council Meeting Agenda
Monday, August 26, 2024 at 6:00 PM
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org The City of Sutter Creek City Council Meeting will be available via Zoom and in person.

Join Zoom meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9568520224 Please note: Zoom participation is only available for viewing the Council meeting. *Public Comment will not be taken from Zoom*
Or Dial by phone: 301-715-8592 | Meeting ID: 956 852 0224 Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum for Regular Meeting

2. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

3. Public Forum
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda.

Comments may not exceed 5 minutes. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The City Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2. Public comment on any item listed below shall be limited to five minutes, unless additional time is permitted by the Mayor/Council.

4. Ordinances and Public Hearing
A. Appeal filed by Bruce Baracco, Project Planner, on behalf of the David Mabry and Frank Trujillo (owners) to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project, and do the following:
1 1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public input;

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182

3. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);

4. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1;

5. Adjournment
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday September 16, 2024. 2 TO: City Council
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2024
FROM: Erin Ventura, Planning Consultant
SUBJECT: Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Previously Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 4) 10 Lot Subdivision. Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #182/General Plan Land Use Amendment/Prezone Application Northeast corner of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive, (APN 040-030-060 and 040-232-001[Portions]) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council evaluate the appeal filed by Bruce Baracco, Project Planner, on behalf of the David Mabry and Frank Trujillo (owners) and overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project, and do the following:

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public input;

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182

3. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);

4. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1; BACKGROUND:

On July 8, 2024 the Planning Commission reviewed, held a public hearing, and ultimately voted 4-0 to deny the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map application. The decision to deny was based on Sutter Creek Municipal Code Section

17.12.100A:
“The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific, special or community plan, or the city subdivision ordinance; or” At that same meeting, the Planning Commission declined to recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, Pre Zone, and acceptance of the IS/MND.

On July 15, 2024, an appeal was filed by Bruce Baracco, Project Planner, on behalf of the property owners, David Mabry and Frank Trujillo. (Attachment 1) The appellant’s basis for appeal was that the Planning Commission failed to review the whole application package (Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Pre Zoning, and Annexation), instead only considering the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.
3 Section 4, Item A.

Attached to this staff report is the staff report that was presented at the July 15, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. The report provides background on the project, discussions, and necessary findings for approval.

The project is to be reviewed de novo by the City Council. All prior development agreements and subdivision maps have expired. The lengthy background of the project is included in the Planning Commission staff report.

If the City Council, after review of the attached materials, hearing public testimony, and findings for approval, deems that the project is consistent with the Sutter Creek Municipal Code and all findings can be met, then the following resolution can be used to conditionally approve the project.
 Resolution 2024-2025-* Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182
 Resolution 2024-2025-* General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);
 Resolution 2024-2025-* pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1; During your hearing tonight, each Council member should identify any meetings they have had with the applicants or other parties, and any information they received. Council should review the materials here and background on the project.

Issues Brought Up in Prior Meetings:

During the two planning commission meetings, members of the public raised various issues.

This is not an exhaustive list.

1. Sidewalk or walkway to town - A sidewalk on Gopher Flat Road was not part of the expired development agreement. A walking path Into town may be part of a future Paneer Creek project

2. Trees - Trees In past phases were removed and then were to be replaced by builders of Individual houses. There are no trees being removed as part of Broadmeadows. Each home is to plant one tree when constructed by a builder

3. Traffic - State law has changed and the CEQA threshold is now based on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Adding ten homes here will not impact VMT.

4. School Impacts - School Impact fees are set by state law and determined by the school district and not the city. City staff does not anticipate that these ten homes will have a material impact on the school district

5. Parks - while the past development plan has expired, there was never a park anticipated as part of the development agreement for these 10 homes. Rightly or wrongly, the city agreed to put may of the public benefits into the phase now known as Paneer Creek.

In any motion that council makes, whether to approve or deny the project, Staff asks that the motion clearly state whether council can make the required findings and if not, what finding they cannot make and the reason behind it.

Attachments:

1. Appeal filed on July 15, 2024 by Bruce Baracco

2. Staff Report from the July 8, 2024 Planning Commission meeting

3. Resolution 2024-2025-* Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approve Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182

4. Resolution 2024-2025-* General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);

5. Resolution 2024-2025-* pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1; 4 Section 4, Item A.
5 Section 4, Item A.
6 Section 4, Item A.

TO: Planning Commission
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2024
FROM: Erin Ventura, Contract Planner
SUBJECT: Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Previously Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 4) 10 Lot Subdivision. Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map #182/General Plan Land Use Amendment/Prezone Application Northeast corner of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive, (APN 040-030-060 and 040-232-001[Portions]) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following;

1. Conduct a public hearing to receive public input;

2. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* recommending the City Council Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182

3. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* recommending to the City Council a General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);

4. Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* recommending to the City Council pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1;
BACKGROUND:

This item was continued from the June 10, 2024 regular meeting of the Planning Commission.

The Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision was previously Unit 4 of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision. The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) and Subdivision agreement for the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision, was previously approved in 2002 and has since expired. This project is the other side of an existing street with established single family homes.

Approximately five years ago, the applicant previewed this project and a neighboring project, Paneer Creek, with city staff. It was the staff’s opinion that both projects together would require an environmental impact report. Based on that feedback, the applicant decided to focus on Broadmeadows, 10 single family homes on an existing street. Attached to this report is a Staff Report which was presented to the Planning Commission on June 13, 2022. At the 6/13/22 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission voted to deny the applicants appeal of the staff determination that the application was incomplete. The reason this report is being provided at this time is to provide additional background information. (Attachment June 13, 2022 PC Staff Report)
Also attached to this report is a letter from the developer, Stan Gable.

The Broadmeadows Estates Project is partially located within the City of Sutter Creek and substantially located outside the City limit at the northeast corner of Golden Hills Drive and 7 Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Drive, as shown on the location map, Figure 1. It will require annexation through LAFCO,. There are no flood zones on the site.

Property owners David Mabry and Frank Trujillo, through their representative Bruce Baracco, prepared an application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a portion of parcel 040-232-001 (0.67 acre), located within the City limit and a portion of parcel 040-030-06 (2.19 acres), located outside the City limit into ten parcels (Project) (See Figure 3); • Parcel 1 – 0.23 acre (10,000 square feet)
• Parcel 2 – 0.34 acre (14,676 square feet)
• Parcel 3 – 0.33 acre (14,353 square feet)
• Parcel 4 – 0.33 acre (14,554 square feet)
• Parcel 5 – 0.24 acre (10,443 square feet)
• Parcel 6 – 0.22 acre (9,511square feet)
• Parcel 7 – 0.25 acre (10,920 square feet)
• Parcel 8 – 0.24 acre (10,288 square feet)
• Parcel 9 – 0.29 acre (12,473 square feet)
• Parcel 10 – 0.41 acre (17,669 square feet)
The portion of parcel 040-232-001 located in the City limit is designated as RSF and zoned R1. The portion of the project outside the City limit on parcel 040-030-060 is designated RL on the Sutter Creek Land Use Diagram, R-S on the County land use map, and zoned R1A. The applicant seeks to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to designate the area currently located outside the City limit as RSF, and pre-zone the portion of the project outside the City limit as R-1, making it consistent with the existing homes on Broadmeadow Drive.

Figure 1. Location
Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision TPM #182
Location South of Gopher Flat Road and east of Golden Hills Drive adjacent to Golden Hills Estates Unit 2 (See Figures 1 and 2)
Acres 2.86
Parcels APN 040-232-01: 0.67 acres within the existing City Limits

2.19 acres from APN: 040-030-06: 2.19 acres outside the City Limits Proposed Units 10 (See Figure 3)
General Plan Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 within City limits: RSF Residential Single Family Portions of Lots 1 through 10, within the County: RL Residential Low Density
Broadmeadows
Estates
8 Section 4, Item A.

Portions outside City limit require annexation and General Plan land use designation change from RL to RSF.

Zoning Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 within City limits: R-1
Portions of lots 1 through 10, within the County: RE
Portions outside City limit require annexation and rezone from RE to R-1.

Existing Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive improved with curb and gutter, storm drainage, water, sewer, communications and energy utilities.

Lots 5-10 are rough graded.

Proposed • 10 lots: 9,511 square feet to 17,669 square feet in size • Four-foot sidewalk, one streetlight at the end of the cul-de-sac, storm manholes, and a 12-inch diameter storm drainage line along the north side of Broadmeadows Drive.
• Removal of concrete blocks and debris on Lots 5 and 6. • Remove and cap the existing well and pump on Lot 5 under permit from the Amador County Environmental Health Department.
• Remove the existing soil mound within Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the boulders on Lot 2.
• Removal of one 30-inch Blue oak tree on Lot 5 and replace with one new Blue oak tree on each lot (10 total) at the completion of construction on each lot.
• The 15-foot public utility easement (PUE) on the north side of Broadmeadows Drive is reserved for the new drainage line and any additional underground utilities should they be required in the future. • CFD Formation to maintain the storm drain system (See drainage improvements)
Drainage
Improvements
The developer is proposing to modify the existing drainage improvements and construct new drainage improvements.

Figure 2. Street view of Broadmeadows Estates at Golden Hills and Broadmeadows Drives HISTORY:

The original application for the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision encompassed approximately 55 acres located between Gopher Flat Road on the north and Sutter Creek Road on the south, approximately 0.9 miles east of State Route 49, was received by the City approximately 20 years ago.
9 Section 4, Item A.

The tentative subdivision map for units 1, 2, and 3 allowed a maximum of 79 single-family residential lots. Unit 1 was approved with 5 single-family residential lots, Unit 2 was approved with 31 single-family residential lots, both of which were built.

Unit 3 included the remaining 39 single-family residential lots and is now called Panner Creek Estates. The subdivision map for Unit 3 has expired and that project has been put on hold as of now.

This project is what was Unit 4 of the original Golden Hills Estates Subdivision (Broadmeadows Estates), located at the northwest corner the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive on assessor parcel APN 040-030-060, proposed 10 single-family residential lots and one remainder lot zoned Residential Low Density (Planned Development), with a portion the Unit within the County and requiring annexation.

DISCUSSION:

General Plan and Zoning Compliance
The application proposes an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation from RL – Residential Low Density to RSF- Residential Singe Family. Staff believes this is acceptable as the other units in the Golden Hills Subdivision are designated RSF.

Existing Land Use Map and City Boundary Proposed Land Use Map and City Boundary 10 Section 4, Item A.

As part of the application process the applicants are requesting annexation into the City. Per the Government Code, land once annexed cannot modify zoning for two years. The applicant is requesting the City pre-zone the area of the project outside the City Limits, prior to annexation.

They are requesting a pre-zone R-1 which is consistent with the proposed development and the surrounding uses. The minimum parcel or lot size is 7,000 square feet (0.16 acre) for lots within the R-1 zoning. The proposed lots of the subdivision exceed the minimum lot size. The applicants are not asking for any deviation from the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes this is reasonable.

Existing Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Map
11 Section 4, Item A.
12 Section 4, Item A.

Annexation
A portion of this project currently is located outside of the City Limits. The applicant is requesting that 2.19 acres (a portion of APN040-030-06) be annexed into the City. The annexation process is handled through LAFCO and must be initiated by the applicant. Once LAFCO has completed their process, the annexation will come back to the City Council for review and approval. 13 Section 4, Item A.

Subdivision Code Compliance
The Planning Commission has approval authority of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Per the Sutter Creek Municipal Code 17.12.100, the Planning Commission shall determine where the tentative map is in conformity with the General Plan, with the proper standards for lot and street design, with the improvement standards of the City, and with all provisions of the Subdivision Code.

Approval of a tentative or final map shall be approved unless one or more of the following findings are made:

A. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific, special or community plan, or the city subdivision ordinance; or B. The subject property is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; or C. The design of the proposed subdivision or its proposed improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; or
D. The design of the proposed subdivision or its improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife in their habitat; or
E. The design of the proposed subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The local agency may approve a map if it finds that alternative easements for access or for use will be substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record, or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; or F. The discharge of liquid or solid waste into a sewer or individual sewage disposal system would result in violation or add to a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the local health officer or the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; or G. The proposed subdivision does not provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities for the proposed new parcels. "Feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.

Once a map has been approved it is valid for twenty- four months. The applicant will have an opportunity to apply for an extension of time if needed.

Staff believes that the proposed subdivision, Broadmeadows Estates Map No. 182 (Figure 3), with conditions, meets all the findings of the Subdivision Ordinance and recommends approval. 14 Section 4, Item A.

Figure 3: Broadmeadows Estates TPM #182
15 Section 4, Item A.

ENVIRONMENTAL:

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and circulated as part of the review of this project. The MND was circulated for 30 days, starting October 23, 2023.

The required Mitigation Measures are as follows:

Mitigation Measure BM 3-1: The Applicant shall implement dust control measures as delineated in Amador Air District Rule 218.

Mitigation Measure BM 5-2: Should unknown buried resources or human remains become inadvertently uncovered during grading or other
earth disturbing activities, construction is required to stop within 50 feet of the find and the City of Sutter Creek is to be notified.

Mitigation Measure BM 5-3: If human remains are uncovered, the Amador County Coroner will be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section
7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the
remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) shall be followed.

Mitigation Measure BM 7-4: Erosion control measures shall be in place by September 15th and include the following:
 Seed bare soils and cover with 2 to 4-inches of straw;  Place straw rolls (waddles) at the bottom of slopes and around drainage devices; and
 Protect storm drainage inlets with gravel bags.

Mitigation Measure BM 10-5: The Applicant shall obtain a NPDES Construction General Permit, as well as development and implementation of a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program prior to
beginning any stormwater-related construction activity.

Mitigation Measure BM 19-6 After approval of the Broadmeadows Tentative Subdivision Map by the Planning Commission, the Applicant shall apply to the Amador Water Agency for a ‘Will Serve’ Letter for 10 EDU’s.

Mitigation Measure BM 20-7: All Broadmeadows Estates property owners shall receive a copy of the City Emergency Evacuation Plan.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration can be found as an exhibit to Planning Commission Resolution 2024-2025-* recommending the City Council Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182 16 Section 4, Item A.

Tribal Consult
Local Tribes were consulted as part of the review of this project. Letters were sent in October 2023 to five local Tribes. No requests for additional consultations were received. It is the City’s practice to keep Tribes informed of development and addition Mitigation Measures (BM 5-2 and BM 5-3) have been incorporated to ensure all Cultural Resources are preserved accordingly.

REFERRALS:

The application package was referred to City staff and affected agencies for review. Comments received back from the affected agencies have been addressed and/or incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.

NEXT STEPS:

This is a multistep, multi approval application. The Planning Commission is the approving authority for the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map. Once all conditions of the Subdivision Map have been met, the City Council shall review and accept the Final Map (SCMC 17.20.050).

The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the following actions:

1. Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision

2. General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);

3. Pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1
Once the Planning Commission has made their recommendations to the City Council, the City Council shall consider the following:

1. Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision

2. General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF);

3. Pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1
Then the applicant is responsible for initiating annexation through LAFCO.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
- Conduct a public hearing to receive public input;
- Adopt Resolution 2024-2025-* recommending the City Council Certify the Initial Study/Mitigation Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (Project) and approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 182 with the following conditions:

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP # 182 FOR THE

BROADMEADOWS ESTATES SUBDIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. Upon approval of the Planning Commission, a Subdivision Map for not more than 10 residential lots shall be prepared and processed in accordance with City Code Chapter

17.22 “Subdivision Maps.” No phasing will be allowed.

2. The Subdivider shall meet all the requirements of the City Code unless otherwise 17 Section 4, Item A.
specifically superseded by these Conditions of Approval.

3. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is valid for an initial period of 24-months from the date of approval, with extension requests filed prior to the expiration of the map. The final map shall be filed with the Amador County recorder within twenty-four (24) months of planning commission approval of the Tentative Map.

4. The ordinance requirements of the Amador Fire Protection District shall be met by participation in the annexation to the County’s Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 for fire protection services.

5. All improvements shall be completed prior to recording of the Final Map, unless a Subdivision Improvement Agreement is executed in accordance with City Code. All Improvements shall be made to City Improvement Standards.

6. Any structural development on the parcels shall comply with the CBC and Title 24 regulations, as well as demonstrate defensible space.

7. All easements of record shall be noted on the Subdivision Map.

8. Prior to submittal of the final map, the Subdivider shall provide the City a copy of any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) which shall be applicable to the subdivision.

9. Prior to recordation of the final map, the project limits shall be annex into the County of Amador Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 to fund additional costs associated with fire protection services for subdivision development in accordance with City of Sutter Creek Resolutions.

10. Prior to recordation of the final map, subdivider shall form a Community Facilities District (CFD), or other financing district or will provide a similar funding mechanism acceptable to the City of Sutter Creek to fund subdivisions fair share of ongoing maintenance ongoing for: concrete drainage swales, and storm drain inlet biofilters, to be replaced as needed. CFD can be simple to minimize costs of formation.

11. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall annex into the City limits.

12. Prior to recordation of the final map, all City fees associated with the development shall be paid in full. City fees shall be those in effect at the time building permits are issued.

WATER AND SEWER:

13. Subdivider shall meet requirements of the City Sewer Standards and Title 14 of the City Code and provide verification each proposed parcel has adequate wastewater collection facilities constructed in accordance with City Standards. Applicant shall provide the City with CCTV video and reports for the condition for any of the existing laterals and sewer main connections.

14. Applicant shall provide City a copy of “will serve letter” and certification that water services to the 10 lots have been installed to AWA standards.

15. Fire hydrant locations shall be adequate to serve subdivision and placed at locations approved by the Sutter Creek Fire District.
18 Section 4, Item A.

16. The ability to serve sanitary sewer service to the development will expire with the Approved Tentative Subdivision Map or failure to get the Tentative Subdivision Map approved.

MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:

17. Sidewalk shall be constructed to City Standards along frontage of all lots.

18. All sidewalks, sanitary sewer, storm drain work within street right of ways shall be completed in accordance with the improvement plans prepared, reviewed and approved in accordance City Improvement Standards. A drainage study shall also be completed in accordance with the City Improvement Standards and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, prior to any improvements are constructed. Plans shall reference applicable provisions of the mitigation measures BM 3-1, 5-2, 5-3, 7-4, and 10-5.

19. Limits of Broadmeadows Drive’s existing paved surface shall be resurfaced with a Type II slurry seal as approved by City Engineer.

20. Those Mitigation Measures contained within the Broadmeadows Estates Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be implemented during the building permit/construction phase. (See Mitigation Measures on the previous pages) - Adopt Resolution 2023-2024-* recommending to the City Council a General Plan Amendment from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF); - Adopt Resolution 2023-2024-* recommending to the City Council pre-zone the parcels outside the City limits to R-1;
19 Section 4, Item A.

RE: Broadmeadow Estates
Dear Mr. Dubois,
I observed via Zoom the Planning Commission meeting of 6/10 and as The Developer of Golden Hills Estates, Units 1,2,3, & 4, I wish to put the record straight on the actual facts.

1. Trafalgar Inc. was never bankrupt.

2. Trafalgar Inc obtained Tentative Map for 79 lot single family lots in three phases, units 1, 2, 3. Subsequently, Unit 4, which is BroadMeadows Tentative Map, was obtained later. The Tentative Map for units 3 and 4 expired.

3. Unit 1 – 5 single family lots on Ridgecrest – was sold. Unit 2, compromising 31 single family lots was constructed with all the street improvements installed as per the Approved Drawings and the Conditions of Approval, this work was accepted by the City Engineer, Mr. Webber, as completed to his satisfaction.

Work commenced on the building of 14 homes, during this period 2006-2007, the property market tanked and Wells Fargo Bank, the construction lender, called the loan to be repaid. As we were more or less half way through the project, this was not financially possible and the bank foreclosed, even though I offered to pay net proceeds of any sale of the homes & lots. Wells Fargo refused and then proceeded to employ a different contractor to do exactly what I suggested. Wells Fargo are now the property owner of Unit 2, and subsequently the developer.

Any conditions of approval that had been not completed is now their responsibility, not mine, namely the creation of a CFD.

4. All fees have been paid to the City. The $8,000+ park fee is paid at building permit stage, and this came into effect after the building permits had been obtained for the 14 homes. I repeat, no fees are owed to the City, or any other government agency.

5. Regarding unit 3 [now Panner Creek Estates] the grading permit was obtained for the rough grading of the road, which obviously required the removal of numerous trees. Again, this was done with the approval of the City Engineer.

Unit 3 Tentative Map included a park/open space in lieu of park fees for the whole project, plus the road crossing of the creek. This Map expired and a new application, now named Panner Creek Estates, was reapplied. All though the drawings & reports were completed for Panner Creek, and fees paid to the City, the previous City Manager, Ms. Gedney, would not allow the application to proceed until Broadmeadows was approved first.
20 Section 4, Item A.

6. I wish to clarify public comments regarding traffic and fire hazard. When Golden Hills Estates, units 1, 2, 3, & 4, was approved, the 49 bypass had not been built, therefore the impact on Main St. is now substantially less today. Regarding vegetation, we recently met with the Fire Marshall Dominic Moreno, and the permitter of the 35 acres, which is Panner Creek Estates, was cleared to his satisfaction.

7. All reports Will Serve letters have been obtained and completed in accordance with CEQA and to the satisfaction of the City Staff, otherwise Staff would not have recommended approval of the 10 lot Broadmeadows subdivision.

I hope this clarifies the situation so that Broadmeadows can be approved and the City will allow the 38 lot Panner Creek Estates Tentative Map to move forward all in accordance with State Law and the City General Plan & zoning requirements.

Thank you,
Stan Gamble.
21 Section 4, Item A.

TO: Planning Commission
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2022
FROM: Christy Consolini, Planning Consultant
SUBJECT: Tentative Map/Annexation/Rezone/Variance Application, Broadmeadows Estates, (Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 4), Northeast corner of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive, David Mabrey and Frank Trujillo (APN 040- 030-060 and 040-232-001[Portions])
RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Commission review the vesting tentative subdivision map, annexation, rezone, and variance application, find that the application is incomplete because the Initial Study/Negative Declaration is incomplete, and deny the appeal.

Staff recommends the applicant submit the previously requested and required data to ensure an adequate and complete CEQA document, appropriate maps, and sufficient data to make an informed decision as findings in relation to public welfare, safety, and compliance with the General Plan and Code cannot be made. Alternatively, the applicant could withdraw the Panner Creek Subdivision application, allowing Broadmeadows Estates to be processed independently, and resubmit Panner Creek Estates when adequate hydrologic impact analysis and storm drain systems are proposed.

BACKGROUND:

Two units of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision are currently proposed by Trafalgar Homes: the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision, which was Unit 4 of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision, and Panner Creek Estates Subdivision, which was Unit 3 of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision (Figure 1).

The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) and Subdivision agreement for the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision, approved in 2002, has since expired and the two subdivision proposals are treated as new projects. Since they were part of the same previously analyzed Golden Hills Estates subdivision, and are being proposed concurrently, the CEQA documentation must address both projects to avoid “piecemealing” and the potential to report impacts inaccurately if analyzed separately.

The Broadmeadows Estates Project is partially located partially within the City of Sutter Creek and substantially located outside the City limit at the northeast corner of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive, as shown on the location map, Figure 1. There are no flood zones on the site, but steep slopes are cited for needing a 20-foot front setback variance, rather than a 25-foot front setback on lots 4 through 10, rather than the required 25’ setback. The applicant indicates that a 20-foot setback variance was allowed for the existing residential units on the south side of Broadmeadows Drive. This variance is requested because of the limited pad depth on the sites due to required rear slopes Property owners David Mabry and Frank Trujillo, and subdivider Stan Gamble of Trafalgar Homes, through their representative Bruce Baracco, prepared an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a portion of parcel 040-232-001 (0.67 acre), located within the City limit and a portion of parcel 040-030- 06 (2.19 acres), located outside the City limit into ten parcels (Project) (See Figure 3);  Parcel 1 – 0.23 acre (10,000 square feet)
 Parcel 2 – 0.34 acre (14,676 square feet)
 Parcel 3 – 0.33 acre (14,353 square feet)
 Parcel 4 – 0.33 acre (14,554 square feet)
 Parcel 5 – 0.24 acre (10,443 square feet)
 Parcel 6 – 0.22 acre (9,511square feet)
 Parcel 7 – 0.25 acre (10,920 square feet)
 Parcel 8 – 0.24 acre (10,288 square feet)
 Parcel 9 – 0.29 acre (12,473 square feet)
 Parcel 10 – 0.41 acre (17,669 square feet)
The portion of parcel 040-232-001 located in the City limit is designated as RSF and zoned R-1. The portion of the project outside the City limit on parcel 040-030-060 is designated RL on the Sutter Creek Agenda Item #
22 Section 4, Item A.

Land Use Diagram, R-S on the County land use map, and zoned R1A. The applicant seeks to amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to designate the area currently located outside the City limit as RSF, and prezone the portion of the project outside the City limit as R-1. Through the appeal (Exhibit A), the applicant seeks to separate the Broadmeadows Estates application from the Panner Creek Estates application, which are required to be analyzed together under CEQA.

Figure 1. Location
Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision TPM #182
Location South of Gopher Flat Road and east of Golden Hills Drive adjacent to Golden Hills Estates Unit 2 (See Figures 1 and 2)
Acres 2.86
Parcels APN 040-232-01: 0.67 acres within the existing City Limits

2.19 acres from APN: 040-030-06: 2.19 acres outside the City Limits Proposed Units 10 (See Figure 3)
General Plan Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 within City limits: RSF Residential Single Family Portions of Lots 1 through 10, within the County: RL Residential Low Density Portions outside City limit require annexation and General Plan land use designation change from RL to RSF.

Zoning Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 within City limits: R-1
Portions of lots 1 through 10, within the County: RE
Portions outside City limit require annexation and rezone from RE to R-1.

Existing Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive improved with curb and gutter, storm drainage, water, sewer, communications and energy utilities. Lots 5-10 are rough graded.

Proposed  10 lots: 9,311 square feet to 17,589 square feet in size  Four-foot sidewalk, one streetlight at the end of the cul-de-sac, two storm manholes, and a 12-inch diameter storm drainage line along the north side of Broadmeadows Drive.
 Removal of concrete blocks and debris on Lots 5 and 6.  Remove and cap the existing well and pump on Lot 5 under permit from the Amador County Environmental Health Department.
 Remove the existing soil mound within Lots 2, 3, and 4 and the boulders on Lot 2.
 Removal of one 30-inch Blue oak tree on Lot 5 and replace with one new Blue oak tree on each lot (10 total) at the completion of construction on each lot.

Broadmeadows
Estates
Panner Creek
Estates
23 Section 4, Item A.
 The 15-foot public utility easement (PUE) on the north side of Broadmeadows Drive is reserved for the new drainage line and any additional underground utilities should they be required in the future.
 CFD Formation
Drainage
Improvements
New drainage line will connect to the existing drop inlet between Lots 7 and 8 and then connect to the existing storm drainage system that was constructed as part of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2. The existing drainage pipe that extends from the drop inlet between Lots 7 and 8 and drains north to the Mabry Parcel will be removed. The existing drop inlets along Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive (six inlets total) will be modified to capture sediment/oil/grease by installing Triton Bioflex Trash Guard inlet filters in each drop inlet. the existing 12-inch diameter drain line that crosses Golden Hills Drive at its intersection with Broadmeadows Drive will need to be upgraded to an 18-inch diameter line.

Figure 2. Street view of Broadmeadows Estates at Golden Hills and Broadmeadows Drives 24 Section 4, Item A.

Figure 3: Broadmeadows Estates TPM #182
HISTORY:

An application for the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision encompassed approximately 55 acres located between Gopher Flat Road on the north and Sutter Creek Road on the south, approximately 0.9 miles east of State Route 49 was received by the City approximately 20 years ago. The Project included five assessor parcels APNs 40-030-018 and 072, 40-080-012 and 013, and 40-190- 022. APN 40-190-022 was referenced in the subdivision improvement agreement and Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration. This 25 Section 4, Item A.

APN was not referenced in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Resolution approving the tentative Subdivision Map in 2002.

The tentative subdivision map units 1, 2, and 3 allowed a maximum of 79 single-family residential lots.

Unit 1 was approved with 5 single-family residential lots, Unit 2 was approved with 31 single-family residential lots, and Unit 3 included the remaining 39 single-family residential lots (Panner Creek Estates). Unit 4 of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision (Broadmeadows Estates), located at the northwest corner the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive on assessor parcel APN 040-030- 060, proposed 10 single-family residential lots and one remainder lot zoned Residential Low Density (Planned Development), with a portion the Unit within the County and requiring annexation.

City Actions on the Golden Hills Subdivision are provided in Exhibit B. As shown in the Exhibit B memo from Anders Hauge to the City dated 2013, approvals for Units 1, 2, and 3 occurred in 2002, with lots in Units 1 (five lots on Ridgecrest Ct.) and 2 sold and mostly built out. Unit 3 was not improved and the Tentative Subdivision Map and subdivision agreement since expired in 2007. In addition, Quimby Act parkland dedication/payment of in-lieu fees was assigned to Unit 3 in the 2004 Improvement Agreement and no dedication or fee payment occurred for Unit 1 (2004) or Unit 2 (2005). Although the Unit 4 Tentative Subdivision Map was approved in 2008, it has subsequently expired, along with the subdivision agreement. Therefore Units 1 and 2 are complete, and Units 3 and 4 expired, but with the need to fulfill the commitments pertaining to Units 1 and 2 that were never completed.

The outstanding issues from the subdivision agreement, as noted in Exhibit B, include:
 Dedication of parkland (Condition 5);
 Construction of a roadway and flood-safe bridge crossing of Sutter Creek (Conditions 11a and 19);
 Installation of permanent grease and sediment traps at runoff points (Condition 23) to which the City engineer indicated is not standard procedure for residential subdivisions, but that City Standards had been incorporated;
 Off-site stormwater diversion improvements (Condition 28) which are addressed through the Broadmeadows Estates application, although through different means than originally proposed;  Oak tree compensation (Conditions 40 and 41) to be accomplished through each building permit; and
 Mine area assessment and mitigation (Conditions 45 through 48) for Unit 3, although assessments have been completed and the remaining tasks are to safely remove any further mining footings and structural remnants.

The City regulations require the dedication of parkland or in-lieu of fees for each new final subdivision map and require the payment of ACRA fees for each new residential building permit. Based on the City Manager’s understanding in 2011 that the offered Phase 3 parkland dedication satisfied the ACRA fees for Phases 1, 2, and 3 on April 4, 2011 Sean Rabe sent a memo to Paul Frank, stating the ACRA fees would not be collected for Units 1 and 2. The ACRA fees in Chapter 7.90 are required to be collected with the issuance of residential building permits in Golden Hills Estates Units 1 and 2 and any future subdivision of Units 3 and 4.

Due to expirations and lack of fulfilling previously established conditions, Units 3 (Panner Creek Estates) and 4 (Broadmeadows Estates) are considered new projects that require a tentative map, environmental documentation, and development agreements. The Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision TPM application was originally submitted in 2017 and the Panner Creek Subdivision TPM application was originally submitted in 2019.

In addition, there are no sewer capacity reserves to serve these units due to the age of agreements/expirations and the subsequent commitment of capacity elsewhere. The previous Planning Commission approval of the now expired Golden Hills Unit 4, included additional conditions to the original Golden Hills Subdivision approval and subdivision agreement that also need to be addressed.

Unit 4, and likewise Unit 3, need to be annexed into a community facilities district (CFD) to fund 26 Section 4, Item A.
additional public service costs, such as fire protection. Unit 4 was also required to form or annex into a CFD, street maintenance assessment district, other financing district or provide similar funding mechanism which is acceptable to the City to fund the project’s fair share of ongoing roadway maintenance. This would also be applicable to Unit 3. Finally, Unit 4 is required to provide garage entrances no closer than 20’ from the back of the sidewalk or 25’ from the back of the curb.

The Golden Hills Estates Subdivision, that encompasses the proposed Broadmeadows Estates and Panner Creek Estates Subdivisions, was approved in 2002. A CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared June 25, 2002, for the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision, and a Draft IS/MND was prepared in 2021 for the Panner Creek Estates and Broadmeadows Estates Subdivisions, both of which identified various mitigation measures. Exhibit C compares those measures where they align and provides a discussion of those measures.

On March 26, 2019, an appeal on the March 5, 2019 staff determinations on Broadmeadows Estates was submitted by Trafalgar Homes. On April 9, a response to the appeal was sent to Bruce Baracco, Project Representative, indicating that the appeal would not be brought forward to the Planning Commission until the application items not subject to appeal are provided. Since the items in the completeness checklist provided to the applicant had not been provided, the appeal was not ready to be acted upon by the Planning Commission.

The City responded that there were a number of items noted in the checklist the City had provided that require attention and are not listed in the appeal. Thus, before an appeal can be taken, the following items must be addressed for a complete application submittal for review by the Planning Commission. These items included clarifications on the map as items were contradictory or undistinguishable; grading and drainage; the variance; and the CEQA Initial Study, which failed to include the updated CEQA checklist requirements
From April 2019 to April 2022, the applicant provided revisions to address these concerns; however, since the CEQA IS/MND is tied to the Panner Creek Estates Subdivision project under the definition of a project under CEQA (Section 15378). A Project is “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” The broad, “whole of an action” definition is intended to provide the maximum protection of the environment. CEQA defines piecemealing or segmenting as dividing a project into multiple pieces and analyzing them separately. CEQA explicitly forbids this because it allows a lead agency to minimize the environmental impacts by evaluating portions of a project on a smaller scale, which is more likely. To result in a less-than-significant impact, rather than disclose a significant impact that may occur when the “pieces” are analyzed together. Piecemealing can also hinder the development of comprehensive mitigation strategies. Broadmeadows Estates and Panner Creek Estates are two phases of a larger project that was partially implemented. CEQA case law finds that phased projects must evaluate future phases even if they are not fully planned out (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of University Of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d. 376.).

On April 14, 2022, a subsequent appeal (Exhibit A) was submitted by Bruce Baracco on behalf of Frank Trujillo and David Mabrey, requesting the Planning Commission determine that the Broadmeadows Estates Application can be processed as a separate project; and that there be included with the Application, a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Broadmeadows Estates only. The appeal indicates there are no significant environmental issues associated with the Broadmeadows Estate project and that environmental concerns have been addressed through project design and technical studies. A response to that letter was sent on April 26, 2022 indicating the appeal would be brought forward to the Planning Commission on June 13, 2022 (Exhibit A).

DISCUSSION:

As shown in Figure 1, the Broadmeadows Estates 10-unit Subdivision and Panner Creek Estates 38-unit Subdivision are separate areas within the same Golden Hills Estates Subdivision Area. As such, they are linked to proximity, ownership, and connection as Units 3 and 4 of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision and should be treated as one project under CEQA as applications for each subdivision area are concurrently under review. City staff, in compliance with CEQA, has requested that an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration be prepared to address both subdivisions. The applicant has provided a draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration; however, the document fails to provide adequate detail regarding drainage and flooding for the Panner Creek Subdivision to support a finding of less-than-significant impact with or without mitigation, which would then require preparation of an EIR due to potentially significant and potentially unmitigable impacts. Due to this lack of information, 27 Section 4, Item A.
including flood elevation data or studies analyzing the hazard risk of placing a series of culverts within Sutter Creek to bridge the waterway, findings to support the project cannot be made. Furthermore, onsite drainage management has not been adequately addressed to ensure pre-construction runoff rates and volumes are maintained in a manner that is feasible for City inspection and maintenance, despite numerous requests and City engineering staff direction for the applicant and their engineer.

Review of the materials provided for Broadmeadows Estates, including the portion of the IS/MND addressing Broadmeadows indicates a complete application and analysis. However, since Broadmeadows Estates application is tied to the Panner Creek Estates application due to its proximity, history, and ownership, the two projects need to be addressed together as one action under CEQA analysis.

Alternatively, they could be separated, and Broadmeadows Estates processed individually if the applicant withdraws the Panner Creek Estates application. If they are separate without a withdrawal, the CEQA documents would be considered piecemealed under CEQA. The applicant has been notified of this option but has chosen to continue to pursue the two applications concurrently. Each application can be processed separately, but the CEQA document cannot be separated as long as both applications are concurrently pursued. Therefore, until the CEQA document is adequately completed, or unless Panner Creek Estates is withdrawn, the Broadmeadows Estates application cannot move forward.

Staff recommends the denial of the appeal and completion of the requested data and documentation. It is not in the City’s interest to accept and adopt an incomplete CEQA document. Doing so may subject the City to legal action.

REFERRALS:

Due to incomplete applications, no recent referrals have occurred for these two subdivision applications.

City planning and engineering staff have worked with the applicant, including City sewer, however, no referrals will be circulated until the applications and IS/MND are complete. * * * *
28 Section 4, Item A.

EXHIBIT A

APPEAL LETTER AND CITY RESPONSE
29 Section 4, Item A.
30 Section 4, Item A.
31 Section 4, Item A.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer April 26, 2022
Mr. Bruce Baracco:

Sent via email
Dear Bruce;
This letter confirms that the City has received your appeal dated April 14, 2022 concerning City Staff's completeness determination concerning the Broadmeadows application. The Planning Commission will consider your appeal at its meeting on June 13, 2022. Staff will include a copy of your appeal letter as part of the record of material that will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. If you would like to submit any additional written material to be included in the agenda packet the Commission receives, we will need to receive that by May 27th, 2022. Any written material you provide after that date will be forwarded for distribution at the time of the meeting.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions about the processing of your appeal.

Regards,
Amy Gedney
City Manager
32 Section 4, Item A.

EXHIBIT B
JULY 10, 2013 MEMO REGARDING GOLDEN HILLS ESTATES SUBDIVISION

HISTORY, STATUS AND FUTURE ACTIONS
33 Section 4, Item A.
34 Section 4, Item A.
35 Section 4, Item A.
36 Section 4, Item A.

EXHIBIT C
2002 GOLDEN HILLS ESTATES IS/MND AND DRAFT 2021 BROADMEADOWS ESTATES (BM) AND PANNER CREEK ESTATES (PC) IS/MND MITIGATION MEASURES 2002 IS/MND 2021 IS/MND Discussion

1. The 100-year flood zone shall
be delineated on the Final
Subdivision Map along with a
notation that no structures are
allowed within the floodplain.

None FEMA mapping provided, but
no flood elevation established or
study of the changes to the flood
zone that may occur by adding a
new obstruction and higher
discharge rates. This is a
requirement of the Subdivision
Code.

2. The Golden Hill Drive bridge
structure shall be designed and
constructed to pass a 100-year
flood event.

PC 10-32. The box culvert shall
conform to the requirements of
the City’s Flood Plain
Management Ordinance.

Not completed. Proposed for
Unit 3, but with a series of bulky
culverts rather than piles with
decking as originally proposed
for the Golden Hills Estates
Subdivision.

3. Implement general
construction measures during
construction as follows:
 Limit soil disturbance to
the minimum necessary to
complete subdivision
improvements;
 Protect all erodible surfaces
prior to the advent of fall
storms;
 Clear slopes only when
construction is scheduled;
 Provide temporary surface
drainage for topsoil and
spoil piles; and
 Berm graded material to
maximize temporary
ponding and minimize
surface water flow across
graded areas.

BM 10-5/PC 7-18/PC 10-24, 10-

28. The Applicant shall obtain a
NPDES General Construction
Permit prior to beginning any
stormwater-related construction
activity.

To be implemented during
construction.

4. Improve all swale/gully
outfalls to resist erosion and
channel scouring, preferably
with vegetation and, if
necessary, selective application
of gunite or similar material.

None A concrete headwall with riprap
is proposed with no vegetation.

Hydrology studies should be
conducted to address risk of
erosion as well as headwall
elevation vs. flood elevation to
determine if backflow could
occur.

5. Install filter strips to
maximize infiltration and
minimize runoff from the
project site.

PC 10-26. Pursuant to General
Plan Implementation Measure
PS-1.4.5.1, the Applicant shall
promote permeable landscape
areas and provide onsite swales
or other collection features to
reduce stormwater surface flows
and ensure post subdivision
stormwater discharge rates do
not exceed pre-construction
discharge rates.

The Panner Creek Subdivision
proposes individual rock drain
stormwater capture systems, as
well as stormdrainage facilities
along the roadway to collect
runoff and convey it to Sutter
Creek through a series of pipes
and a concrete headwall outfall
discharge point. The individual
rock drains on private property
would be difficult to inspect and
maintain. The City requested a
drainage basin to be located in
the vicinity of the park site, but
37 Section 4, Item A.
the applicant chose not to
pursue. The hydrology report
indicates post development
discharge rates would exceed
pre-development rates.

6. Install permanent grease and
sediment traps at runoff points
once subdivision improvements
are in place.

7. A drainage study shall be
prepared by a civil engineer that
establishes storm water runoff
tributary to all proposed or
required improvements
PC 10-22. A hydraulic analysis
shall be prepared and submitted
to the City after approval of the
Tentative Map but prior to the
filing of any Final Map and
prior to any construction
activities. The hydraulic
analysis shall: 1) delineate the
streambed and flood limits for
the creek; 2) provides details for
the stormwater collection
system discharge location,
including concrete headwalls,
rip-rap, and silt/grease/oil
separation equipment; 3)
provides the design parameters
for the box culvert crossing; 4)
ensure discharge rates do not
increase; 5) ensure that no
downstream flooding occurs;
and 6) ensure that runoff is
appropriately captured and not
allowed to sheetflow across the
road.

PC 10-23. Based on the findings
of the hydraulic analysis, the
Applicant shall implement any
necessary mitigating actions to
the satisfaction of the City
Engineer to ensure sediment
loading, erosion of the creek
bed, flooding, and other adverse
hydrologic conditions do not
result. Such actions shall be
identified prior to the filing of a
Final Subdivision Map, and
shall be included as conditions
of approval. Any residential
structures on Lot 19, and the
sewer lift station on Lot A must
be located outside the limits of
the flood zone. All construction
within the floodplain shall
conform to the floodplain
management ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 15.20)
and the box culvert crossing of
Sutter Creek shall be designed
and constructed to withstand a
100-year flood event.

PC 10-25/10-30. A hydraulic
study shall be conducted by the
This would be considered
deferred mitigation by the
agencies and it could not be
certain that it could be met/or
less than significant impacts
achieved. A hydrology study
was prepared that addresses
flows, rates, collection and
discharge, and stormdrainage
facilities. However, the report
indicates that even with onsite
drainage systems, the post
development discharge rate
would exceed the predevelopment rate. In addition,
the rock drain systems would be
difficult for the City to inspect
and maintain and the applicant
has not pursued a requested
stormwater basin that is more
easily accessible and
maintained. Also, no studies of
the potential flood impacts or
drainage changes within the
creek have been provided. To
fully analyze the impact, the
study needs to address flood
elevations and analyze how the
box culverts placed in the
creekbed affect creek flow rates
and flooding. Without analysis
and data, it is unclear if the
project as designed would result
in less than significant impacts
or if modifications to the design
can feasibly address impacts and
reduce them to a less than
significant level.
38 Section 4, Item A.

Applicant prior to the filing of a
Final Map to determine if runoff
would contribute to erosion of
the creek bed, flooding within
the creek, or other adverse
hydrologic conditions resulting
from increased runoff. The
Applicant shall implement
mitigating actions to ensure
sedimentation, erosion, and
flooding do not occur as part of
the conditions of approval for
any Final Subdivision Map. All
development within the flood
zone shall conform to the City’s
Floodplain Management
Ordinance.

PC 10-27/10-31. The applicant
shall provide a hydrology report
to identify runoff volumes,
system capacities, and flooding
effects. Stormwater discharge
rates shall not exceed existing
discharge rates and stormwater
basins shall be located within
the subdivision, outside the
floodplain. A Master Drainage
Plan shall be prepared and
submitted to the City prior to the
filing of any Final Subdivision
Map.

8. Incorporate adequate
engineering in the subdivision
storm drainage system so as to
minimize increases in surface
runoff to adjacent parcels of
land
PC 10-21. Storm water
discharge rates from the street
and paved areas shall not exceed
existing discharge rates
In relation to PC 10-21, the
applicant has indicated the
discharge rates would be
exceeded, which indicates that
this mitigation measure can’t be
achieved as designed.

9. Demonstrate methods to
prevent adverse effects on
tributary seasonal drainages,
drainage ways and the Sutter
Creek stream
Propose storm drain piping
along the road and a concrete
headwall with riprap to
discharge to Sutter Creek;
however, there are direct impact
the stream channel. A footprint
or quantified area of impact
should be estimated and
analyzed.

10. All storm drainage
improvements shall be sufficient
to comply with City standards
and adequately convey storm
water
Propose storm inlets along the
road and individual rock drain
systems.

Storm drain systems identified
on the road. Onsite
improvements should include a
pond rather than individual rock
drain systems in Panner Creek
Estates. Post-construction runoff
rate increases.

11. Divert storm water runoff
from the Gopher Gulch
watershed to the Sutter Creek
watershed by making off-site
improvements to an existing
diversion facility located at
Gopher Flat Road and Manor
Court
N/A Drainage improvements for
Broadmeadows are identified in
the TPM and shall be
implemented.
39 Section 4, Item A.

12. Revegetate all exposed soils
with Blando Brome at 10
pounds of live seed per acre; or
hydromulch all exposed soils
prior to October 15th of each
year in which construction
occurs within the subdivision
BM 7-4/PC 7-16. Erosion
control measures shall be in
place by September 15th and
include the following:
 Seed bare soils and cover
with 2 to 4-inches of straw;
 Place straw rolls (waddles)
at the bottom of slopes and
around drainage devices;
and
 Protect storm drainage inlets
with gravel bags.

To be implemented during
construction.

13. Incorporate into the project
design methods to ensure slope
stabilization in disturbed areas
None Preliminary plans provided for
roads and utilities only. Site
grading on each lot is deferred
until each site is built. This
condition should continue to be
required for Panner Creek.

NPDES will address erosion
control during construction.

14. Submit an erosion control
plan for review and approval by
the City Engineer and Region 2
of the California Department of
Fish and Game
None Preliminary plans provided for
roads and utilities only. Site
grading on each lot is deferred
until each site is built. This
condition should continue to be
required for Panner Creek.

NPDES will address erosion
control during construction.

15. All structures shall adhere to
the Uniform Building Code
requirements for Seismic Zone 3
None All buildings required to
conform to the CBC.

16. As part of the improvement
plans for the subdivision,
specific cut and fill slope
treatment between the lots shall
be indicated where required.

Treatment methods include
conventional retaining walls,
‘earthstone-type’ stacked walls,
garden walls, vegetative
groundcover and the like.

None Preliminary plans provided for
roads and utilities only. Site
grading on each lot is deferred
until each site is built. This
condition should continue to be
required for Panner Creek.

17. A subdivision grading plan
shall be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer that sets forth
limits of all earthwork and
clearing. All slopes over 30%
shall be identified on the plan
and shall not be disturbed by
grading operations
None Preliminary plans provided for
roads and utilities only. Site
grading on each lot is deferred
until each site is built. This
condition should continue to be
required for Panner Creek.

18. Prior to any work within the
Sutter Creek streambed, obtain a
Streambed Alteration
Agreement from the California
Department of Fish and Game
pursuant to Section 1600 et. seq.
of the Fish and Game Code
PC 4-6. After approval of the
Tentative Subdivision Map and
prior to construction of the box
culvert bridge and storm
drainage pipeline, the Applicant
shall enter into a Section 1602
Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement (LSAA) with the
California Department of Fish &
Wildlife; and a detailed Riparian
species survey shall be
conducted within the area of
CDFW will require a footprint
estimate in the IS/MND to
determine extent of impact and
mitigation. The level of data
provided will be considered
deferred mitigation. A
maximum area of impact should
be established.
40 Section 4, Item A.
potential effect (APE). The
Applicant shall implement all
measures, conditions, and
requirements established in the
LSAA

19. Consult with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers prior to the
placement of any fill within the
Sutter Creek streambed
PC 4-5 and 4-7. After approval
of the Tentative Subdivision
Map and prior to construction of
the box culvert bridge and storm
drainage pipeline, or any
crossing of the ephemeral
drainages, the Applicant shall
secure a Nationwide 14 Permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers if required. The
Applicant shall implement all
measures, conditions, and
requirements established in the
permit.

PC 4-8. Crossing intermittent
drainages with driveways shall
be accomplished by utilizing
arched culvert systems that span
the wetland areas with
foundations placed outside the
wetland footprint.

Permits needed prior to
construction. The impact areas
should be established in the
IS/MND to disclose area of
impact and to develop
preliminary measures. It should
also be determined to
understand whether new or
expanded flood risks are
associated with the design. The
2002 designs seem to show piles
with decking to span the creek,
whereas this proposal shows
bulky culverts that create wide
blockage points and narrower
channels for water volume and
debris flow.

20. All oak trees that are to be
preserved shall be clearly
marked with colored flagging
tape. During construction,
temporary fencing shall be
installed around the dripline of
oak trees to be preserved
None To be implemented

21. Staging areas for
construction equipment shall be
designated prior to start of
construction and shall be located
outside of oak tree driplines
None To be implemented

22. Removal of any oak tree
with a diameter at breast height
(dbh) greater than 6-inches shall
be compensated for by planting
three 25-gallon oak trees of the
same species for each oak tree
removed
PC 4-11. Pursuant to Section

13.24.120 of the Sutter Creek
Municipal Code, for each oak
tree removed, three trees of like
species will be planted in
appropriate areas as part of the
project action. A subdivision
landscape plan will be provided
to the City prior to the Final Map
per Section 13.24.

PC 4-12. Prior to obtaining a
building permit for each
individual lot, an Oak Tree
Management Plan pertaining to
that lot shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval.

To be implemented

23. Native tree species shall be
used for street tree planting
pursuant to Chapter of the
Municipal Code
PC 4-13. Prior to obtaining a
building permit for each
individual lot, an Oak Tree
Management Plan pertaining to
that lot shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval
To be implemented
41 Section 4, Item A.

24. During construction, Gopher
Flat Road and Sutter Creek
Road shall be kept free of dust,
dirt, and mud. All vehicles
leaving the work site shall be
cleaned to prevent dirt and mud
from reaching adjacent streets
BM 3-1/PC 3-2. The Applicant
shall implement dust control
measures as delineated in
Amador Air District Rule 218.

To be implemented during
construction.

25. Use dust palliatives or
moisture control to reduce
fugitive dust during subdivision
construction
BM 3-1/PC 3-2 To be implemented during
construction.

26. Cease earthwork operations
during periods of rain or high
wind conditions
This would be part of NPDES
permit
Required by NPDES permit.

27. Construct a solid masonry
wall along the perimeter of the
Multi-family Townhouse
Complex in appropriate
locations to act as a noise
attenuation wall
N/A There is no townhouse complex.

28. Mining remnant structures
and/or foundations shall be
removed under permit issued by
the Sutter Creek Building
Department
PC 7-17. All mining related
hazards shall be evaluated by
the Applicant, and a plan for
removal and/or remediation
shall be submitted to the City for
approval prior to the first final
map recordation.

This should still occur. Only a
historic assessment was
completed.

29. Any remnant mine
excavations shall be covered,
fenced or filled in compliance
with Section 115700 of the
California Health and Safety
Code
See PC 7-17 This should still occur. Only a
historic assessment was
completed.

30. All such. covered, fenced or
filled mine excavations shall be
located and noted on the Final
Subdivision Map
See PC 7-17 This should still occur. Only a
historic assessment was
completed.

31. A preliminary endangerment
assessment of the mining area
shall be conducted in
cooperation with DTSC and if
required, a voluntary cleanup
agreement shall be executed.

See PC 7-17 This should still occur. Only a
historic assessment was
completed.

32. Prior to approval of the
subdivision improvement plans,
the Subdivider shall enter into a
Subdivision Agreement with the
City that specifies among other
things, the parkland or in lieu
fee requirements
None 3.16 acres of open space and 1.2
acres of neighborhood park
would be dedicated in Panner
Creek Estates. A Park Impact
Fee of $8,760 per unit is
associated with each building
permit.

33. A traffic mitigation fee of
$3,000 per single-family
equivalent shall be assessed on
the proposed project to be used
for regional and local road
improvement projects
None Fees would be required at the
time of development.

34. If any archaeological
resources are encountered
during subdivision development
or construction, all work within
65 feet of the discovery shall be
stopped until a professional
BM 5-2/PC 5-14. Should
unknown buried resources or
human remains become
inadvertently uncovered during
grading or other earth disturbing
activities, construction is
required to stop within 50 feet of
Still required.
42 Section 4, Item A.
archaeologist can determine the
significance of the find
the find and the City of Sutter
Creek is to be notified.

BM 5-3/PC 5-15. If human
remains are uncovered, the
Amador County Coroner will be
notified immediately, according
to Section 5097.98 of the State
Public Resources Code and
Section 7050.5 of California’s
Health and Safety Code. If the
remains are determined to be
Native American, the coroner
will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission, and the
procedures outlined in CEQA
Section 15064.5(d) shall be
followed.

35. All lighting shall be shielded
so that the light source (i.e., bulb
or tube) is not visible from
adjacent properties or
travelways
None Streetlights are proposed for
Panner Creek Estates and
Broadmeadows Estates. They
were not previously provided for
Units 1 and 2 although they
were proposed in the application
and TPM.

None PC 1-1. New structures on Lots
20, 21, 29, and 30 shall be
required to be evaluated by the
City prior to issuance of a
building permit to determine
whether the proposed design
affects the ridgeline. Structures
shall be placed away from the
ridgeline. If multi-story
structures are proposed on Lots
20, 21, 29, and 30, ‘story poles’
shall be used during design
review to determine whether
height limits or vegetative
screening is required so as not to
impact the ridge. All required
alterations to the design will
ensure that no adverse change to
ridgeline views will occur. No
streetlights shall be located
within the VSA
Needs to be completed.

None PC 4-3. A pre-construction
survey for special-status wildlife
species shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist in areas
slated for development within
30-days of the initiation of
project activities. Should such
species be found, construction
shall be delayed until further
consultation with the
appropriate agencies is
completed. The applicant shall
implement species protective
measures as required by the
appropriate regulatory
agency(ies) based on the
identified species. Such
To be implemented during
construction.
43 Section 4, Item A.
measures may include, but not
be limited to construction buffer
zones, a temporary pause in
work until the species has
voluntarily moved, restricted
types of work or equipment in
the area, and other avoidance
and mitigating actions as
determined by the regulatory
agency
None PC 4-4. Prior to the City issuing
a grading permit for
construction of the project, the
Project Applicants must retain a
qualified wildlife biologist to
prepare and implement a
Wildlife Habitat Management
Plan (WHMP).

To be implemented.

None PC 4-9. Preconstruction
Surveys. Within 30-days of
initiation of project activities,
the Applicant shall have a
qualified biologist survey the
project site and immediate
vicinity for active raptor nests if
construction is occurring during
future breeding seasons,
normally between February and
August. The surveys shall be
conducted according to a
protocol consistent with State
and Federal guidelines. Only if
breeding raptors are identified
during such surveys will a report
be prepared addressing the
species.

To be implemented during
construction.

None PC 4-10. Avoidance.

Construction activities initiated
prior to completion of breeding
activities at documented raptor
nests shall be restricted
appropriately. This would likely
include the establishment of a
500-foot construction-free
buffer zone around the tree by
means of fencing or stakes with
conspicuous flagging. The
exact distance of the buffer zone
shall be determined in
consultation with the California
Department of Fish & Wildlife.

Once a nest becomes inactive, as
determined by a qualified
biologist, construction would be
allowed to commence within the
buffer zone.

To be implemented during
construction.

None BM 20-6/PC 9-20 and 20-40.

All Broadmeadows and Panner
Creek property owners shall
receive a copy of a Fire Safe
Plan (included in ISMND
Appendix Q) in conjunction
Fire Safe Plan prepared.
44 Section 4, Item A.
with issuance of a building
permit.

None, but a CFD was part of the
subdivision agreement and
never formed.

PC 10-29. After approval of the
Tentative Subdivision Map but
prior to the filing of any Final
Subdivision Map and
construction, a Community
Facilities District shall be
formed by the Applicant.

This is required for
Broadmeadows as well and
should be a mitigation measure
None PC 11-33. Approval of the land
use designation amendment and
zoning amendment on the
portion of Lots 20-24 currently
designated and zoned RSF/R-1
to RL/RL; Lot A to PS/PS and
the open space lots to OS/OS
would address land use
inconsistencies. Furthermore,
adjustments to lots 7, 13, 14,
and 29 to meet the minimum lot
requirement for Residential Low
Density designated parcels
would result in consistency.

These amendments are proposed
and lot sizes revised to meet the
minimum requirements
None PC 13-34. During project
construction, should pile
driving, soil compacting, or
demolition of structures be
necessary, all property owners
within 500-feet of the
subdivision shall be notified at
least 48-hours prior to such
activities
Needs to be completed.

None PC 19-36. The Applicant and
the City of Sutter Creek shall
work with the Amador Water
Agency to resolve the water
capacity and storage capacity
issues so that the Amador Water
Agency can serve the Panner
Creek Estates project and other
possible development projects
within the City of Sutter Creek.

No development shall occur
until capacity at the Tanner
Water Treatment Plant has been
expanded.

Needs to be completed.

None PC 19-37. Prior to recording of
any Final Subdivision Map, the
applicant shall obtain a Will
Serve letter from the Amador
Water Agency and provide it to
the City of Sutter Creek, and
each of the conditions listed in
the Amador Water Agency letter
dated June 29, 2020 shall be met
Needs to be completed.

None PC 19-38. The Applicant shall
upgrade the sewer collection
system at the intersection of
Spanish Street and Hayden
Alley by installing two new
manholes and a short section of
sewer pipe prior to development
Needs to be completed.
45 Section 4, Item A.
of the Panner Creek Estates
Subdivision.

None PC 19-39. An engineering study
of the hydraulic capacity of the
Gopher Flat main sewer line
will be required. Any required
upgrades will be completed by
the developer. The applicant
shall also meet the conditions
outlined in the October 28, 2019
letter from the City Sanitary
Sewer Engineer regarding
Panner Creek sewer facilities as
listed in Appendix P of this
document.

Needs to be completed.

It appears Golden Hills Drive should have had 18’ of paved travel lanes, but 17.5’ were constructed. 46 Section 4, Item A.

RESOLUTION 24-25-*

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK APPROVING
A VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 182

BROADMEADOWS ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND

ACCEPTING THE BROADMEADOWS ESTATE SUBDIVISION IS/MND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek did on Monday August 26, 2024 hold a public hearing on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Broadmeadow Estates Subdivision (Assessor Parcel Nos. 040-030-060 and 040-232-001[Portions]), after properly noticing said hearing; and
WHEREAS, On July 8, 2024 the Planning Commission reviewed, held a public hearing, and ultimately voted 4-0 to deny the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision application; and WHEREAS, the City Council did at said public hearing receive a report from the planning staff, receive input from the Applicant and members of the public in attendance at said public hearing, and at the closing of said public hearing did deliberate and consider the same; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 2023100658) was prepared pursuant to the California Government Code, City of Sutter Creek Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local administrative procedures, and reflects independent judgment and analysis of the City of Sutter Creek; and WHEREAS, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (SCH# 2023100658), was made available to agencies and the public on the 23th day of October 2024 and was posted on the City’s website for the public’s review; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek hereby grants the Applicant’s appeal and approves the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision based on the Findings attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and subject of the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as “Exhibit B;” and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council certify the Broadmeadow Estates Subdivision Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit C) as complying in full with the requirements of CEQA and California law and authorize City staff to prepare and file the appropriate State and County offices a Notice of Determination within five working days of certification.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 26th day of August, 2024 by the following vote:
47 Section 4, Item A.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
____________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
48 Section 4, Item A.

Exhibit A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR THE VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP # 182 FOR THE

BROADMEADOW ESTATES SUBDIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS:

1. Upon approval of the City Council, a Subdivision Map for not more than 10 residential lots shall be prepared and processed in accordance with City Code Chapter 17.22 “Subdivision Maps.” No phasing will be allowed.

2. The Subdivider shall meet all the requirements of the City Code unless otherwise specifically superseded by these Conditions of Approval.

3. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is valid for an initial period of 24-months from the date of approval, with extension requests filed prior to the expiration of the map. The final map shall be filed with the Amador County recorder within twenty-four (24) months of planning commission approval of the Tentative Map.

4. The ordinance requirements of the Amador Fire Protection District shall be met by participation in the annexation to the County’s Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 for fire protection services.

5. All improvements shall be completed prior to recording of the Final Map, unless a Subdivision Improvement Agreement is executed in accordance with City Code. All Improvements shall be made to City Improvement Standards.

6. Any structural development on the parcels shall comply with the CBC and Title 24 regulations, as well as demonstrate defensible space.

7. All easements of record shall be noted on the Subdivision Map.

8. Prior to submittal of the final map, the Subdivider shall provide the City a copy of any proposed covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R’s) which shall be applicable to the subdivision.

9. Prior to recordation of the final map, the project limits shall be annex into the County of Amador Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 to fund additional costs associated with fire protection services for subdivision development in accordance with City of Sutter Creek Resolutions.

10. Prior to recordation of the final map, subdivider shall form a Community Facilities District (CFD), or other financing district or will provide a similar funding mechanism acceptable to the City of Sutter Creek to fund subdivisions fair share of ongoing maintenance ongoing for: concrete drainage swales, and storm drain inlet biofilters. CFD can be simple to minimize costs of formation.
49 Section 4, Item A.

11. Prior to recordation of the final map, subdivider shall annex into the City limits.

12. Prior to recordation of the final map, all City fees associated with the development shall be paid in full. City fees shall be those in effect at the time building permits are issued.

13. Based on Applicant’s representations, Applicant understands and agrees that the City may not begin processing any future application for the area known as Paneer Creek until recordation of the final map for this development. Applicant understands and agrees that Applicant’s representation was a material condition underlying the approval of this Vesting Tentative Map. Applicant further understands and agrees that its submission of an application for Panner Creek would preclude the City from approving its final map.

WATER AND SEWER:

14. Subdivider shall meet requirements of the City Sewer Standards, Title 14 of the City Code, and provide verification each proposed parcel has adequate wastewater collection facilities constructed in accordance with City Standards. Applicant shall provide the City with CCTV video and reports for the condition for any of the existing laterals and sewer main connections.

15. Applicant shall provide City a copy of “will serve letter” and certification that water services to the 10 lots have been installed to AWA standards.

16. Fire hydrant locations shall be adequate to serve subdivision and placed at locations approved by the Sutter Creek Fire District.

17. The ability to serve sanitary sewer service to the development will expire with the Approved Tentative Subdivision Map or failure to get the Tentative Subdivision Map approved.

MISCELLANEOUS CONDITIONS:

18. Sidewalk shall be constructed to City Standards along frontage of all lots.

19. All sidewalks, sanitary sewer, storm drain work within street right of ways shall be completed in accordance with the improvement plans prepared, reviewed and approved in accordance with the City Improvement Standards. A drainage study shall also be completed in accordance with the City Improvement Standards and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, prior to any improvements being constructed. Plans shall reference applicable provisions of the mitigation measures BM 3-1, 5-2, 5-3, 7-4, and 10-

5. 20. Limits of Broadmeadows Drive’s existing paved surface shall be resurfaced with a Type II slurry seal as approved by City Engineer.
50 Section 4, Item A.

21. Those Mitigation Measures contained within the Broadmeadows Estates Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be implemented during the building permit/construction phase.
51 Section 4, Item A.

Exhibit B

FINDINGS FOR THE
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP # 182 FOR THE BROADMEADOWS

ESTATES SUBDIVISION

1. The proposed map will be consistent with applicable General Plan because the project site will be, as part of the overall project being approved, designated Residential Single Family and Residential Low Density (Planned Development) which complies with the overall proposed density of the subdivision.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the applicable General Plan because the General Plan residential policies have been considered in the project design.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development because it is located in an area that exhibits varying terrain and can be developed into detached homes on larger lots with steeper slopes and City services are readily available.

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development because each parcel is of sufficient size to accommodate its proposed residential unit.

5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because appropriate mitigation measures have been applied to the project.

6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because sewer, water and storm drainage improvements will be required prior to the development of any lots.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision because the existing easements are properly located or will be obtained prior to recordation of the final map.

8. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for the future passive or natural heating opportunities in the subdivision because each lot is large enough and has sufficient southern exposure to facilitate solar orientation. 52 Section 4, Item A.

Exhibit C

VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR THE BROADMEADOWS ESTATES

SUBDIVISION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
53 Section 4, Item A.

RESOLUTION 24-25-*

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER

CREEK APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND

USE MAP FOR A PORTION OF THE BROADMEADOWS ESTATE
SUBDIVISION, APN 040-030-060, FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RL)

TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF)
WHEREAS, an application for a General Plan Amendment was filed by David A. Mabry and Frank Trujillo for a portion of the parcels that make up Broadmeadows Estate Subdivision, APN 040-030-060, and WHEREAS, the application proposes to amending the General Plan land use designation of a 2.19-acre portion from Residential Low Density (RL) to Residential Single Family (RSF); and WHEREAS, the Planning Department circulated the application among trustee and responsible agencies, interested public organizations, and others as appropriate; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed City Council public hearing for the project was scheduled for the 26th day of August 2024; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65358 permits the amendment of General Plans by the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, which analyzed the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project, and determined that although the proposed project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case based on the proposed Mitigation Measures; and WHEREAS, On July 8, 2024 the Planning Commission reviewed, held a public hearing, and ultimately voted 4-0 to deny the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision application; the City Council interprets this action to recommend against the requested General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on the noticed date and considered all of the information in the public record, including the Staff Report, testimony presented by the public concerning the application, the proposed environmental determination, and the comments of the applicant.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek hereby finds the follows:

1. The proposed amendment to the Land Use Diagram of the General Plan is necessary to facilitate future development of property identified as Assessor’s Parcel Number APN 040-030-060.

2. A Mitigated Negative Declaration, was prepared by Bruce Baracco that analyzed the proposed project and the City Council has determined that, on the basis of the whole record before it, determined that although the proposed project could have significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case based on the proposed Mitigation Measures and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted by the City Council.

3. Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council declines to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation against granting the requested General Plan Amendment.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopt of the proposed amendment to the General Plan land use diagram as described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 54 Section 4, Item A.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
____________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
55 Section 4, Item A.

Exhibit A
General Plan Land Use Diagram
56 Section 4, Item A.

RESOLUTION 24-25-*

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SUTTER CREEK WHICH PREZONES APN 040-030-060 (A PORTION

OF THE BROADMEADOWS ESTATES SUBDIVISION) LOCATED

OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS
WHEREAS, An application has been filed by David A. Mabry and Frank Trujillo (Broadmeadows Estates), pursuant to the Sutter Creel Municipal Code, for A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, General Plan Land Use Map Amendment, Pre-zoning, and Annexation. The application seeks approval of a Pre-Zone of R-1 (One Family Dwelling) for a parcel located outside the City of Sutter Creek’s City Limits. The portion of the project area outside of the City Limits currently only contains Land Use and zoning designation by the County of Amador. APN 040-030-060, located in the unincorporated area of the County, has a Land Use designation of R-S and a zoning of R1A; and WHEREAS, On July 8, 2024 the Planning Commission reviewed, held a public hearing, and ultimately voted 4-0 to deny the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision application; the City Council interprets this action to recommend against the requested prezoning and WHEREAS, the City may, pursuant to Government Code section 65859, pre-zone unincorporated territory to determine the zoning that will apply to that territory upon annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, pre-zoning the area makes the properties eligible for annexation to the City subject to property owner application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for approval of an annexation application and LAFCo approval of the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project; and has otherwise carried out all requirements for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the pre-zoning on August 26, 2024 at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, a staff report dated August 26, 2024, and incorporated herein by reference, describes the proposed pre-zoning considered by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Sutter Creek City Council does not accept the Planning Commission recommendation and hereby approves the proposed pre-zoning of the parcels shown on Exhibit A.
57 Section 4, Item A.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:
_____________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
____________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
58 Section 4, Item A.

Exhibit A Proposed Pre-zoning
59 Section 4, Item A.
60 Section 4, Item A.
61 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study
and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
General Plan Amendment Rezoning Annexation
Lead Agency:

City of Sutter Creek
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek CA 95685
Prepared by:

Baracco and Associates
with
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
Windmiller Consulting, Inc.

ESR, Inc.

KD Anderson and Associates, Inc.

Kenneth Williams, Geologist
State Clearinghouse No. 2023100658
Final Document
January 2024
62 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 2
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION …………………………4
Broadmeadows Estates
PROJECT LOCATION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION ………………………………………………………………………………………..4 ZONING ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING ………………………………………………………………………. 5 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED………………………………………………..5 CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION……………………………………………………. 5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING……………………………………………………………………………….5 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………………….6 PROPOSED PROJECT APPROVALS……………………………………………………………………………………. 9 REGULATORY GUIDANCE……………………………………………………………………………………………….16

2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION……………………………………..17

3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST………………………………………………20

1. AESTHETICS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20

2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES…………………………………………………………………………. 22

3. AIR QUALITY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28

6. ENERGY………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….30

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….31

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS………………………………………………………………………………35

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY……………………………………………………………………………………..37

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING………………………………………………………………………………………………… 40

12. MINERAL RESOURCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………….65

13. NOISE…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING……………………………………………………………………………………………… 68

15. PUBLIC SERVICES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 69

16. RECREATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..70

17. TRANSPORTATION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 71

18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES…………………………………………………………………………………………. 73

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS………………………………………………………………………………………74

20. WILDFIRE……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….77

4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE…………………………...79

5. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS………………………………………………………..80

6. COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS…………….85
63 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 3
Table of Contents (Continued)

7. PREPARERS AND REFERENCES……………………………………………. 95

8. GLOSSARY…………………………………………………………………………96
List of Figures
Figure 1 Broadmeadows Estates Vicinity Map………………………………………………………. 11 Figure 2 Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Subdivision Map……………………………….. 12 Figure 3 Broadmeadows Estates Preliminary Grading Plan…………………………………… 13 Figure 4 Broadmeadows Estates Annexation Map…………………………………………………. 14 Figure 5 Broadmeadows Estates Storm Drainage Area Map………………………………… 15 Appendices
Appendix A Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Appendix B Broadmeadows Estates Biological Evaluation Letter Report Appendix C Broadmeadows Estates Cultural Resources Records Search Results Appendix D Broadmeadows Estates Historical Mining Activity Report Appendix E Broadmeadows Estates Storm Drain Hydraulic Analysis Appendix F Broadmeadows Estates Public Service Letters
Appendix G Drop Inlet Filter Detail
Appendix H Broadmeadows Estates Traffic Impact Assessment Note: For color maps and figures, go on-line to: cityofsuttercreek.org. 64 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 4

1. Introduction and Project Description
This Project Information, Description, and Environmental Checklist contained herein constitute the contents of an Initial Study in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Changes made to this Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration from the draft document are indicated by underline type for additions and strikethrough type for deletions.

BROADMEADOWS ESTATES
Project Title Broadmeadows Estates Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 182
Lead Agency City of Sutter Creek
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek CA 95685

Contact Information Erin Ventura, Contract City Planner Planning Department
209-267-5647
[email protected]

Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
David A. Mabry, Property Owner
Frank Trujillo, Property Owner
Stan Gamble, Subdivider
Trafalgar Homes
10801 N. Wolfe Road
Cupertino CA 95014
408-398-6311
[email protected]
Project Location
Broadmeadows Estates is located south of Gopher Flat Road and east of Golden Hills Drive, and adjacent to Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2, in the eastern portion of Sutter Creek. The ten subdivision lots front on Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive. Broadmeadows Estates is a portion of the Golden Hills development. (Refer to Figure 1: Broadmeadows Estates Vicinity Map) General Plan Designation
The subject property includes two City of Sutter Creek General Plan Land Use designations: a portion within the City Limits (portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4) designated RSF (Residential Single Family); and a portion in the County (but within the Sutter Creek Planning Area) (portions of Lots 1 through 10) designated as RL (Residential Low Density). (Refer to Figure 4: Broadmeadows Annexation Map) 65 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 5
Zoning
Portions of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 within the City Limits are zoned R-1 (Residential Single Family). The portion of the subdivision in the unincorporated County is zoned RE (Residential Estates).

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Broadmeadows Estates is adjacent to the currently developed portion of the Golden Hills development, a single-family residential area on the easterly side of the City. The existing Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive separate the subject property from existing homes on the south and west. North of the subject property is one single-family dwelling on a 5.25 5.03 acre remainder parcel (referred to as the Mabry Parcel), and one single-family dwelling on a 2.66 acre parcel (referred to as the Birge Parcel). To the north, beyond Gopher Flat RoadShake Ridge Road, is grazing land.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
Amador Local Agency Formation Commission (Amador LAFCo) Sutter Creek Fire Protection District
California Native American Tribal Consultation
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 (AB 52) and Senate Bill 18, the Lead Agency is responsible for consultation with affected California Native American Tribes who are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.

Existing Environmental Setting
The City of Sutter Creek is located within Central Amador County and is bisected by Old State Route 49 (Main Street and Hanford Street) in a north-south direction.

The City was incorporated in 1913 and is a full-service city for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses. The current population within the City is approximately 2,590.1
The project site is located in the extreme northeast quadrant of Sutter Creek.

This area was previously grazing land with minor undulations in terrain. In 2007, the project site was ‘rough graded’ when subdivision improvements were constructed as part of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2. The project site has been substantially developed with graded pads and street improvements. Areas of the site that are not barren ground have become inhabited by ruderal weed species of which none are special status species. There are a few areas that have been overtaken by noxious weeds such as thistle and medusa grass.

There is one 30-inch Blue oak tree on proposed Lot 5. There are existing concrete blocks on proposed Lots 5 and 6. There is an existing well and pump on proposed Lot 5. There are existing soil mounds within proposed Lots 2, 3, and 4.

There are existing rock boulders on proposed Lot 2.
1 California Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates, January 1, 2023. 66 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 6
Portions of proposed Lots 1 through 4; and Lots 5 through 10 are located outside the City Limits and are within Amador County. Portions of Lots 1 through 4 are currently within the City Limits. (Refer to Figure 4: Broadmeadows Estates Annexation Map) Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive (both of which serve the proposed lots) are exiting streets with improvements on the west and south sides respectively, where there are existing homes. There is an existing 12-inch diameter storm drainage pipe between Lots 7 and 8 that directs stormwater runoff from Broadmeadows Drive and the existing residences on the south side of the street onto the Mabrey Parcel for infiltration.

Background and Project Description
Background
This 10-lot residential subdivision was originally filed with the City in May of 2007 as Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 4. After receiving approval from the Planning Commission in October of 2008, the project was impacted by the economic downturn and was never completed. The Tentative Map expired in October of 2017.

Detailed Project Description
The proposed project consists of ten single-family residential lots with street frontage on Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive. (Refer to Figure 2:

Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Subdivision Map) The average lot size is 11,290 square feet; with the smallest lot 9,511 square feet and the largest 17,669 square feet.

Subdivision Details
The Broadmeadows Subdivision comprises 2.86 2.87 acres; which consists of

0.67 acres within the existing City Limits (Assessor Parcel Number 040-232-01), and 2.19 2.20 acres from Assessor Parcel Number 040-030-06 outside the City Limits. An additional 0.52 acres of this parcel comprises a portion of Broadmeadows Drive. The remainder of this parcel (called the ‘Mabry Parcel’) consists of 5.25 5.03 acres and is not in the City and is not planned for development. Currently, there is one single-family residence on this remainder parcel. Adjacent to the Mabry parcel is the Birge Parcel (Assessor Parcel Number 040-030-19) consisting of 2.66 acres and containing one single-family residence.

This parcel is not within the City and is not planned for development. (Refer to Figure 4: Broadmeadows Estates Annexation Map for parcel locations) Subdivision Improvement Details
The subdivision will capitalize on existing improvements already constructed to City Standards, including streets, curbs and gutters, and storm drainage for ten lots (Lots 1-4 in total; and Lots 5-10, as a portion). (Refer to Figure 3: Broadmeadows Preliminary Grading Map) Utilities (including water, sewer, electrical power, natural gas, telephone, and cable television) are already in place. Existing water meters will need to be upgraded from 5/8-inch to 1-inch.
67 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 7
The subdivision was ‘rough graded’ in 2007 when improvements were constructed as part of the Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2 Subdivision (including full improvements to Broadmeadows Drive). Remaining improvements include construction of a 4-foot wide sidewalk along the frontage of Lots 1-10 with a curbcut at the northeast corner of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive; and installation of a streetlight near the east end of the cul-de-sac per City Standards.

New improvements will include the installation of two storm manholes and a 12- inch diameter storm drainage line along the north side of Broadmeadows Drive.

This new drainage line will connect to the existing drop inlet between Lots 7 and 8 and then connect to the existing storm drainage system that was constructed as part of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2. The existing drainage pipe that extends from the drop inlet between Lots 7 and 8 and drains north to the Mabry Parcel will be removed. (Refer to Figure 2: Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Subdivision Map)
The project will utilize the existing storm drainage system constructed for Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2 to drain affected portions of Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive, including all of Lots 1-4, portions of Lots 5-10, all of Broadmeadows Drive, and three existing residences on the south side of Broadmeadows Drive. (Refer to Figure 5: Broadmeadow Estates Storm Drainage Area Map) The existing drop inlets along Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive (six inlets total) will be modified to capture sediment/oil/grease by installing Triton Bioflex Trash Guard inlet filters in each drop inlet. (Refer to Appendix G) The rear (northerly) portions of Lots 5-10 will drain down slope and sheet flow onto the Mabry Parcel. Lots 1-4 will include a concrete drainage swale to direct stormwater runoff to an public utility easement between Lots 1 and 2; thence to Golden Hills Drive. The existing drain line between Lots 7 and 8 will be removed (Refer to Figure 3 and Figure 5)
In addition, the existing 12-inch diameter drainage line that crosses Golden Hills Drive at its intersection with Broadmeadows Drive will need to be upgraded to an 18-inch diameter line. (Refer to Appendix E: Broadmeadows Estates Storm Drain Hydraulic Analysis)
All storm drainage improvements will require a General Construction General Permit from the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEMA), along with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). (Refer to Section 10 – Hydrology and Water Quality for details)
The existing concrete blocks and debris on Lots 5 and 6 will be removed. The existing well and pump on Lot 5 will be removed and capped under permit from the Amador County Environmental Health Department. The 30-inch Blue oak tree on Lot 5 will be removed and replaced such that one new Blue oak tree will be planted on each lot (10 total) at the completion of construction on each lot. The 15-foot public utility easement (PUE) on the north side of Broadmeadows Drive is reserved for the new drainage line and any additional underground utilities should they be required in the future. The existing soil mound within Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be removed, as well as the rock boulders on Lot 2. (Refer to Figure 2 for details) 68 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 8
Finish grading for each of the 10 lots will be accomplished at the building permit stage consistent with the Preliminary Grading Plan shown in Figure 3.

The Planning Commission may require adequate fencing or other protection for all ditches and streams; or the payment of in lieu contributions.

Subdivision Maintenance Considerations
In order to maintain public parts of the subdivision (including streets, curbs and gutters, sidewalk, storm drainage system, drop inlets) the original proposal called for the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to maintain these improvements. However, it is not feasible to establish a CFD for 10 lots. In addition, there are no public areas (such as parks, street and median landscaping areas) that will require maintenance.

It is proposed to condition the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision to require lot owners/homeowners to be a part of a City-wide CFD that will be established at some time in the future.

Growth Management Considerations
In order for the subdivision to be consistent with the Sutter Creek General Plan, that portion not within the City Limits will require a General Plan Amendment, changing the Land Use designation from Residential Low Density (RL; one-half acre minimum lot size) to Residential Single Family (RSF; 7,000 square foot minimum lot size). The Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision shares a street (Broadmeadows Drive) with adjacent development that was constructed as part of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2. New detached single-family dwellings for Broadmeadows Estates on the north side of Broadmeadows Drive will be equivalent to the existing detached single-family dwellings on the south side of Broadmeadows Drive, which are in the City Limits. Therefore, the proposed density and building intensity are exactly the same.

Because of the economic downturn in 2008, the City has grown at a much slower rate than the 0.5% per year projected in the General Plan. In 2010, the population of Sutter Creek was 2,501. The current estimated population is 2,590, a growth rate of 0.2% per year. If this 10-lot subdivision builds out in three years, it will increase the population by about 0.3% per year, still less than the projected 0.5% in the General Plan.

Annexation
Prior to annexation of lands to the City, it must be demonstrated: 1) that services and facilities can be provided; 2) that intended development will not have a negative economic impact on the City or its citizens; 3) that the development will not have significant environmental impacts on the environment; and 4) that the project will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. 69 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 9
The proposed Broadmeadows Estates subdivision meets all of these criteria in that: 1) services and facilities are already in place or can be provided; 2) homes will range in cost between $400,000 and $600,000 which will be a positive economic impact on the City and its citizens; 3) there are no environmental impacts associated with the development that have not been mitigated; and 4) the development is identical to adjacent development which has already been determined to conform to the goals, policies, and standards of the General Plan.

A total of 2.72 acres of the Mabry Parcel (2.20 acres for the lots and 0.52 acres for the street) will be annexed to the City along with an additional 0.53 acres consisting of a portion of Golden Hills Drive, a portion of a lot on the west side of Golden Hills Drive (identified as ROS 45 M 83) and the southeast intersection of Gopher Flat Road and Golden Hills Drive (total of 3.25 acres). (Refer to Figure 4:

Broadmeadows Estates Annexation Map for details) The street improvements and intersection improvements were completed as part of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No.

2. Annexing this area to the City will ‘clean up’ the current convoluted City Limit line along Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive.

Annexing 2.72 acres of the Mabry Parcel will leave a remainder parcel of 5.03 acres. In order that the new City Limit Line not split the Mabry Parcel, it is proposed to seek County approval for a Parcel Map which will create a 2.72 acre parcel (the subdivision lots and street) and a 5.03 acre parcel (the remainder).

Proposed Project Approvals
The proposed project will require the following approvals:
 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map
For a 10-lot single-family residential subdivision consisting of 2.87 acres Approval by the Sutter Creek Planning Commission
 Community Facilities District (CFD)
Funding mechanism for operation and maintenance of all improvements within the subdivision
Approval by the City Council
 General Plan Amendment
To amend the Sutter Creek General Plan Land Use Map for that portion of the subdivision (2.72 acres – 2.10 acres for the 10 lots; 0.52 acres for the street) not within the City limits from RL (Residential Low Density) to RSF (Residential Single Family)
Approval by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission
70 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 10
 Pre-Zone
To pre-zone that portion of the subdivision (2.72 acres of which 2.20 acres are for the 10 lots; and 0.52 acres for the street) not within the City Limits to R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
Approval by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission
 Annexation
To annex 3.25 acres to the City of Sutter Creek and the Sutter Creek Fire Protection District, with detachment from the Amador Fire Protection District Approval by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission
Approval by the Amador Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) New lots will be required to annex to the Amador County Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 for fire protection services. This is a Special Tax that applies to all parcels in the County
Action by the Amador County Assessor Fire Protection District 71 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 11
Figure 1: Broadmeadows Estates Vicinity Map
72 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 12
Figure 2: Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Subdivision Map 73 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 13
Figure 3: Broadmeadows Estates Preliminary Grading Plan 74 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 14
Figure 4: Broadmeadows Estates Annexation Map
75 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 15
Figure 5: Broadmeadows Estates Storm Drainage Area
Map
76 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 16
Regulatory Guidance
This document is an Initial Study, which provides justification for a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.

An Initial Study is conducted by the Lead Agency to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15063, an EIR must be prepared if an Initial Study indicates that the proposed project under review may have a potentially significant impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration may be prepared instead, if the Lead Agency prepares a written statement describing the reasons why the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore, why it does not require the preparation of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15371). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070, a proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either:
a) The Initial Study shows there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, or The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
(1)Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur and; (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the proposed project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
77 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 17

2. Environmental Determination
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below are analyzed in this Initial Study for the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision:

X Aesthetics X Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
X Air Quality
X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Energy
X Geology/Soils X Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
X Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
X Hydrology/Water
Quality
X Land Use/Planning X Mineral Resources
X Noise X Population/Housing X Public Services
X Recreation X Transportation X Tribal Cultural
Resources
X Utilities/Service
Systems
X Wildfire X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination:

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.

X 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.

January 15,2024
Signature
Erin Ventura, Contract City Planner
Date
City of Sutter Creek
78 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 18
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 projectspecific 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.
79 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 19
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.
80 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 20

3. Environmental Checklist

BROADMEADOWS ESTATES

1. Aesthetics
Except as provided in Public Resources code
Section 21099, would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
References:

Sutter Creek General Plan, Land Use Element, July 2019. Figure 4-2, Page 4- 13; Land Use Overlay Diagram.

Discussion
a-b)No Impact:

The Project area is not within a scenic vista or visible from a State Scenic Highway. The Project area is not within a Visually Sensitive Area as depicted in the City of Sutter Creek General Plan.
c-d)Less Than Significant:

Single-family dwellings will be constructed on each lot, similar to adjacent single-family dwellings in the neighborhood. Light and glare similar to existing homes in the area are anticipated. Should the City adopt a ‘Dark Skies Protection Ordinance’ (to prevent light sources from shining upward), it is likely that the Broadmeadows Subdivision will need to comply. One streetlight is proposed at the east end of Broadmeadows Drive.

The project site is relatively close to an identified east-west trending ridgeline, but is located low enough in elevation (approximately 45 feet lower), and set back far enough (approximately 550 feet), so as not to impact the ridgeline. 81 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 21
Mitigation
None Required.
82 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 22

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. 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.

Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
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 nonagricultural use? X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 1220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forestland or conversion of
forestland to non-forest use? X
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?
X
References:

Amador County Important Farmland Map. California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, Division of Local Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. March 2018.

Discussion
a-e) No Impact:

According to the Amador County Important Farmland Map, the subject property is designated as Grazing Land, and is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
83 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 23
The subject property is designated by the City of Sutter Creek for residential development. Therefore, the project does not conflict with; and does not encroach on agriculture or timber resources. Properties within the City are not utilized for agricultural or commercial timber purposes.
84 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 24

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

Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
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?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
X
References:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Broadmeadows Estates, Sutter Creek, California. Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. October 6, 2017 (Refer to Appendix A)
Discussion
a, c and d) Less Than Significant:

As detailed in Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, Broadmeadows Estates, the project would not exceed localized ambient air quality impacts for criteria pollutants, and is therefore, less than significant for this criterion. The project would not exceed cancer and non-cancer risk thresholds, and is therefore, less than significant for this criterion.

The project has limited potential to disturb soil that could contain Valley fever spores; and compliance with existing regulations to control dust (Amador Air District Rule 218) are expected to reduce the potential impact to less than significant levels. The project is not in an area known to have naturally occurring asbestos, and would be less than significant for this criterion. Construction odors from use of diesel-powered equipment would be localized and temporary, and likely not noticeable for extended periods of time outside the project site boundaries.

Therefore, odor impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation
None Required.
85 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 25
b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation:

The proposed project, in and of itself, will not violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. However, the proposed project, in concert with other projects, may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State air quality standard. (Refer to Chapter 5 – Cumulative Impacts)
Construction emissions associated with the project will be less than the significance standard for key pollutants. Construction of the subdivision will generate 56.62 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG), 24.68 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 8.01 pounds per day of particulate matter (PM10), and

4.63 pounds per day of finer particulate matter (PM2.5). All of these amounts are below the significance standard of 84 pounds per pollutant per day. Adherence to Amador Air District Rule 218 will reduce these amounts further.

Operational emissions associated with day-to-day activities after construction will be less than the significance standard for key pollutants. Ongoing emissions (motor vehicle use, energy use such as natural gas, and area source emissions such as consumer products and landscape equipment) from the subdivision will generate 16.58 pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG), 1.77 pounds per day of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 3.44 pounds per day of particulate matter (PM10), and

2.88 pounds per day of finer particulate matter (PM2.5). All of these amounts are below the significance standard of 84 pounds per pollutant per day. Adherence to Amador Air District Rule 218 will reduce these amounts further.

Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BM 3-1: The Applicant shall implement dust control measures as delineated in Amador Air District Rule
218.
86 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 26

4. Biological Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
References:

Broadmeadows Estates Biological Evaluation Letter. ESR Inc. May 11, 2017. (Refer to Appendix B)
Discussion
a–d and f) No Impact:

The project site has been substantially developed with graded pads, easements, and infrastructure (curbs, gutters, storm drains, electrical, water conveyance, etc.) already in place. The areas that are not barren have been inhabited by ruderal weed species of which none are special status species. There are a few areas that have been overtaken by noxious weeds such as thistle and medusa grass. 87 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 27
As detailed in Appendix B: Broadmeadows Estates Biological Evaluation Letter Report, the project site did not exhibit any habitat that would be utilized by any of the special status species due primarily to the advanced state of development at the project location and the surrounding residential units. The site exhibits no wetlands, open water, seasonal or ephemeral drainages, vernal pools, or any other feature that would meet any criteria as jurisdictional waters under the Clean Water Act.

Stormwater generated from the subdivision (as well as the adjacent properties on Broadmeadows Drive) will be directed to the existing storm drainage system on Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive, thence via Gopher Gulch and Gopher Flat Road westerly. Portions of the rear of Lots 5 through 10 will be allowed to drain onto the Mabry Parcel, which will be less than the pre-development runoff from the drainage area. (Refer to Figure 5 and Appendix E for details) e) Less Than Significant Impact:

The 30-inch diameter Blue oak tree (Quercus douglasii) on Lot 5 is proposed to be removed. Pursuant to Section 13.24.120 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code, three trees of like species are to be planted as part of the project action as street trees within front yards on the north side of Broadmeadows Drive. Included in the project description is the requirement to plant one Blue oak on each of the 10 lots after each lot is developed.

Mitigation
None Required.
88 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 28

5. Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
References:

Broadmeadows Estates Cultural Resource Records Search Results. Windmiller Consulting, Inc. March 27, 2018. (Refer to Appendix C)
Discussion
a–c) Less Than Significant with Mitigation:

A cultural resources records search of the project site was conducted by the North Central Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System on December 18, 2017. As detailed in Appendix C: Broadmeadows Estates Cultural Resource Records Search Results, no previously recorded cultural resources were identified within or immediately adjacent to the project site. Seven previously identified cultural resources were located within a one-half mile radius of the project site. These cultural resources included a historic trash scatter (P-3-830), rock wall remnants (P-3-831), and a structure site (P-3-385). All three sites are grouped together at the northeast edge of Sutter Creek as the City boundary appears on the 1962 USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle.

The California Inventory of Historic Resources was also searched. No relevant historic resource listings were found for the project site. No human remains are known to occur in the area, however it is possible that buried resources or human remains could be uncovered during final site grading. Therefore, mitigation measures BM 5.2 and 5.3 are proposed to reduce the potential impact to less than significant.

Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BM 5-2: Should unknown buried resources or human remains become inadvertently uncovered during
grading or other earth disturbing activities,
construction is required to stop within 50 feet of
the find and the City of Sutter Creek is to be
notified.
89 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 29
Mitigation Measure BM 5-3: If human remains are uncovered, the Amador County Coroner will be notified immediately,
according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public
Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s
Health and Safety Code. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, the coroner will
notify the Native American Heritage Commission,
and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section
15064.5(d) shall be followed.
90 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 30

6. Energy
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Discussion
a and b) No Impact:

Construction of subdivision improvements and construction of individual residential dwelling units will utilize conventional construction equipment which are not expected to be energy-related wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Equipment to be utilized during construction are identified in the CalEEMod Air Quality modeling completed for the project and found in Appendix A – Modeling Results, in Appendix A – Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report.

The subdivision is oriented in an east-west direction which facilitates utilization of solar panels for roof-top solar energy generation. The subdivision does not obstruct plans for renewable energy use or energy efficiency. 91 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 31

7. Geology and Soils
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure including
liquefaction? X
(iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
References:

Sutter Creek General Plan Update, Chapter 8 – Safety Element. July 2019.

Soil Survey, Amador Area, California, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, September 1965.
92 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 32
Discussion
a–c) Less Than Significant With Mitigation:

The project site is located adjacent to the Melones Fault, a major north-south trending fault associated with the Foothills Fault System. The maximum credible earthquake for the area is 6.0 to 6.5 on the Richter scale. Sutter Creek is in Zone 3 under the California Building Code classification system. Zone 3 specifies special design requirements for buildings and foundations. All new residential structures (such as proposed for Broadmeadows Estates) are required to meet Zone 3 standards.

On-site soils are classified as Auburn very rocky silt loam (AsD) which is well drained with moderate permeability. The erosion hazard is rated moderate to severe with a low Storie Index of 9 out of 100. There are no unstable soils on site.

Erosion potential will not be a factor as each lot will drain to an existing storm drainage system or flow across vegetated soil as indicated in Chapter 4 -- Biological Resources.

Most site-related grading has already been accomplished, with the exception of individual building pads and a compacted fill slope of 27% at the rear of Lots 5-10.

Temporary best management practices included in mitigation measure BM 7-4 will protect against substantial loss of topsoil during construction and prior to permanent revegetation measures are in place. (Refer to Figure 3) The additional stormwater collection piping along the north side of Broadmeadows Drive will be within the Public Utility Easement and will connect to the existing storm drainage system. (Refer to Figure 2). Adherence to standard erosion control measures as required under the Uniform Building Code will ensure that storm water runoff does not contribute to siltation of adjacent drainages.

Mitigation Measure BM 7-4: Erosion control measures shall be in place by September 15th and include the following:
 Seed bare soils and cover with 2 to 4-inches of
straw;
 Place straw rolls (waddles) at the bottom of
slopes and around drainage devices; and
 Protect storm drainage inlets with gravel bags.
d-f) No Impact:

There are no unstable soils on site and no septic systems are proposed as the units would connect to the sanitary sewer system already located within Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive. There are no known Paleontological resources or unique geologic features in the area. The site has been previously graded in many areas, and no evidence of such resources was previously discovered. The soil mound on Lots 2, 3, and 4, created from previous grading activities, will be removed.
93 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 33

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
References:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report Broadmeadows Estates, Sutter Creek, California. Mitchell Air Quality Consulting. October 6, 2017. (Refer to Appendix A)
City of Sutter Creek Energy Action Plan. Public Review Draft. October 2, 2015.

Discussion
a) Less Than Significant:

As detailed in Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report, Broadmeadows Estates, the project would result in a minimal increase in operational emissions and long-term vehicle miles traveled (VMT) production; and energy consumption would not hinder the ability of the State of California to reach its 2020 or 2030 goals. CalEEMOD results show project construction would generate 257.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, and project operation would generate 189 MTCO2e as compared to the 2020 impact threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e, or the 2030 impact threshold of 660 MTCO2e.

Therefore, GHG emissions would not exceed applicable impact thresholds.

All homes built in Broadmeadows Estates will need to comply with new California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 6, California Code of Regulations) that require all new construction homes to have a solar photovoltaic (PV) system as an electricity source. These regulations went into effect on January 1, 2020, and will help reduce GHG emissions from electrical power generators such as Pacific Gas & Electric Company.

Mitigation
None Required.
94 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 34
b) Less Than Significant:

The City of Sutter Creek has not yet adopted a GHG Reduction Plan. However, in 2015, the City adopted an Energy Action Plan (EAP) that includes strategies to reduce energy use that will result in reductions in GHG emissions. Although the EAP is not considered a qualified climate action plan, consistency analysis presented in the Draft EAP beginning on page 15 demonstrates that the City’s EAP includes a number of goals or policies that relate directly to climate change, because they attempt to increase energy efficiency. The proposed project is consistent with the feasible and applicable goals in the EAP.

Mitigation
None Required.
95 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 35

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
X
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?
X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
References:

Historical Mining Activity Report. Kenneth A. Williams, Professional Geologist.

May 6, 2019. (Refer to Appendix D)
Discussion
a–c) No Impact:

No hazardous materials would be routinely used, transported, or generated by the residential lots. Diesel fuel and oils would be used during construction; however, no significant impact is anticipated because of the temporary use and absence of onsite storage facilities during construction. 96 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 36
d) No Impact:

As is common throughout the Sutter Creek Area (and especially within the Mother Lode Belt), mining activities are likely to be found. As detailed in Appendix D: Historical Mining Activity Report, the project site does not exhibit historical mine tailings or activities related to mining. No recorded mines occur within the subdivision and no historical mine tailings or activities related to mining were identified during site reconnaissance visits.
e-f) No Impact:

The subdivision is not within an airport safety hazard area or airport noise contour. The subdivision would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan.
g) Less Than Significant:

The Broadmeadows Subdivision is within a California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) moderate severity wildfire area adjacent to open grassland along its northern boundary. However, there are no trees, brushy areas, or other wildfire hazards in the immediate area. (Refer also to Chapter 20 – Wildfire)
Mitigation
None Required.
97 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 37

10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
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:

X
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
X
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
X
(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
X
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
X
Discussion
a) Less than Significant with Mitigation:

Some development activities for the project have been completed, including rough grading, and infrastructure (curb and gutter, street paving, and utilities).

Additional improvements to be completed include: individual building pads; refined grading; sidewalk development; water lateral improvements; tree removal and replacement; capping of the well and pump on Lot 5; concrete block and debris removal on Lots 5 and 6; and removal of the soil mound on Lots 2, 3, and 4. 98 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 38
Under the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), if the project discharges water that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, the project will require coverage under a NPDES 2017 General Construction General Permit (GCP CGP). The proposed storm water improvements for this project would trigger the EPA permit process. In order to comply and ensure that the impact is considered to be less than significant, a Notice of Intent (NOI) needs to be submitted to EPA. As a prerequisite to the NOI, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) needs to be prepared. In addition, a complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to obtain the GCP CGP.

Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BM 10-5: The Applicant shall obtain a NPDES General Construction General Permit, as well as
development and implementation of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Program prior to beginning any
stormwater-related construction activity.
b) Less Than significant:

Wells are not proposed as part of this project. The existing well and pump on Lot 5 will be removed and capped under permit from the Amador County Environmental Health Department. Each lot is served by an existing 3/4-inch 5/8- inch water lateral, which would need to be upgraded to a 1-inch lateral and 1-inch water meter as required by the Amador Water Agency. (See Appendix F).

Stormwater runoff would be collected through the existing curbside gutters and drop inlets along Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive that connect to the City’s stormwater collection system. Stormwater runoff from the rear of Lots 5 through 10 would be allowed to ‘sheetflow’ onto the Mabry Parcel, as it will be less than the pre-development condition. Although impervious coverage would increase, no significant impact to groundwater quantity or quality would occur.

Mitigation
None Required.
c) Less Than Significant Impact:

The project will utilize an existing storm drainage system to drain affected portions of Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive, including Lots 1-4, and portions of Lots 5-10. The primary drainage system consists of parallel storm drainage lines along and below the curb line of Golden Hills Drive with discharge to the Gopher Gulch drainage via a box culvert spanning Golden Hills Drive near the Gopher Flat Road intersection. Existing drop inlets along Broadmeadows Drive and Golden Hills Drive will be modified with a sediment/oil/grease trap installed as ‘inline’ improvements to these two storm drainage lines. (Refer to Figure 2, Appendix E, and Appendix G)
99 Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 39
New improvements will also include the installation of two storm manholes and a 12-inch diameter storm drainage line along the north side of Broadmeadows Drive.

This new drainage line will connect to the existing drop inlet between Lots 7 and 8, and then connect to the existing storm drainage system that was constructed as part of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2. The existing drainage pipe that extends from the drop inlet between Lots 7 and 8 and drains north to the Mabry Parcel will be removed. (Refer to Figure 2: Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Subdivision Map)
In addition, the existing 12-inch diameter drain line that crosses Golden Hills Drive at its intersection with Broadmeadows Drive will need to be upgraded to an 18-inch diameter line. (Refer to Appendix E: Broadmeadows Estates Storm Drainage Hydraulic Analysis)
Stormwater conveyance via the Gopher Gulch drainage was analyzed as part of the improvements for Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2. No additional stormwater drainage improvements to this system are anticipated for the Broadmeadows project.

Stormwater runoff from the rear of Lots 5 through 10 would be allowed to ‘sheetflow’ across the Mabry Parcel, as it will be less than the pre-development condition.

Mitigation
None Required.
d) No Impact:

The subdivision is not within a flood zone and the additional grading proposed would not alter flood flows such that offsite flooding would occur or cause flows to be redirected so as to increase flooding risk elsewhere. e) No Impact:

The proposed project does not conflict with the adopted Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.
100
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 40

11. Land Use and Planning
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
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?
X
References
City of Sutter Creek. General Plan, Volume I -- Policy Document. July 15, 2019.

Discussion
a) No Impact:

The proposed project is on the periphery of the existing Sutter Creek community, surrounded by existing residential uses, and therefore, will not divide the community.
b) Less Than Significant:

Amending the General Plan Land Use Element Map from RL (Residential Low Density) to RSF (Residential Single Family) will bring the project into conformity with the surrounding residential land uses. This will also allow the project to be consistent with the Sutter Creek General Plan. (Refer to the General Plan consistency analysis on the following pages)
Annexation of the subject property is logical and consistent with both City and Amador Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) policies. The annexation area is contiguous to existing single-family residential development, will not divide an existing community, utilizes existing infrastructure, and does not promote leap-frog growth.

Upon approval of the annexation and pre-zoning by the City Council, the City Council will adopt a ‘Resolution of Application’ to LAFCo for consideration. As part of the LAFCo process, a ‘Plan for Services’ will be provided, indicating the ability of the respective service providers to provide municipal services. Prior to finalizing the annexation, the City and the County will need to enter into a ‘Property Tax Sharing Agreement.’
The Mabry remainder parcel (consisting of 5.25 5.03 acres) is not planned for development under this application. It would be established as a separate parcel under the Amador County parcel map process and remain in the County. The current City General Plan Land Use designation for this parcel is Residential Low Density (RL), which allows one dwelling unit per one-half acre.

Mitigation
None Required.
101
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 41
General Plan Consistency Analysis
The Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision is either: ‘consistent,’ ‘partially consistent,’ ‘not consistent with;’or ‘does not apply’ to the following General Plan policies:

Land Use
Land Use Policy LU-1.1.1: Growth management is necessary in order to preserve Sutter Creek’s existing quality of life. When project applications are being considered for acceptance under the provisions of Government Code Section 65943 and the City’s permit procedures, General Plan consistency should be evaluated. If the project proposal is not consistent, the applicant should be advised that the project may be denied if a General Plan amendment is not processed and approved first or concurrently. Included in this evaluation should be a comparison of the project’s proposed population density and building intensity with the growth assumptions and policies of this plan.

Consistent: A General Plan amendment from RL to RSF is being processed concurrently with the Tentative Subdivision Map application.

Consistent: Because of the economic downturn in 2008, the City has grown at a much slower rate than the 0.5% per year projected in the General Plan. In fact, between 2010 and 2021, the City lost population (80 people, or a growth rate of minus 0.3% per year). If this 10-lot subdivision builds out in three years, it will increase the population by about 0.3% per year, still less than the projected 0.5% in the General Plan.

Land Use Policy LU-1.1.2: In-filling is encouraged and leap-frog development or strip commercial development is discouraged.

Consistent: This subdivision is a type of ‘infill development’ in that the remainder (north side) of Broadmeadows Drive will be developed to complement existing development on the south side of Broadmeadows Drive.

Land Use Policy LU-1.1.3: The City of Sutter Creek desires that the County of Amador allow only large parcels and agricultural uses outside the City’s planning area north of State Route 104/Ridge Road. The appropriate County land use designations for these areas should be AG (AgriculturalGeneral and AT (Agricultural-Transition). The County should remain informed of the City’s VSA overlay designations and not allow parcelization that would be inconsistent with the intent of the VSA designation.

Consistent: The project site is adjacent to the Glavinich property to the east. This property is currently in the County and is proposed to be designated Agricultural-Transition (5-acre density) from its current Agricultural-General 40-acre density). It is further proposed to divide 159 acres into five parcels of 20.19 acres, 25.11 acres, 29.7 acres, 35.0 acres, and 64.4 acres.

Does Not Apply: County lands in the project vicinity do not involve Visually Sensitive Areas Land Use Policy LU-1.1.4: No urban development should be allowed on lands within the City’s planning area that are designated RE(pd), RL(pd) and RSF (pd) unless or until such lands become annexed to the City.

Does Not Apply: The project site does not have a planned development (PD) overlay.

Land Use Policy LU-1.1.5: The City shall only annex those lands that can be developed in accordance with the City’s General Plan, are fiscally sound additions to the City, and that can be adequately served by municipal facilities (or acceptable alternative).

Consistent: The annexation area proposed for development includes a General Plan Amendment that will result in exactly the same type of development as adjacent development. The proposed project will provide fiscally sound quality housing; and all municipal services are available and willing to serve. 102
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 42
Land Use Policy LU-1.1.6: The City shall require agricultural conversion mitigation where avoidance has been found infeasible when annexing agricultural land outside of the Planning Area and/or Sphere of Influence into the City of Sutter Creek. In such cases, the minimum mitigation required shall be 1:1 of equivalent value and quality agricultural land, preferably within proximity to the City of Sutter Creek.

Does Not Apply: The project site is within the Planning Area and Sphere of Influence, and is not classified as agricultural land.

Land Use Policy LU-2.1.1: The City shall review the General Plan annually and update the General Plan as needed.

Consistent: The City’s General Plan was updated in July 2019; and the Planning Staff presents an annual report to the Planning Commission and City Council.

Land Use Policy LU-2.1.2: The City shall update the zoning code and the zoning map to conform to the General Plan. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: The zoning code is currently being updated; and the zoning map was updated along with the General Plan Update. . The Zoning Map would be updated to reflect the annexation and zoning change for this project.

Land Use Policy LU-2.1.3: The City shall assure its subdivision code is consistent with the General Plan.

Consistent: The subdivision code is current; and is consistent with the General Plan Update.

Land Use Policy LU-2.1.4: The land use database of the General Plan shall be maintained.

Consistent: Ongoing.

Land Use Policy LU-2.1.5: The City shall upgrade the City of Sutter Creek Improvement Standards and maintain the Design Standards to be consistent with the City’s General Plan.

Partially Consistent: This is a responsibility of the City. The existing Improvements Standards are being reviewed as a separate process.

Consistent: The Design Standards were revised in February 2016 and are considered current.

Land Use Policy LU-2.1.6: The City shall review the General Plan growth projection and build-out projection for the City on an annual basis.

Consistent: An annual report is filed with the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Land Use Policy LU-3.1.1: The City Manager shall facilitate the coordination of businesses and business associations to attract new business and retain existing business in Sutter Creek.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City Manager.

Land Use Policy LU-3.1.2: The City should plan for the development of campus-like industrial developments with low rise buildings and landscaped or natural open spaces in the industrial land use designation.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is located in a residential area.

Land Use Policy LU-3.1.3: The City shall consider expansion of the DTC – Downtown Commercial Area.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is located in a residential area. 103
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 43
Conservation and Open Space
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.1.1: Development projects shall be reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) and this Element to ensure that such developments mitigate to the point of less than significant impact upon each of the listed resources except where Statements of Overriding Considerations are adopted. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Listed resources:

Open Space
Water Resources
Water Conservation
Air Quality
Geology and Mineral Resources
Soils, Erosion Control, and Grading
Vegetation, Wildlife, and Fisheries
Energy Conservation
Greenhouse Gasses
Consistent: An Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (along with a series of technical studies) has been prepared for the project, which demonstrate that through project re-design, adherence to City development standards, and implementable mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on the nine resource categories with implementation of mitigation measures.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.2.1: Development projects shall be reviewed in accordance with the City of Sutter Creek Development Standards. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: After approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, the Project Engineer will prepare Improvement Plans and Specifications designed to meet or exceed City Development Standards. City Staff will review these construction documents to ensure compliance with City Standards.

Open Space
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.3.1: Land use designations, policies, standards, and guidelines concerning open space that are contained within the General Plan Land Use Element shall be considered an integral component of the Conservation and Open Space Element.

Consistent: In updating the General Plan in July of 2019, all necessary efforts were employed to ensure that the Land Use Element was consistent with, and integrated into the Conservation and Open Space Element.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.3.2: New development shall preserve existing open space, as appropriate, for habitat, passive recreation, active recreation, and/or for visual access and/or aesthetics.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project does not include any open space areas.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.3.3: No construction should be permitted on unforested slopes in excess of 30% unless the Planning Commission or City Council can make the hardship findings required for a variance.

Does Not Apply: New construction will occur on level building pads. Daylight basements may be utilized for residential dwellings on Lots 6-10.
104
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 44
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.3.4: The use of natural visual screens, such as natural land forms and vegetation, shall be incorporated into new developments where possible to maintain a sense of open space.

Partially Consistent: The project site does not exhibit natural land forms and vegetation. Any natural visual screens will be the responsibility of individual property owners and the extent to which natural vegetation will be utilized for landscaping.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.3.5: The location of buildings and structures that are planned or proposed near scenic ridgelines as diagramed on Figure 4-2 in the Land Use Element, which exhibit a prominent skyline when viewed from prominent public access points, should be set back from the scenic ridgeline and/or their heights should be limited and/or vegetation or screening provided to help preserve the existing natural skyline.

Consistent: The project site is relatively close to an identified east-west trending ridgeline, but is located low enough in elevation (approximately 45 feet lower), and set back far enough (approximately 550 feet), so as not to impact the ridgeline.

Water Resources
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.4.1: The master drainage plan called for in the Public Services and Facilities Element and design standards prepared by the City Engineer shall be made to include provisions to ensure the protection of water quality in Sutter Creek and other water bodies within the planning area.

Consistent: The project site drains to Gopher Gulch, then to Sutter Creek. New storm drainage improvements are proposed to complement the existing Golden Hills Development storm drainage improvements. Storm drainage improvement plans will be prepared by the Project Engineer, with review and approval by the City Engineer.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.4.2: Upstream diversions of water from Sutter Creek and its tributaries that negatively impact the creek should be prohibited.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project does not involve the diversion of water from the Gopher Gulch drainage course.

Water Conservation
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.5.1: The City supports the current Amador Water Agency policy requiring water connections within the City to be metered.

Consistent: Each subdivision lot will be supplied metered water from a new 1-inch meter.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.5.2: To the maximum extent feasible, plants native to the Sutter Creek area that do not require much irrigation should be used for landscaping.

Consistent: The Subdivider anticipates using native tree species for street landscaping adjacent to Broadmeadows Drive, including one Blue oak replacement tree on each lot.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.5.3: The City encourages the use of recycled water.

Does Not Apply: Currently, a recycled water system does not exist in the project vicinity.

Air Quality
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.6.1: The City shall limit industry to those that can demonstrate no harmful effects upon air quality. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not industrial in nature. 105
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 45
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.6.2: The City shall implement policies and implementation measures in the Circulation Element that reduce per capita reliance on automobile traffic and incidence of traffic congestion to minimize locally generated carbon monoxide and ozone air pollution. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The City is responsible for preparing the Circulation Element.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.6.3: The City supports efforts of the Amador Air District to maintain local air quality and statewide efforts to lessen the impacts of pollution affecting the City from growth in the great Central Valley. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: The city is a participating agency in the Amador Air District and supports its efforts to maintain local air quality. The City also supports statewide efforts to lessen the pollution impacts affecting the City from growth in the great Central Valley.

Geology and Mineral Resources
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.7.1: Mining activities shall be compatible with surrounding land uses.

Does Not Apply: Mining activities are not proposed as part of the project.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.7.2: Mining activities outside the City should be reviewed to ensure public health and safety and environmental protection.

Does Not Apply: This is the responsibility of the City.

Soils, Erosion Control, and Grading
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.8.1: Maintain a grading ordinance that will minimize excessive grading and set forth specific standards and regulations beyond those contained in California Building Code (CBC).

Does Not Apply: This is the responsibility of the City.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.8.2: The City shall include, adopt, implement, and enforce erosion control guidelines within the City of Sutter Creek Development Standards.

Does Not Apply: This is the responsibility of the City.

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Fisheries
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.9.1: Development projects shall be reviewed for their direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall be notified pursuant to CEQA regarding development projects unless the Planning Commission or City Council makes the de minimis findings pursuant to Section 21089 et. seq. of the California Public Resources Code. Development project applicants shall be required to pay associated fees before approval of such development projects may be considered final.

Consistent: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is included as part of the City application review process. The Applicant is aware of the CDFW fee requirements and shall pay all required fees.
106
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 46
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.9.2: Development project sites shall be evaluated for wetlands and riparian habitat impacts. Development projects that will impact stream channels, drainage channels, wetlands, or riparian habitat shall reduce such impacts by avoidance, minimization, and/or compensatory mitigation to the point that there is no net loss. Projects that may dredge or fill wetland areas shall be referred to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Consistent: The proposed project has been evaluated for wetlands and riparian habitat impacts.

There are no on-site wetland or riparian areas. The project will improve upon and utilize the current storm drainage improvements for the Golden Hills Development. Except for the rear of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, all storm drainage will be directed to the Gopher Gulch drainage through a piped storm drainage system that is currently in place. The rear of Lots 5-10 will sheet flow across the Mabry Remainder Parcel to the Gopher Gulch drainage riparian area at volumes less than the pre-development condition for the Broadmeadows Drive drainage area. (Refer to Figure 6) There will be no new impacts to the Gopher Gulch drainage corridor.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.9.3: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be consulted regarding a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et. seq. of the Fish and Game Code for projects that may directly affect Sutter Creek, the Sutter Creek 100-year, or any tributary to Sutter Creek.

Does Not Apply: A Streambed Alteration Agreement is not required for this project.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.9.4: No vegetation removal, grading, or development shall be allowed in environmentally significant wetland or riparian habitat unless adequate mitigation measures are adopted that meet the satisfaction of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Army Corps of Engineers, where applicable, and the City of Sutter Creek. Wetland and riparian areas shall be presumed to be environmentally significant unless the City finds, on the basis of evidence in the environmental documents prepared for development projects involving lands on which wetlands may be situated, that the subject wetlands and riparian areas are not environmentally significant. Such findings shall be based on analysis as may be performed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Consistent: No vegetation removal, grading, or development will occur in the adjacent Gopher Gulch drainage corridor.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.9.5: Swales are undefined stream channels that are natural collectors of runoff. Building setbacks should be designed to preserve the natural drainage of swales. This policy may not apply to commercial and industrially designated areas.

Consistent: No buildings or structures are proposed near offsite drainage swales.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.9.6: The Planning Commission and/or City Council shall not approve projects that threaten or destroy native oaks or other unique native flora unless said vegetation is replaced, protected, and maintained such that the quantity and value of the vegetation is lost is certain to be replaced for future human generations.

Consistent: There is one oak tree on the project site. There are no other unique native flora on the project site. One replacement oak tree will be planted on each lot (total of 10 oak trees). 107
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 47
Energy Conservation
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.10.1: New development should be designed to maximize opportunities to limit use of automobiles, distances traveled to local destinations, and traffic congestion. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Not Consistent: At the present time, safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities are not available on either Sutter Creek Road or Gopher Flat Road. At some point, pedestrian and bicycle travel may be feasible through the Sutter Crest Subdivision if a pedestrian and bicycle path is constructed across the Powder House Subdivision project site.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS 1.10.2: All new development should be designed for natural heating and cooling opportunities to the greatest extent feasible. This should be accomplished in the design of large commercial or multifamily residential buildings and by the design of lot sizes and configurations that consider heating and cooling opportunities provided by solar exposure, shade, and breezes. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Lot sizes and orientation (east-west) are situated to maximize solar exposure. Individual homeowners will determine the extent to which solar, shade, and breezes are utilized.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.10.3: New structures shall comply with California Energy Star guidelines or similar energy savings programs that achieve a 20% reduction from standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Compliance with Energy Star guidelines may occur through measures such as effective insulation, high performance windows, tight construction and ducts, efficient heating and cooling equipment, natural heating, and non-polluting energy production. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Compliance with energy conservation measures are required to be submitted with a building permit application. Compliance is the responsibility of the City Building Official.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.10.4: New developments shall be designed to reduce heat island effects. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Larger lot sizes (minimum of 10,000 square feet) will facilitate the planting of shade trees around homes. Cool roofs which reflect heat; and energy efficient appliances can also reduce heat island effects. These measures will be the responsibility of individual homeowners.

Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.10.5: Increase renewable-energy generation and use through public outreach. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Greenhouse Gases
Conservation and Open Space Policy COS-1.11.1: The City shall implement an emissions reduction strategy. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. 108
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 48
Circulation
Highway and Street Improvements
Easterly Bypass Collector Road
Circulation Policy C-1.1.1: The City shall require the dedication and construction of the Easterly Bypass Collector Road.

Consistent: Dedication and construction of a portion of the Easterly Bypass Collector Road (Golden Hills Drive Segment) is proposed as part of the Panner Creek Estates Subdivision. For Broadmeadows Estates, the General Traffic Impact Fee of $4,212.64 $,981.63 per single-family dwelling unit collected at the building permit stage can be dedicated to partial funding of the Easterly Bypass Collector Road, if so determined by the City Council. The Additional Traffic Impact Fee of $1,332.69 $1,575.97 per single-family dwelling unit collected at the building permit stage for improvements to Gopher Flat Road, can also be dedicated to partial funding of the Easterly Bypass Collector Road, if so determined by the City Council.

Signalization
Circulation Policy C-1.2.1: Provide traffic signals at intersections where warranted and feasible.

Does Not Apply: Based on traffic volumes on Gopher Flat Road and Sutter Creek Road, it appears that warrants to trigger traffic signals are not currently present. (Refer to Appendix H) Street Improvements
Circulation Policy C-1.3.1: New development projects have a potential to exceed the growth assumptions contained in the General Plan or that may have specific traffic and circulation concerns not identified by this General Plan shall be required to conduct independent traffic analysis and/or pay for construction improvements to the city’s circulation system beyond those addressed in this Circulation Element through direct construction, mitigation fees, land exactions, or special assessments or MelloRoos districts. In such instances, the citywide traffic model and this Circulation element shall be updated at the developer’s expense.

Consistent: A Traffic Impact Assessment for this project was conducted. Broadmeadows Estates (which is subject to a Rezoning) will have a very minor effect on conditions along Gopher Flat Road, and Levels of Service (LOS) will remain at A levels. (Refer to Appendix H) Circulation Policy C-1.3.2: Improve existing streets and make extensions where appropriate to improve circulation, safety, and capacity.

Consistent: Improvements to the Gopher Flat Road/Shake Ridge Road-Golden Hills Drive intersection, and the Main Street/Hanford Street-Gopher Flat Road intersection were constructed in conjunction with Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2.

Circulation Policy C-1.3.3: The City will update the City of Sutter Creek Capital Improvement Program and Funding Strategy as additional street improvement needs are identified (beyond those presently identified in the Circulation Element.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Intersection Improvements (Other Than Signalization)
Circulation Policy C-1.4.1: Provide improvements at intersections to improve safety and traffic flow as conditions warrant.

Consistent: Improvements have been made to those intersections identified in Policy C-1.3.2, above; as well as an All-Way Stop Sign intersection at the following Intersections: Gopher Flat Road and Meadowcrest Road; and Gopher Flat Road and Broad Street. 109
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 49
New Streets
Circulation Policy C-1.5.1: The City defines and authorizes the use of a “Plan Line.” The Plan Line is a process that specifically defines the location of center lines, alignment, right-of-way, cross sections, and intersections for future or proposed roadways and non-motorized transportation rights-of-ways.

The purpose of a Plan Line is to provide adequate right-of-way for future growth needs and to protect the right-of-way from encroachment.

Does Not Apply: Golden Hills Drive (northern segment) and Broadmeadows Drive have already been constructed.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.2: As development takes place, developers shall be required to construct major and minor collectors that are needed to serve the area. In lieu of construction, additional fees may be assessed in the amount of a particular developer’s share of the cost unless the cost of specific road improvements has been included in City or County mitigation fee computations.

Consistent: Street improvements have already been constructed. In addition, a sidewalk along the street frontage of each lot, new drainage improvements, and installation of a street light will be constructed.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.3: Residential lots should not have direct access to new collectors and arterials; lots should front on local streets only.

Partially Consistent: Lots facing Broadmeadows Drive (Lots 4-10) front on a local street. Because of topographic constraints and the development pattern originally established for Golden Hills Estates, Lots 1-3 front on Golden Hills Drive, a designated Collector Street.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.4: Parking shall not be permitted on arterials and collectors where roadway design does not provide shoulders, lanes and/or parallel facilities for use by cyclists and for emergency parking.

Partially Consistent: Golden Hills Drive has an effective width of 36-feet, which allows for two 12- foot wide travel lanes, and 6-foot parallel parking/emergency parking spaces on each side. This street section does not provide dedicated bicycle lanes.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.5: Road design should minimize necessary grading by aligning roads with topography, running roads along natural ridges or valleys, and working with existing grade.

Consistent: This segment of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive are already constructed; and took into consideration topography and working with the existing grade.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.6: Road sections shall have curbs and gutters or alternative drainage facilities adequate for receiving stormwater runoff from roadway surfaces. New roadway sections shall include sidewalks or pedestrian routes that provide safe and efficient pedestrian access. Sidewalks are preferred but may be deleted in an effort to minimize grading if an alternative is provided for pedestrian use that meets the satisfaction of the Planning Commission or City Council.

Consistent: All subdivision lots currently have roll-over curb and gutter, and a piped storm drainage system. Four foot wide sidewalks will be added to the frontage of each lot.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.7: Multiple ingress and egress options should be provided through new development projects for safety purposes.

Consistent: Broadmeadows residents can exit north on Golden Hills Drive, then east or west on Gopher Flat/Shake Ridge Road; or west on Sutter Crest East through the Sutter Crest Subdivision. Upon completion of Panner Creek Estates Subdivision, residents will be able to exit south on Golden Hills Drive; then east or west on Sutter Creek Road.
110
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 50
Circulation Policy C-1.5.8: Neighborhood Streets should be curvilinear and follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible.

Consistent: Broadmeadows Drive curves to follow the existing contours of the adjacent hill.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.9: Neighborhood streets shall be protected from high traffic counts by not allowing large or accumulated developments from relying on them for access.

Consistent: Broadmeadows Drive is a dead end (cul-de-sac)street with no through access.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.10: Cul-de-sacs and dead end streets shall be discouraged and through streets should be preferred.

Inconsistent: Broadmeadows Drive is a cul-de-sac street, but is located at the eastern development line of the City, which is not expected to develop to the east.

Circulation Policy C-1.5.11: Collector streets should be of adequate width for projected traffic and should not have direct access from low or medium density residential lots.

Does Not Apply: No collector streets are associated with Broad Meadows.

Multi-Modal and TSM Considerations
Transit
Circulation Policy C-1.6.1: Maximize the use of public transit to reduce dependence on the private automobile. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Amador Transit provides Dial-A-Ride service to the project site; and fixed route service to Downtown Sutter Creek.

Circulation Policy C-1.6.2: The City shall request that the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) and Amador Transit (AT) review and comment upon new projects that may generate or attract, individually or cumulatively, large or moderate volumes of traffic. ACTC’s roles and responsibilities involve two overlapping agencies: 1) administration of Transportation Development Act and other funds that are allocated to ACTS; and 2) to serve as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Amador County. AT serves as the local transit system in Amador County.

Consistent: As part of the application referral process for new projects, the City solicits comments from ACTC and AT.

Delivery of Goods and Service7
Circulation Policy C-1.7.1: Encourage delivery services to homes and businesses to reduce the number of auto trips.

Consistent: The US Postal Service, FedEx, and UPS, as well as other delivery services are active in the Sutter Creek area.

Circulation Policy C-1.7.2: Small neighborhood commercial facilities should be included where economically viable to minimize automobile traffic as new areas of the city develop. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does not Apply: There are no neighborhood commercial land uses in the project area that are designated in the General Plan.
111
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 51
Circulation Policy C-1.7.3: High density residential development that conforms to standards and programs of the General Plan and City ordinances should be constructed in the Sutter Hill/Martell area with convenient walking access to shopping and public services. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not high density residential development, nor is it in the Sutter Hill/Martell area.

Ridesharing
Circulation Policy C-1.8.1: The City should encourage carpooling. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This is a responsibility of the City.

Staggered Working Hours
Circulation Policy C-1.9.1: The City encourages employers to provide staggered work hours for employees. Staggered work shifts can spread out and reduce peak hour traffic.

Does Not Apply: This is a responsibility of the City.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Circulation Policy C-1.10.1: Bicycle lanes or paved shoulders should be provided on new arterial and collector roadway facilities unless separate bicycle routes are provided. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Golden Hills Drive, a collector roadway, has paved shoulders.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.2: When required for pedestrian access to public services and facilities, the City shall require development projects to construct pedestrian walks. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: Broadmeadows does not have any public services or facilities.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.3: Sutter Creek will urge the creation of safe crossings on Old Highway 49 especially on Old Highway 49 toward Sutter Hill, at the intersection of Old Highway 49 and Sutter Hill Road, at the foot of Sutter Oaks and Mount Pleasant, and near Spanish Street. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to these intersections.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.4: Sutter Creek should require new development proposals to help create walking paths or lanes along Old Sutter Hill Road and Sutter Creek-Volcano Road. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to these roads.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.5: New development projects should be required to create a creekside trail system along Sutter Creek going towards Volcano as the city limits are moved outward. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to the creek.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.6: The design of public facilities, including pedestrian facilities shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Sidewalks constructed as part of the subdivision will be ADA compliant. 112
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 52
Circulation Policy C-1.10.7: New development projects should be tied together and to existing parts of the City by an interlinked bicycle and pedestrian trail network as addressed in the Parks and Recreation Element. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to the identified bicycle and pedestrian trail network.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.8: Sutter Creek shall require new subdivisions, commercial projects requiring a site plan approval, and industrial projects to implement or fund, as appropriate, a bike system for children to ensure safe access to schools and parks within town. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: The proposed subdivision will pay City impact fees related to City parks which can be used for this purpose. This could also be accomplished through a City-wide Community Facilities District (CFD), which this subdivision would be a part.

Circulation Policy C-1.10.9: The Sutter Hill commercial and industrial area should have bicycle and pedestrian access from the adjacent multifamily designated area. Specific facilities for pedestrian and bicycle circulation should be added to the Sutter Hill circulation plan. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to Sutter Hill.

Downtown Parking
Circulation Policy C-1.11.1: Provide adequate parking in the historic central business district to serve existing and future development and improve traffic flow on narrow streets.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to the historic central business district.

Public Services and Facilities
Community Services District
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.1.1: The City shall form and manage a City of Sutter Creek Community Services District to address funding for ongoing services, road development and maintenance, street lighting, recreation, City landscaping, and other City-wide services.

Consistent: Broadmeadows will be required to participate in the Community Services District (also referred to as a Community Facilities District)should one be formed.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.1.2: All development shall be annexed into the City Community Services District.

Consistent: As a condition of approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map, Broadmeadows lot owners/home owners will be required to participate in the Community Services District.

Water Service
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.2.1: The City supports the establishment of an additional water storage facility in the northern area of the City provided it improves fire flows citywide and does not conflict with other General Plan policies and standards.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City and Amador Water Agency. 113
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 53
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.2.2: The Amador Water Agency (AWA) should adjust its “first come, first serve” policy of reserving water supplies based upon development projects to include a provision whereby water supplies will be reserved for jurisdictions who adopt reasonable and adequate general plans. The water reserved for such jurisdictions, will be based upon the water supply needs identified in said plans. The City and AWA should work together to establish a rate for projecting water demands for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses in the planning area and add that to expected residential demands. These projections should then be reserved for the City.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City and Amador Water Agency.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.2.3: AWA should upgrade its revenue system to ensure long term needs of the City can be met in a timely fashion. Revenue increases should be connected to a long-term plan that meets the nexus rationale required by law.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the Amador Water Agency.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.2.4: AWA’s Urban Water Management Plan should become part of the City of Sutter Creek Improvement Standards document consistent with an implementation measure of the Land Use Element.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City and Amador Water Agency.

Sewage Collection and Disposal
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.3.1: New development projects shall upgrade, expand, and/or provide new sewage infrastructure that is sized adequately to meet expected peak flow demands from the development. The sizing of new infrastructure shall be based upon cumulative growth in the region. Reimbursement agreements may be arranged to pay back developers the cost of oversizing to accommodate cumulative growth. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Sewer infrastructure to serve Broadmeadows was included in the development of Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.3.2: New development projects shall be required to pay for or provide for expansion of the City’s sewage treatment facility based upon the expected peak flow demands of said development. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Upon submittal of the Subdivision Improvement Plans, the City Sanitation Engineer will determine whether payment or treatment plant expansion is required.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.3.3: New development projects may buy excess capacity in the sewage treatment facility that is equivalent to the amount of inflow and infiltration they can reduce within the City’s existing sewage collection system, if this amount can be determined to the satisfaction of the City. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: Purchase of excess capacity in the sewage treatment facility is not anticipated for this project.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.3.4: New development projects in the Sutter Hill/Martell area that did not pay a local match to contribute to the Economic Development Association-funded sewage system and storm drainage improvements in that area shall be assessed an equivalent local match to the extent that they benefit from said improvements.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in proximity to the Sutter Hill/Martell area. 114
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 54
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.3.5: The City shall develop and maintain a long-range capital improvement program that addresses both the maintenance and improvement of existing sewage collection and treatment facilities as well as expansion and construction of new facilities to accommodate projected growth. Such a program will likely establish a clear rationale for charging new developments mitigation fees based on the new facilities and expansion they will require.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. The Subdivider will pay such fees if affected facilities are needed by the subdivision.

Storm Drainage
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.4.1: Drainage from new construction should be planned carefully to guide water into the citywide drainage system. New development shall analyze and improve off-site drainage systems to ensure their capabilities to handle increased flows. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Refer to Appendix E – Broadmeadows Estates Storm Drain Hydraulic Analysis.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.4.2: New development projects will provide for their incremental effect on existing storm drainage facilities as well as provide new facilities needed to adequately service the increased runoff they may generate. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Refer to Appendix E, as well as Figure 2 – Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Subdivision Map.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.4.3: New development applications will be denied unless it is demonstrated they will not overload existing drainage facilities or add to flood hazards in Sutter Creek. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: The carrying capacity of Gopher Gulch was analyzed for Golden Hills, Unit No. 2. The City will require limited improvements to the Gopher Gulch stormwater drainage line as conditions of approval. (Refer to Chapter 10 – Hydrology and Water Quality)
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.4.4: Grading plans shall be designed not to create areas of standing water, except for ponds, lakes or other areas designed or intended to provide detention, wetlands, serve recreational or aesthetic purposes, etc.

Consistent: No areas of standing water are proposed for this project. Refer also to Figure 3 – Broadmeadows Estates Preliminary Grading Plan.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.4.5: Drainage should be directed through landscaped swales or underground pipes or a combination of both, wherever feasible. Open concrete or rock ditches are discouraged in most cases.

Consistent: The Subdivision will utilize an underground piped storm drainage system, except sheet runoff from the rear of Lots 5-10. Refer also to Figure 3 – Broadmeadows Estates Preliminary Grading Plan.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.4.6: A region-wide master drainage and flood control plan should be developed and adopted.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek and the County of Amador.

Solid Waste
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.5.1: The City shall adopt policies for diversion of total solid waste generated by the city.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek in conjunction with the Amador County Integrated Solid Waste Management Agency. 115
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 55
Schools
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.61: The City shall cooperate with the Amador County Unified School district to help obtain a new elementary school site with public recreation facilities in the Sutter Creek planning area. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek and the Amador County Unified School District.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.6.2: New public buildings, including school facilities, should be located and designed to conform with applicable provisions of this General plan and City Codes. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

City Offices
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.7.1: The City shall assess alternative sites for a City civic center.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.7.2: The City shall provide funding strategies for upgrading existing City offices and/or relocating offices to a new larger facility.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Police Protection
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.8.1: The City should obtain a new police department facility that is adequately designed and equipped to meet projected demands. The City should establish a revenue plan and adopt mitigation fees as may be necessary to pay for the costs of the new facility.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek. However, this policy is partially met through the Impact Fee program, which requires a Police Facilities Impact Fee of $1,174.10 $1,388.43 for each single-family dwelling.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.8.2: The City should investigate whether or not existing and known projected revenue sources will be adequate to maintain adequate police protection services as the City grows.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Fire Protection
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.9.1: New development projects shall be annexed into the County’s Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Fire Protection Services) and the Sutter Creek Fire Protection District, as may be required. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Annexation to both of these districts is proposed.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.9.2: The Sutter Creek Fire Protection District is encouraged to develop a 10-year fire protection service plan based on growth assumptions specified in the General Plan as well as projections for the surrounding area.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the Sutter Creek Fire Protection District. 116
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 56
Emergency Medical
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.10.1: The City shall cooperate with the Sutter Creek fire Protection District and American Legion Ambulance Service in the provision of prompt and adequate emergency medical service. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Utility Systems
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.11.1: New development shall be served by electric power and natural gas, telephone, and high-speed communications. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: These services are willing and able to serve the proposed project.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.11.2: Utilities in new neighborhoods shall be located underground; above-ground utilities in existing neighborhoods shall be located underground where feasible.

Consistent: All utilities to serve Broadmeadows will be underground.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.11.3: Facilities should be located and designed to conform to the Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Measures of the General Plan.

Consistent: All facilities shall be constructed in compliance with the City Improvement Standards.

Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.11.4: New development projects shall be required to dedicate or set aside adequate right-of-way to accommodate cable routes and equipment housings for present and future public utility networks.

Consistent: A 15-foot-wide public utility easement is designated across the frontage of all lots. Refer to Figure 2 – Broadmeadows Estates Tentative Map.

Funding Public Services
Public Services and Facilities Policy PS-1.12.1: The City shall update its comprehensive public service and facilities needs and revenue study and long-range capital improvement program and funding strategy to ensure that an adequate level of public services and facilities remain available to the citizens of Sutter Creek. The study and resultant plan shall include consideration of the effects of increased costs upon the supply of affordable housing and remain consistent with the Housing element.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Safety
Earthquakes
Safety Policy S-1.1.1: State building code requirements pertaining to earthquake safety for Seismic Zone 3 shall be applied to new construction and remodeling projects that require a building permit.

Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: This is a requirement to obtain a building permit.

Other Geologic Hazards
Safety Policy S-1.2.1: Site-specific soils investigations will be required for construction projects when and wherever there is concern for soil-related hazards. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: No soil-related hazards have been identified on the project site. 117
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 57
Safety Policy S-1.2.2: Development proposals involving the creation of more than four lots, parcels, or units shall be required to investigate the potential for mine collapse and other mine-related hazards in parts of the City known or suspected of being underlain by mine shafts, drifts, or vents. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Potential mining activity on the project site was assessed; and none was found. Refer to Appendix D – Broadmeadows Estates Historical Mining Activity Report.

Safety Policy S-1.2.3: Mine hazards such as vent, drift, or shaft openings should be plugged, covered, fenced, signed, and/or otherwise managed to protect public health and safety.

Consistent: No vents, drifts, or shaft opening were identified on the project site. Refer to Appendix D.

Safety Policy S-1.2.4: Site-specific soils investigations will be required to evaluate the health risk from proposed projects within or adjacent to mine waste materials. Schools, day care centers, hospitals, and residential subdivisions should not be located in areas where hazardous materials are present in mine waste materials. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: No mine waste materials have been identified on the project site.

Safety Policy S-1.2.5: Records concerning mining activities within the planning area should be collected and maintained at City Hall for reference and use by the City and developers.

Consistent: Such records are normally archived for reference by the City; usually when associated with site specific projects for which City approval was required.

Flooding and Dam Failure
Safety Policy S-1.3.1: Building and planning permit applications proposing improvements within the FEMA/FIRM map zones “A” or “AE” shall comply with the City’s flood plain management ordinance.

Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: Project Site is not within an “A” or “AE” flood zone.

Safety Policy S-1.3.2: The City of Sutter Creek and County of Amador should require new development projects within the Sutter Creek drainage area to control peak flow runoff such that post development discharge rates are not greater than pre-development discharge rates, ensuring new development does not significantly add to flooding hazards. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Storm drainage analysis (Appendix E) indicates that with additional storm drainage improvements (Shown on Figure 2), the piped storm drainage collection system will be sufficient to handle a 100-year storm. With these improvements, the storm water sheet flow from the rear of Lots 5-10 will be less than the pre-development discharge rates for Drainage Areas F and G (Sheet SM-1 of Appendix E).

Safety Policy S-1.3.3: The County of Amador should give the City of Sutter Creek the opportunity to review development projects within the Sutter Creek drainage area to ensure flood hazards within the City are not increased.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Safety Policy S-1.3.4: Reduce the extent of flooding that threatens existing developed areas within the City. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek. 118
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 58
Wildland and Urban Fires
Safety Policy S-1.4.1: The Sutter Creek Fire Protection District shall be asked by the City to review development plans, land division projects, and planned developments to ensure compliance with fire suppression and prevention requirements. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek and the Sutter Creek Fire Protection District.

Safety Policy S-1.4.2: New development shall ensure there is sufficient water supply and facilities for fire suppression units in the event of a wildland fire. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Partially Consistent: Broadmeadows will be connected to the city water system (including fire hydrants that are already installed) operated by the Amador Water Agency (AWA). AWA has recently reported that its Tanner Water Treatment Plant (which serves Sutter Creek) is at capacity and that very limited new water connections are available. (Refer to detailsin Chapter 19, Utilities & Service Systems) Safety Policy S-1.4.3: Looped water systems shall be installed within new developments, where feasible, and new water systems shall provide for adequate pressure and volume at each hydrant installed. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Broadmeadows is part of the Golden Hills Development area looped water system. The Draft AWA Master Plan does not show any deficiencies in this area.

Safety Policy S-1.4.4: In new developments there shall be sufficient access for emergency vehicles and evacuation of residents. Two or more routes of access should be provided, preferably on different sides of the development. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Partially Consistent: Because Broadmeadows is served by a cul-de-sac street, there is no access to the east. Emergency vehicle access is available from Golden Hills Drive and Sutter Crest East via Gopher Flat Road. Emergency vehicle access is also available to the rear of the subdivision lots from the Mabry driveway off Shake Ridge Road. See also Circulation Policy C-1.5.7.

Safety Policy S-1.4.5: Roads in wildland fire areas shall be well marked and homes shall have addresses in plain view.

Consistent: Access roads on the adjacent Galvanic Ranch property (to the east of Broadmeadows) are well marked. Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive are marked with street signage.

Safety Policy S-1.4.6: New roadways shall comply with City standards.

Consistent: Both Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive have been constructed to City standards.

Safety Policy S-1.4.7: Vehicular access shall be provided to within 150 feet of a structure.

Consistent: Vehicular access is currently available to within 60-feet of a structure.

Safety Policy S-1.4.8: Buildings in urban-wildland interface areas shall comply with California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection recommendations on defensible space.

Partially Consistent: The project site is adjacent to a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone. State law requires a 100-foot defensible space from structures, which is difficult in a single-family residential subdivision.

Safety Policy S-1.4.9: Property owners in the Main Street Historic District should become organized to plan for and fund a program to reduce or eliminate the threat of urban fire.

Does Not Apply: Project Site is not within the Main Street Historic District. 119
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 59
Evacuation and Emergency Preparedness
Safety Policy S-1.5.1: The County Office of Emergency Services should complete an upgrade of the County’s emergency Management Plan making the document more usable by jurisdictions involved> Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the Amador County Sheriff’s Office.

Safety Policy S-1.5.2: Coordinated interagency emergency drills should be conducted on a regular basis, especially in hazard areas identified in this plan.

Does Not Apply: This policy should be coordinated by the Amador County Sheriff’s Office.

Safety Policy S-1.5.3: Major developments and large commercial or industrial activities should have their own emergency plans and periodic drills.

Does Not Apply: Broadmeadows is not a major development.

Hazardous Materials
Safety Policy S-1.6.1: The City of Sutter Creek adopts and incorporates by reference the Household Hazardous Waste Element prepared by the Countywide AB 939 Committee. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City of Sutter Creek.

Safety Policy S-1.6.2: The City shall review industrial and commercial development projects that involve the transportation, storage and/or use of Hazardous materials and ensure steps are taken to protect public health and safety. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: Broadmeadows is a residential project.

Safety Policy S-1.6.3: The City Building Inspector will screen non-residential building permits to determine the proposed use of hazardous materials and refer such proposed uses to appropriate State and local agencies as necessary. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City Building Inspector.

Noise
Noise Policy N-1.1.1: New noise sensitive land uses or development projects shall be located and designed so that they will not subject persons to indoor or outdoor noise levels greater than those shown on Volume III Tables 6-5 and 6-6. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Broadmeadows is not likely to exceed the indoor average sound level of 45 decibels, and the outdoor back yard average sound level of 60 decibels. The subdivision is located in an area with very low ambient (background) noise levels.

Noise Policy N-1.1.2: The outdoor noise standard for residential developments shall apply only to back yards of single-family residences and recreation areas of multifamily developments. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: The backyard average noise level of 60 decibels would apply.

Noise Policy N-1.1.3: Acoustical studies shall be required for projects that would be exposed to noise in the project area on Gopher Flat Road exceeding 59 decibels for the day/night average. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Considering the distance of the project site from Gopher Flat/Shake Ridge Road, the day/night average noise level should not be more than 42 decibels. 120
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 60
Noise Policy N-1.1.4: The City shall protect existing (ambient) noise levels of existing residential neighborhoods and other existing noise sensitive land uses. If a developed area is currently below an adopted noise standard, an increase in noise up to the standard should not necessarily be allowed. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Partially Consistent: Noise increases at Broadmeadows exceeding the 60-decibel threshold are expected during construction of subdivision improvements and during residential building construction.

These are considered to be short-term noise levels in excess of the standard.

Noise Policy N-1.1.5: The City may require that new land use proposals be modified, mitigated, or not be carried out if they will cause the day/night noise level of an existing developed area to experience an increase of 3 decibels-A scale (dBA) or more or if they could generate noise levels that would be expected to generate significant adverse community response. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Broadmeadows consists of detached single-family residential dwellings, which are similar to existing development in the area, and for which similar noise levels are expected.

Noise Policy N-1.1.6: Large trucks should be discouraged on Old Highway 49 (except possibly for deliveries or when large trucks operate from a base located in the City). Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: Broadmeadows is limited to residential uses.

Noise Policy N-1.1.7: Setbacks, earth berms, landscaping, design features and other measures acceptable to the City shall be used to ensure the Highway 49 bypass does not impact residentially designated properties beyond acceptable standards. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The proposed project is not in the vicinity of the Highway 49 bypass.

Noise Policy N-1.1.8: Reduce noise generated from sources outside the City’s jurisdiction.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Noise Policy N-1.1.9: The City shall actively participate in monitoring and oversight of the Lincoln Mine project to ensure the project does not conflict with City codes and General Plan policies and standards.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Noise Policy N-1.1.10: The Sutter Creek police Department shall enforce Sections 27150 and 38275 of the California Vehicle Code; the sections pertain to the allowable noise emission of vehicles operated on public streets. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the Sutter Creek Police Department.

Noise Policy N-1.1.11: Enforce the policies and standards of the Noise Element where and when appropriate. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the Sutter Creek Police Department or Code Enforcement.

Noise Policy N-1.1.12: Incorporate noise attenuation features in design standards for collector and arterial city streets. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Noise Policy N-1.1.13: The City shall update noise regulations when appropriate.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. 121
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 61
Noise Policy N-1.1.14: The City shall modify the Noise Element Contour Maps when appropriate.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Historic
Historic Policy H-1.1.1: Historic structures that give Sutter Creek its character should be preserved and maintained to the greatest degree possible. The City shall actively encourage the restoration and maintenance of historic buildings or sites.

Does Not Apply: Broadmeadows consists of newly constructed dwellings.

Historic Policy H-1.1.2: Stone walls and other structures or sites related to Sutter Creek’s history, including rock walls, shall be preserved in place whenever possible. When not possible, said structures may, in certain circumstances, be relocated and may be incorporated into new buildings if said design maintains the historic value of the structure.

Does Not Apply: There are no stone or rock walls on the Broadmeadows site.

Historic Policy H-1.1.3: The North Central Information Center at Sacramento State University and qualified historians or individuals knowledgeable about the City’s history shall be offered adequate information and time to review and comment upon major development proposals that have a potential to affect known or unknown cultural or historical resources.

Consistent: Refer to Appendix C – Broadmeadows Estates Cultural Resources Records Search Results.

Historic Policy H-1.1.4: Development projects shall notify the City and relevant parties if historic or prehistoric occupancy or use of the site is discovered during grading or building activities.

Consistent: See Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures in Section 5.

Historic Policy H-1.1.5: Maintain, improve or expand the historic districts as attractive and unique cultural and historical business and residential districts that will attract and please visitors to the City.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.1: Parklands and recreational facilities may be considered open space land for purposes of the General Plan provided they meet the criteria set forth for open space specified in the Land Use Element and Conservation and Open Space Element Does Not Apply: No park and recreation or open space land is proposed as part of Broadmeadows.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.2: New residential developments shall provide land and/or funding for parks and recreation facilities. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Consistent: Broadmeadows will contribute $8,760 $9,427.61 per dwelling unit to the City Parks Fund.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.3: Public open space, trails, park maintenance, overhead, and liability insurance should be funded through a special district or other mechanism formed to maintain parks and landscaping as well as lighting or other facilities deemed appropriate and consistent with the capital improvements program (CIP).

Consistent: Broadmeadows lot owners/home owners will be required to annex to the City-wide Community Services District if one is formed.
122
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 62
Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.4: School recreational facilities should remain available for public use when not being occupied by school functions. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of Amador County Unified School District.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.5: A regional park/sports complex should be established in the Sutter Hill/Martell area that will serve the expanding needs of western Amador County. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of Amador County and participating cities.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.6: One or more additional community parks should be established in the City. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.7: Neighborhood parks should be located within walking distance of the residences they are intended to serve. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Implementation Measure No.PR-1.1.7.1: New large residential development projects containing at least 50 to 100 residential units shall include neighborhood parks. For purposes of this implementation measure, the large residential development project is identified as Golden Hill Subdivision Unit No. 1, Unit No. 2, Unit No. 3 (now Panner Creek Estates), and Unit No. 4 (now Broadmeadows Estates).

Consistent: Within Panner Creek Estates, an anticipated future park is proposed adjacent to Sutter Creek Road and is identified on Figure 1-11 on page 11-5 of the City of Sutter Creek General Plan.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.8: The Sutter Creek Corridor (stream channel) or 100-year flood plain should be made into an attractive, yet safe, linear parkway. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: The Broadmeadows project is not located on the creek. This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Parks and Recreation Policy PR-1.1.9: The City shall adopt a bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan and funding mechanism that includes an interlinking citywide network of pedestrian walking paths and bicycle trails should be established to provide connectivity between residential communities and the downtown area. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. Sidewalks and neighborhood streets are provided for accessibility within the development.

Housing
Housing Policy H-1.1: Ensure sufficient sites are appropriately zoned to accommodate each jurisdiction’s share of regional housing needs. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-1.2: Make use of state and federal programs to support housing provision, including funding programs. Work with nonprofit and for-profit developers to make use of those programs for which the developer must be the applicant.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. 123
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 63
Housing Policy H-1.3: Promote the development of second units.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. It is not expected that Broadmeadows will produce any second units.

Housing Policy H-1.4: Assist in the development of housing affordable to extremely low, very lowand low-income households through financial and/or technical assistance. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-5.: The County and the cities of Ione, Jackson, Plymouth and Sutter Creek will consider establishing countywide or individual Affordable Housing Trust Fund(s).

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of Amador County and the four cities.

Housing Policy H-2.1: Provide for a variety of housing types to meet the housing needs of special population groups. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-3.1: Pursue a combination of public and private actions to rehabilitate and maintain the existing stock of housing. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-3.2: The County and the cities of Ione, Jackson, Plymouth and Sutter Creek should consider working together with local utility companies to implement energy awareness programs.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-3.3: The County and the cities of Ione, Jackson, Plymouth and Sutter Creek shall promote energy and water conservation designs and features in residential developments.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-4-1: The jurisdictions shall promote housing opportunities for persons regardless of age, race, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, color, disability, or economic level. Also applies to Environmental Justice.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-5-1: The County and the cities of Ione, Jackson, Plymouth and Sutter Creek shall enforce its land use policies that allow residential growth for a variety of housing types.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-5.2: The agencies shall continue efforts to fast-track residential applications in order to promote the construction of housing.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City.

Housing Policy H-5.3: Reestablish a countywide housing task force to implement this housing element.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. 124
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 64
Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice Policy EJ-1.1.1: Consider environmental justice issues as they pertain to the equitable provision of public services, housing amenities, and environmental quality.

Does Not Apply: This policy is the responsibility of the City. 125
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 65

12. Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land
use plan?
X
Discussion
a–b) No Impact:

The subject property is within a mineralized zone, including a portion of the Mother Lode Gold Belt. However, these mineral claims do not affect surface land use activities, and are normally effective 300-feet or more below the surface.

Development of the proposed subdivision will not affect underground mineral resources. However, potential property owners should be aware of mining claims on their property. This information will be disclosed in a title report for the property.
126
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 66

13. Noise
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
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?
X
Reference:

Draft Westover Field Airport Compatibility Plan. ESA. June 2017.

Discussion
a-c) Less Than Significant:

The proposed project site is located in an area with low ambient (background) noise levels (characterized at 50 decibels between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM for singlefamily residential uses). Establishment of 10 additional residential dwellings is not anticipated to create higher noise levels or contribute to an increase in the current ambient noise levels in the area.

During construction of the subdivision improvements (storm drainage including trenching, final grading of individual lots, and similar activities) daytime noise levels will likely exceed the 50 decibel threshold. These exceedances are considered to be very short term (a few hours to a few days), but are expected to cause an inconvenience to neighboring homes; but not cause significant effects.

During construction of structures on individual lots, noise from this construction activity will be noticed by residential uses in the area. In order to minimize these noise effects, contractors and property owners need to adhere to City noise requirements as contained in the Municipal Code. Section 10.50.120 of the Code relating to Building and Construction Noise Limitations, restricts the use of construction-type equipment between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

The proposed subdivision is outside the Westover Field Airport Influence Area – Safety Zone 6. Safety Zone 6 comprises the traffic pattern zone, which covers regular traffic patterns and pattern entry route both in and out of the airport. The project site is outside the 55 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level), which is the lowest noise level calculated for airport operations. 127
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 67
Mitigation
None Required.
128
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 68

14. Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Discussion
a-b) No Impact:

Annexing the area into the City and amending the General Plan land use from RL to RSF allows for increased housing density; however, the increase in density would allow for 17 units to be constructed if all 2.77 acres comprising the residential lot footprints were built to capacity under the RSF designation as compared to 5 units under the RL designation. The project proposes a 10-unit subdivision, with lot sizes in between the minimum RL (20,000 square feet) and RSF (7,000 square feet) designations. It should be noted that the existing Golden Hills development to the south and west is already designated RSF, with similar densities.

The proposed project is expected to add approximately 28 residents to the City of Sutter Creek, which represents a 1.1% increase over the existing population.

The previous work completed in the area has already extended roadways and utility infrastructure, and no new roads or new utility main lines are proposed. No persons or existing housing will be displaced as a result of the project.

The Mabry remainder parcel (consisting of 5.25 5.03 acres) is not planned for development under this application.
129
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 69

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

Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Discussion
a) Less than Significant:

Public services (including law enforcement, fire protection, and schools) presently serve the project area. No changes to the level of service are anticipated.

The subdivision would continue to be served by the Amador County Unified School District following the annexation. The potential increase in additional students (approximately 7 students Kindergarten through 12th Grade), is not anticipated to adversely affect capacity or require the development of additional school facilities.

The area to be annexed into the City is currently served by the Amador County Sheriff’s Office and Amador Fire Protection District. Following annexation, the subdivision would be served by the Sutter Creek Police Department and Sutter Creek Fire Protection District. The area to be annexed would also be served by the City of Sutter Creek, rather than Amador County.

Allocation of property tax revenue derived from the annexation area will be determined by a Master Property Tax Allocation Agreement approved by the Amador County Board of Supervisors and the Sutter Creek City Council. This agreement will affect the allocation of property tax to the City, the Sutter Creek Fire Protection District, and the Amador Fire Protection District. The allocated amounts are not known at this time.

Existing park facilities are adequate to serve the additional residents from this project and additional park facilities are not proposed. The nearest park facilities are: Sutter Creek Grammar School (1.0 miles away); and Minnie Provis Park (1.4 miles away). Homeowners will be required to contribute $8,760 $9,427.61 per dwelling unit to the City Parks Fund.

The ability of service providers to provide public services will be verified through ‘Referral Comments’ as part of the project review process. At this time, there are no known limitations on the ability of these agencies to provide public services.

Mitigation
None Required.
130
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 70

16. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X
Discussion
a–b) Less than Significant:

The addition of 10 residential units (approximately 28 persons) will have a small but incremental effect on the City park system. However, the use of these park facilities by residents of Broadmeadows is not expected to adversely impact existing park facilities. The nearest park facilities are: Sutter Creek Grammar School (1.0 miles away) and Minnie Provis Park (1.4 miles away).

The project does not have an adequate area to justify new park facilities within the Subdivision. Therefore, the Subdivision will be required to pay Quimby Act Fees in lieu of parkland dedication. Fees are calculated based on the land value for each lot and are collected at the building permit stage. Homeowners will also contribute to park facilities through payment of a Park Impact Fee of $8,760 $9,427.61 per dwelling unit upon issuance of a building permit.

Mitigation
None Required.
131
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 71

17. Transportation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Reference:

Panner Creek Estates (and Broadmeadows Estates) Traffic Impact Assessment.

KD Anderson and Associates, Inc., Transportation Engineers. June 14, 2018.

Note: This traffic analysis also incorporated traffic data related to Panner Creek Estates, which has now been superseded. However, the traffic data for Broadmeadows Estates is still appropriate for this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Discussion
a, c and-d) No Impacts:

The circulation system to serve this subdivision includes existing dedicated public streets. No changes to the circulation system are anticipated. A new sidewalk would be extended along the north side of Broadmeadows Drive for improved pedestrian circulation.

As detailed in Appendix H: Traffic Impact Assessment, traffic impacts from Broadmeadows Estates (10-lots) and adjacent vacant lots (12 lots) will not reduce the level of service (LOS) on any street segment included in the Assessment. (Table 6 on Page 7 of Appendix H). The Traffic Impact Assessment estimates 94 new daily trips would be generated by the 10 lot Subdivision.

Off-site improvements to the Gopher Flat Road/Shake Ridge Road-Golden Hills Drive intersection, and the Main Street/Hanford Street-Gopher Flat Road intersection were constructed in conjunction with Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2.

Because the Broadmeadows Subdivision will not reduce the LOS on Gopher Flat Road, no other improvements to Gopher Flat Road are anticipated at this time.

Homeowners within Broad Meadows will pay a General Traffic Impact Fee of $4,626.86 $4,981.63, and a Special Golden Hills Estates Traffic Impact Fee of $1,464.37 $1,575.97 at the building permit stage.
132
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 72
b) Less Than Significant:

VMT and Transit (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b))
The project is estimated to generate 13.3 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household per day, based on 2.02 persons per household (California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates, January 1, 2023); and 6.6 homebased vehicle miles traveled per capita per day (California Household Travel Survey, Caltrans, June 2013). The proposed project is estimated to generate 133 VMT per day.

The City of Sutter Creek has not yet established a methodology to evaluate project impacts based on VMT.

Amador Transit provides fixed route bus service via the Route 5A and 5B shuttle, which provides service in the Jackson, Martell, and Sutter Creek areas, with a stop at the Sutter Creek Post Office. The proposed project is approximately 0.9 miles from the post office. Amador Transit also offers Dial-A-Ride curb to curb service in the Sutter Creek and Jackson areas.

Mitigation
None Required.
133
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 73

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, as
defined in Public Resource Code
section21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:

X
(i) 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), or
X
(ii) 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 subsection (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
Discussion
a) No Impacts:

The majority of the project site has been graded and no tribal cultural resources have been identified within or adjacent to the project site. Refer to Appendix C for details.

Pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) and Senate Bill 18, the City is required to consult with affected Tribes regarding effects of the project on tribal resources. Local tribes include the Jackson Rancheria Band of Mewuk Indians, the Buena Vista Tribe of Me-wuk Indians, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria.
134
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 74

19. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X
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?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Discussion
a and c) Less than Significant:

Municipal services for Broad Meadows will be provided by the following service providers:

Service Current Provider
Wastewater
Storm Drainage
City of Sutter Creek
City of Sutter Creek
Electricity
Natural Gas
Telecommunications
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
AT&T, AT&T U-verse, HughesNet, Viasat,
Xfinity by Comcast, DIRECTV, dish
Network
The ability of service providers to provide public services will be verified through ‘Will Serve Letters’ and ‘Referral Comments’ as part of the project review process.

At this time, there are no known limitations on the ability of these agencies to provide public services. Refer to Appendix F for service provider information received to date.
135
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 75
b) Less than Significant with Mitigation:

Water
The Amador Water Agency (AWA) is responsible for providing potable water to the project. AWA has recently reported that the Tanner Water Treatment Plant is operating at capacity, and that water to serve new development is very limited.

Through a recent improvement to the plant, AWA estimates that approximately 182 additional EDU’s (equivalent dwelling units) can currently be served. (Larry McKinney, AWA General Manager; personal communication)
The Broad Meadows project was issued a Letter of Water Availability from AWA on November 5, 2018. (Refer to Appendix F) Given the current limitations on water availability, this Letter needs to be updated.

In addition, AWA has recently (July 2023) updated the Tanner Treatment Plant Connection Commitments List. This list indicates potential development projects and the associated EDU’s assigned to each project. Under the ‘Will Serve’ category on the list, Golden Hills Estates Units 1, 2 and 4 are assigned a total of 19 EDU’s.

Unit 1 (on Ridgecrest Court) has 4 EDU’s remaining to be assigned. Unit 2 (on Herrington Court) has 3 EDU’s remaining to be assigned. Of the remaining 12 EDU’s available for Golden Hills, the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision (formerly Golden Hills Unit 4) would utilize 10 EDU’s. Therefore, While not currently on the Connection Commitments List, Broadmeadows qualifies for a ‘Will Serve’ letter from AWA once the Tentative Subdivision Map is approved by the City.

Individual service laterals/water meters for each of the 10 residential lots will need to be upgraded from 3/4-inch laterals and 5/8-inch water meters to 1-inch laterals/meters. (Refer to Appendix F – Broadmeadows Estates Public Service Letters)
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BM 19-6 After approval of the Broadmeadows Tentative Subdivision Map by the Planning Commission, the
Applicant shall apply to the Amador Water Agency
for a ‘Will Serve’ Letter for 10 EDU’s.
d and e) Less than significant:

Solid waste (garbage) services are provided within Sutter Creek by ACES Waste Services, Inc. under a franchise agreement with the City of Sutter Creek. ACES provides weekly garbage service and alternating weeks for yard waste and recyclables. At this time, there are no known limitations on the ability of ACES to provide solid waste services to the proposed subdivision.

Amador County contracts with Sacramento County for disposal of its solid waste, which is transported by ACES to the Keefer Landfill in eastern Sacramento County.

No solid waste is disposed of in Amador County. The Keefer Landfill has a 60-year life expectancy.
136
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 76
Currently, Amador County is able to divert close to 70% of the solid waste stream to recycling facilities. However, changes in the ability of solid waste companies to market recyclable materials is becoming problematic. ACES (along with the County and the five cities) transport all recyclable materials to the Recycle Center in Galt, for which they have been paid $30 per ton of material. This is changing due to the inability of the United States to ship recyclable material to China. The County will soon be paying the Galt Recycle Center $160 per ton to dispose of its recyclable material. This situation is further complicated by new State requirements (Assembly Bill 1826 and Senate Bill 1383) which will require the diversion of 50% of organic material (food waste and the like) from the waste stream by 2022, and 75% by 2025. The County is not presently set up for this more specialized recycling; which will require new equipment and new capabilities in order to meet this mandate. The effective date of this new program is dependent on program evaluation by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The City of Sutter Creek has adopted a 5- year waiver for these requirements.
(James McHargue, former Amador County Solid Waste Manager; personal communication)
Mitigation
None Required.
137
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 77

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

Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
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?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power
lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or
ongoing impacts to the environment?
X
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?
X
Reference:

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones. August 2018.

Discussion
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation:

The current circulation system to serve this subdivision is in place and the City has adopted an emergency evacuation plan. This plan directs residents of the Golden Hills area to evacuate westbound on Gopher Flat Road, then northerly or southerly via Hanford Street or Main Street. Development of Broadmeadows will not impair this plan.

Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BM 20-7: All Broadmeadows Estates property owners shall receive a copy of the City Emergency Evacuation
Plan.
b and c) Less Than Significant:

The Broadmeadows Subdivision is located within a CAL FIRE Moderate Severity Zone, and is within the mapped non-very high fire hazard severity zone. 138
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 78
The subdivision is adjacent to open grassland along its northern boundary.

However, there are no trees, brushy areas, or other wildfire hazards in the immediate area.

The project site is adjacent to an area designated as ‘moderate risk’ with respect to fire hazard severity. Moderate is the lowest classification and may require specific building requirements and establishment of ‘defensible space’ for each residential lot as required by State law (Public Resources Code Section 4291).

Utility infrastructure is located below ground to avoid fire risk.

Mitigation
None Required.
d) No Impacts:

Due to its location, the subdivision is not expected to suffer from flooding or landslides, slope instability or drainage changes or to cause such instabilities offsite.

Mitigation
None Required.
139
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 79

4. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Discussion
a and c) Less than Significant:

The proposed project will have a small but incremental impact; however, these impacts are not anticipated to have any significant effect on environmental resources, population, or services.

Mitigation
None Required.
b) Less Than Significant
The potential exists for ‘cumulative impacts’ from implementation of the project, as well as the potential to induce growth.

Refer to the Cumulative Impact Matrix in Chapter 5, following. 140
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 80

5. Cumulative Impacts
This chapter evaluates the potential cumulative environmental effects of the Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision.
a. Aesthetics
Single-family dwellings will be constructed on each lot, similar to adjacent single-family dwellings in the neighborhood. Light and glare similar to existing homes in the area are anticipated. The Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision will not be aesthetically different from adjoining development.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Development of Broadmeadows Estates will convert ‘vacant land’ (land currently not used for any other purpose) to residential uses. The subject property is designated by the City of Sutter Creek for residential development. Therefore, the project does not conflict with; and does not encroach on agriculture or timber resources.
c. Air Quality
The Subdivider has indicated that Broadmeadows Estates will be constructed prior to any other development in the area. There will be a small but incremental cumulative air quality effect in the area resulting from the project. d. Biological Resources
The Broadmeadows Estates subdivision will not have any adverse effects on biological resources. No sensitive resources are located on the project site.

Residential development for the site will be similar in type and intensity to those currently found in the surrounding area. Consequently, project implementation is not anticipated to have any significant cumulative effect on regional biological resources.
e. Cultural Resources
No prehistoric (Native American) archaeological resources were identified on the project site. No historic buildings or structures were identified on the project site.

The Broadmeadows Estates Subdivision will not compromise cultural resources. f. Energy
Construction of subdivision improvements, and construction of individual residential dwelling units will utilize conventional construction equipment which are not expected to be energy-related wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

The project will contribute a small but incremental increase in energy use in the region.
141
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 81
g. Geology and Soils
Adherence to required seismic construction standards for buildings and foundations under Zone 3 of the California Building Code; and utilizing standard erosion control measures as required under the Uniform Building Code will ensure that potential cumulative impacts to geologic and soils aspects will be minimal. h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction-related green house gas emissions (GHG) for carbon dioxide will be below the threshold amount of 1,100 metric tons per year. The project will contribute a small but incremental increase in GHG emissions in the region.

During operation (and at full build-out of 10 residential dwellings), total GHG emissions will be below the threshold of 869 metric tons for carbon dioxide. With new housing units utilizing rooftop solar energy generation’ and with increasing improvements to mobile emissions, water efficiency, and energy efficient appliances, it can be expected that household energy demands will decrease and therefore greenhouse gas emissions will also decrease over the lifespan of the development.
i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No hazardous materials would be routinely used, transported, or generated by the 10 residential lots. Diesel fuel and oils would be used during construction; however, no significant impact is anticipated.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
Broadmeadows Estates will utilize the Gopher Gulch drainage course to transport stormwater from the project site. Previous studies (Golden Hills Estates, Unit No. 2 and Powder House Estates) related to the ability of the Gopher Gulch drainage course to adequately carry stormwater runoff has resulted in improvements along Gopher Gulch to allow such capacity. Additional larger-scale development along the Gopher Flat Road corridor will likely require the diversion of stormwater away from Gopher Gulch southerly to Sutter Creek.
k. Land Use and Planning
At the present time, the City General Plan does not envision additional expansion of the City east of the Golden Hills development (including Broadmeadows). Therefore, completion of development in this area will not be growth inducing and has already been addressed through the Sutter Crest Estates/Golden Hills Estates review process.
142
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 82
Additional undeveloped lands along the Gopher Flat Corridor and within the City Planning Area, carry the ‘Planned Development Overlay’ designation, which requires City “approval of development plans that show how projects in these areas will conform to General Plan goals, objectives, policies, and design guidelines.” (Sutter Creek General Plan Land Use Element; Combined Land Use Designations. Page 4- 8, Figure 4-1. July 2019)
The Broadmeadows Estates project will add a slight increase in land within the City limit and result in changes to the total acreage of the land use and zoning designations. Broadmeadows Estates would result in the addition of 3.25 acres of land designated and zoned Residential Single Family/R-1.

In what is identified as the ‘Mabry remainder parcel’ -- a 5.25 5.03 acre parcel adjacent to Broadmeadows -- is unlikely to develop in the future due to environmental constraints (Gopher Gulch riparian corridor that passed through it) and infrastructure costs to extend Gopher Flat Road along the property frontage of both the Mabry Parcel and the Birge Parcel (900 lineal feet). These parcels are currently outside the City Limits, but within the Sutter Creek Sphere of Influence (SOI) and designated as RL (Residential Low Density; one-half acre minimum lot size). Although no development plan has been proposed, it is estimated that the Mabry Parcel could yield approximately 6 residential lots under the RL designation. l. Mineral Resources
A mineralized zone associated with the Mother Lode Gold Belt underlies the proposed subdivision. No effects are anticipated as these claims are deep underground and do not impact surface activities.
m. Noise
The Subdivision consists of detached single-family residential dwellings, and will generate similar noise levels as adjacent detached single-family residential dwellings. The Subdivision will need to comply with City Noise Ordinance requirements.
n. Population and Housing
Broadmeadows Estates will generate approximately 28 new City residents at full buildout. This amounts to a 0.3% increase over the current population of 2,590 residents. Broadmeadows will cause a small, but incremental increase in the City population.

Broadmeadows will add 10 residential dwelling units to the current housing stock, which currently consists of 1,432 residential dwelling units. 143
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 83
o. Public Services
Broadmeadows has the potential to cumulatively affect the ability of public service providers to maintain adequate levels of service. At the present time, these cumulative impacts have not been triggered; as adequate police protection, fire protection, school facilities, and park facilities are available. There are no known limitations on the ability of these service providers to provide public services. p. Recreation
The addition of 28 residents from the Broadmeadows Subdivision will have a small but incremental effect on the City park system. However, the use of these park facilities by residents of Broadmeadows Estates is not expected to impact existing park facilities. The nearest park facilities are: Minnie Provis Park (0.9 miles away); and Sutter Creek Primary School (1.4 miles away). Broadmeadows homeowners will contribute to park facilities through payment of a Park Impact Fee of $8,760 $9,427.61 per dwelling unit upon issuance of a building permit.

General Plan Implementation Measure PR-1.1.7.1 requires new large residential development projects (defined as containing at least 50 to 100 units) to provide neighborhood parks.
q. Transportation
Traffic analysis conducted for Broadmeadows Estates indicates that traffic on Gopher Flat Road resulting from Broadmeadows would remain at Level of Service (LOS) A Therefore, Broadmeadows will have a small but incremental increase in the number of vehicle trips per day from the project.

Maintaining LOS A for Gopher Flat Road would not trigger any additional roadway or traffic improvements.
r. Tribal Cultural Resources
To date, local Tribes have not indicated any concerns regarding the Broadmeadows Subdivision project. The City will consult with tribes who have asked to review City projects under AB 52.
s. Utilities and Service Systems
The project has the potential to cumulatively affect the ability of utilities and municipal service providers to maintain adequate levels of service.

Currently, Amador Water Agency (AWA) has a limited ability to provide water service to new development; however, the Broadmeadows Estates project is currently on the AWA service list will qualify for a ‘Will Serve’ letter from AWA upon approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map. (Refer to Chapter 19, Utilities & Service Systems for a detailed discussion)
144
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 84
City sewer line improvements will be required at the Main Street-Gopher Flat Road intersection in order to serve Broad Meadows.

At this time there are no known limitations for Storm Drainage provided by the City of Sutter Creek, Electricity and Natural Gas provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company, and telecommunications provided by a variety of local providers.

Utilities were previously installed in this area, and are sized to serve the proposed lots within Broad Meadows. Therefore, the subdivisions would not induce growth due to the provision of new utility services to the area. t. Wildfire
The Subdivision is adjacent to oak woodland and open grassland to the north and east. This situation will require a ‘defensible space’ be developed for each residential lot as required by State law (Public Resources Code Section 4291). 145
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 85

6. Comments Received and Responses to Comments
The Proposed Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review for a 30- day period from October 23, 2023 through November 22, 2023.

Copies were distributed to the State Clearinghouse, local and affected agencies, and City staff.

Written comments received on the draft document are presented in tis chapter. Each comment is numbered in consecutive order. Following each comment letter are the Lead Agency’s responses to the comments with corresponding numbers.

Comments were received from the following:

Agency, Organization or Individual Date of Comment
Caltrans, District 10, Rural Planning November 17, 2023 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board November 22, 2023 In cases where comments or responses required text changes to the document, deletions are indicated in strikethrough type, and additions are indicated in underline type. 146
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 86
147
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 87
148
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 88
Response to Caltrans, District 10, Rural Planning
No Response is required.
149
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 89
150
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 90
151
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 91
152
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 92
153
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 93
154
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 94
Response to Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

1. A mitigation measure has been proposed which requires that a Construction General Permit be obtained. Refer to page 38.

2. A mitigation measure has been proposed which requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan be developed and implemented. Refer to page 38. 155
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 95

7. Preparers and References
Report Preparation:
 Bruce Baracco, Principal Planner
Baracco and Associates
[email protected]
209-304-0028
 Dave Mitchell, Senior Air Quality Scientist (Retired) Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
 William Stolp, Senior Biologist (Retired)
ESR, Inc.
 Ric Windmiller, Archaeologist
Windmiller Consulting, Inc.
[email protected]
530-878-0979
 Kenneth D. Anderson, PE, President (Deceased)
KD Anderson & Associates, Inc.
 Kenneth A. Williams, Professional Geologist
[email protected]
209-418-8020
References:

Regulations, Code of (CA) (as amended). Title 14 – Natural Resources, Division 6 – Natural Resources Agency, Chapter 3 -- Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form .

Sacramento, CA.

See also references pertaining to specific Checklist Topics, and within the text of each Checklist Topic.
156
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 96

7. Glossary
Annexation The inclusion of territory into a city or special district.

Contiguous In the case of boundary, territory adjacent to an agency to which boundary is proposed. Territory is not
contiguous if the only contiguity is based upon a strip of land more than 300 feet long and less than 200 feet
wide.

District An agency of the state, formed in accordance with general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental functions within limited boundaries.

Synonymous with “special district.”
General Plan A document containing a statement of development policies including a diagram and text setting forth the objectives of the plan. The general plan must include
certain state mandated elements related to land use,
circulation, housing, conservation, open-space, noise,
and safety.

Lead Agency The public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead
Agency decides whether an EIR or Negative Declaration
is required for a project, and causes the appropriate
document to be prepared.

Negative Declaration A written statement prepared by a Lead Agency that briefly describes the reasons that a project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the
environment and therefore does not require the
preparation of an EIR.

Open Space Any parcel or area of land or water, which is substantially unimproved and devoted to an open-space
use.

Prime Agricultural Land An area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels, that has not been developed for a use other
than agriculture and meets certain criteria related to soil classification or crop and livestock carrying capacity.

Class I and II soils as mapped by the Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
157
Section 4, Item A.

Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Broadmeadows Estates January 2024 Page 97
Project Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a project is the whole of an action which has the
potential to result in significant environmental change in the environment, directly, or ultimately (see CEQA
Guidelines Section 15378).

Responsible Agencies Under CEQA, responsible agencies are all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have
discretionary approval power over the project.

Zoning The primary instrument for implementing the general plan. Zoning divides a community or county into
districts or “zones” that specify the permitted/prohibited land uses.
* * * *
158
Section 4, Item A.

Mitchell Air Quality Consulting

WWW.MITCHELLAQ.COM
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report
Broadmeadows Estates
Sutter Creek, California
Prepared for:

Baracco and Associates
PO Box 401
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
209.304.0028
Contact: Bruce Baracco
Principal Planner
Prepared by:

Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
1164 E. Decatur Avenue
Fresno, CA 93720
559.246.3732
Contact: Dave Mitchell
Senior Air Quality Scientist
October 6, 2017
159
Section 4, Item A.
160
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 161
Section 4, Item A.
162
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 1
SECTION 1: AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

1.1: Project Description
The Broadmeadows Estates project is a 10-lot single family subdivision on 2.7 acres in the City of Sutter Creek. The project site is located at the intersection of Golden Hills Drive and Broadmeadows Drive. The current zoning is Residential Low Density. The average lot size is 11,290 square feet. The site is currently vacant. Water will be supplied by the Amador County Water Agency. Electricity and natural gas will be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).

1.2: Project Analysis
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” To determine if a project would have a significant impact on air quality, the type, level, and impact of emissions generated by the project must be evaluated.

The following air quality significance thresholds are contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

A significant impact would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable national or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Greenhouse as thresholds are based on the CEQA Guidelines checklist questions pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions, listed below:

Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
163
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
2 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
The analysis addresses criteria pollutant, toxic air contaminant, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis assesses the impacts of project construction and operational criteria pollutant and GHG emission using the CalEEMod 2013 emission model.

The City of Sutter Creek and Amador County Air Pollution Control District (ACAPCD) have not adopted guidance for assessing air quality and GHG impacts and thresholds for determining the significance of these impacts. In the absence of guidance from the local or regional air pollution control agency, the Lead Agency may identify its own thresholds supported by substantial evidence.

In this case the Lead Agency has utilized the quantitative thresholds adopted by the neighboring El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD).

The following air pollutants are assessed in this analysis:
 Reactive organic gases (ROG)
 Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
 Carbon monoxide (CO)
 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10)  Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) The following GHGs defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 include  Carbon dioxide (CO2),
 Methane (CH4),
 Nitrous oxide (N2O),
 Hydrofluorocarbons,
 Perfluorocarbons,
 Sulfur hexafluoride.

The project does not include sources that will emit substantial quantities of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride; therefore, no further analysis of these pollutants was required.

1.3: Impact Analysis

1.3.1 - Consistency with Air Quality Plan
Impact AIR-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Impact Analysis
The EDCAQMD CEQA Guide indicates that a significant impact would occur if the project is located in a jurisdiction that does not implement the emission reduction measures contained in and/or derived from the AQAP (EDCAQMD 2002). The project will comply with the reduction measures that apply 164
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 3
to construction activities. Specifically, the project is required to comply with the fugitive dust controls contained in ACAPCD Rule 218—Fugitive Dust Emissions. The project would result in a less than significant increase in operational emissions; therefore, it would not conflict with measures from the air quality attainment plan (AQAP) designed to reduce operational emissions and would not result in a significant impact.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

1.3.2 - Potential for Air Quality Standard Violation
Impact AIR-2: The project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Impact Analysis
Contribution to Air Quality Violations
Regional air quality impacts and attainment of standards are the result of the cumulative impacts of all emission sources within the air basin. Individual projects are generally not large enough to contribute measurably to an existing violation of air quality standards. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project is based on its cumulative contribution. Because of the region’s nonattainment status for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10—if project-generated emissions of either of the ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the EDCAQMD’s quantitative significance thresholds—then the project would be considered to contribute to violations of the applicable standards and conflict with the attainment plans.

The potential to violate CO standards is a localized impact addressed based on the potential to expose sensitive receptors to unhealthful CO concentrations. The Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB), of which Amador County is apart, is classified as attainment for state and federal CO standards and CO is not monitored in the area. The primary source of CO emissions is from motor vehicles. Motor vehicle emissions have been reduced to the extent that violation of the CO air quality standards is not an issue of concern in Amador County and the entire MCAB.

Regional Emissions
Air pollutant emissions have both regional and localized effects. This part of the analysis assesses the regional effects of the project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to EDCAQMD thresholds of significance for short-term construction and long term operational activities.

The primary pollutants of concern during project construction are ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that can be formed miles from the source of emissions, through reactions of ROG and NOX emissions in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ROG and NOX are termed ozone 165
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
4 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
precursors. The monitoring stations nearest to the project site occasionally exceed the state and national ozone standards. Therefore, if the project emits a substantial quantity of ozone precursors, the project may contribute to an exceedance of the ozone standard. Amador County does not exceed state air quality standards for PM10; however, the County exceeds state and federal standards for PM2.5; therefore, substantial project emissions may contribute to an exceedance for these pollutants.

The project does not contain sources that would produce substantial quantities of SO2 emissions during construction or operation. No further analysis of SO2 is required.

Construction Emissions
Project construction emissions were assessed using CalEEMod 2013.2.2. As shown in Table 1, the emissions are below the significance thresholds. The results do not reflect compliance with ACAPCD fugitive dust control measures, which are standard conditions required by regulations and are not considered mitigation measures under CEQA. However, the emissions are less than significant prior to the application of mandatory fugitive dust controls. The primary source of ROG emissions during construction are from architectural coatings. The primary source of NOx and PM2.5 is off-road diesel construction equipment.

Table 1: Construction Air Pollutant Emissions
Year
Emissions (Maximum Daily Emissions in Pounds per Day)
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated
2018 56.62 24.68 8.01 4.63
Significance threshold (pounds/day) 84 84 84 84
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No No No No
Notes:

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are from the mitigated output to reflect compliance with Regulation VIII—Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions.

ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

Operational Emissions
Project operational emissions are the result of motor vehicle use, energy use (natural gas), and area source emission such as consumer products and landscape equipment operation. Operational emissions were modeled using CalEEMod 2013.2.2 and are presented in Table 2. The results of the analysis show that emissions are below the daily emission thresholds for each pollutant. Therefore, the project’s operational emissions would be less than significant.

166
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 5
Table 2: Operational Air Pollutant Emissions (2018)
Source
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Area 15.87 0.22 2.65 2.65
Energy 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01
Mobile 0.70 1.47 0.78 0.22
Total 16.58 1.77 3.44 2.88
Significance threshold 84 84 84 84
Exceed threshold—significant impact? No No No No
Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gases NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter Area source emissions include emissions from natural gas, landscape, and painting.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

The project would not exceed EDCAQMD thresholds of significance for regional criteria pollutant emissions during construction and operation. Therefore, the project’s impact for this criterion are less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

1.3.3 - Cumulative Impacts
Impact AIR-3: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

Impact Analysis
The EDCAQMD CEQA Guide states that a project would be cumulatively significant in on or more of the following conditions is met:

1. The project requires a change in the existing land use designation (i.e., general plan amendment, rezone), and projected emissions (ROG, NOX, CO, or PM10) are greater than the emissions anticipated for the site if developed under the existing land use designation;

2. The project would individually exceed any significance criteria in this Guide; 167
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
6 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting

3. For impacts that are determined to be significant under this Guide, the lead agency for the project does not require the project to implement the emission reduction measures contained in and/or derived from the Air Quality Attainment Plan;

4. The project is located in a jurisdiction that does not implement the emission reduction measures contained in and/or derived from the AQAP.

Regional Impacts
This analysis examines whether the project meets any of the conditions from the EDCAQMD Guide listed above for determining significant cumulative impacts.

The project does not require a change in land use designation and would not result in a significant increase in operational emissions. As shown in Table 1, the project would not exceed any individual significance criteria. The project will comply with applicable control measures from the Air Quality Attainment Plan. The County of Amador supports the implementation of AQAP measures. Therefore, no significant cumulative regional impact would occur as a result of the project.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

1.3.4 - Sensitive Receptors
Impact AIR-4: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Impact Analysis
Significance Threshold
Projects that exceed the following thresholds would result in a significant impact on sensitive receptors:
 Cause or contribute to an exceedance of any California or National Ambient Air Quality Standard;  Exceed the health risk thresholds adopted by the ACAPCD or the EDCAQMD Sensitive Receptors
Those who are sensitive to air pollution include children, the elderly, and persons with preexisting respiratory or cardiovascular illness. Sensitive receptor are locations that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Examples of sensitive receptors include hospitals, residences, convalescent facilities, and schools. The project would be constructed near existing residences. 168
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 7
Criteria Pollutant Localized Impact Analysis
Exceedances of localized criteria pollutant thresholds require the concentration of large numbers of polluting equipment close to sensitive receptors. The construction of single family residences requires the use of diesel construction equipment for site preparation, grading, and utilities. Ground up home construction requires minimal use of diesel equipment. The site has already been graded and home pads have been installed. Therefore, the remaining construction activities would not be expected to result in significant local activities that would generate criteria pollutant emissions.

Generally, projects that do not exceed the pounds per day regional thresholds for criteria pollutants also would not exceed localized impact thresholds. As shown earlier in Table 1, the project does not exceed the EDCAQMD daily thresholds of 84 pounds. The highest daily emissions are from NOX, which result in maximum daily emissions of 49.0 pounds. The nearby San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) has adopted screening levels of 100 pounds per day for localized criteria pollutant impacts based on dispersion modeling using worst case modeling assumptions (SJVAPCD 2015). Meteorological conditions are more conducive to dispersion in the foothills, and background pollutant concentrations are lower compared with the San Joaquin Valley, which makes this comparison conservative. Table 3 shows the project’s maximum daily emissions compared with SJVAPCD localized screening thresholds.

Table 3: Maximum Daily Air Pollutant Emissions During Construction Maximum Daily Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions (2018) 5.76 49.02 5.13 3.50
Screening threshold 100 100 100 100
Exceed screening threshold? No No No No
Notes:

NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 and PM2.5 = particulate matter N/A = Not applicable
Summer and Winter emissions were essentially the same. There is no ambient air quality standard for ROG.

Source: CalEEMod output (Appendix A).

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles.

The project would result in a small increase in vehicles trips during construction and operational activities of future residents. The project site is rural with little or no traffic congestion. The addition of vehicle trips would not increase congestion to levels that could create a CO hotspot. It should be noted that CO concentrations have declined to the point where the entire state has attained the standard for this pollutant and it is not monitored in this area. Therefore, the project would not significantly contribute to an exceedance of state or federal CO standards.

Health Risk Impacts from Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions
The EDCAPCD Guide states that a project would result in a significant impact if exceeds the cancer and non-cancer risk thresholds listed in Table 4.
169
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
8 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
Table 4: Health Risk Significance Thresholds
Impact Health Risk Threshold
Cancer Risk Maximally exposed individual receptor equals or exceeds 10 in one million Non-Cancer Hazard Index Maximally exposed individual receptor equals or exceeds 1.0 Source: EDCAPCD 2002
Cancer risk is estimated based on long term exposure to carcinogenic compounds over 70 years.

However, OHEHHA guidelines recommend assessing large construction projects that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial amounts of DPM for a period of three months or longer (OEHHA 2015). The project is not a large construction site. Grading and site preparation required less than three months, therefore, no additional analysis is required to determine that the risk is less than significant. Residential development is an insignificant source of operational toxic emissions; therefore, operational toxic emissions are less than significant.

Valley Fever
Valley fever, or coccidioidomycosis, is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the fungus, Coccidioides immitis (C. immitis). The fungus is known to live in the soil in the southwestern United States and parts of Mexico and Central and South America. The spores can live for an extended time in harsh environmental conditions. Activities or conditions that increase the amount of fugitive dust contribute to greater exposure, and they include dust storms, grading, and recreational off-road activities.

Although valley fever is not common in the Sierra Nevada foothills, the valley fever spores have been found in foothill locations. The distribution of C. immitis is not uniform and growth sites are commonly small (a few tens of meters) and widely scattered. Known sites appear to have some ecological factors in common suggesting that certain physical, chemical, and biological conditions are more favorable for C. immitis growth. Avoidance, when possible, of sites favorable for the occurrence of C. immitis is a prudent risk management strategy.

The project site preparation and grading activities have been completed. Limited activities that will disturb the soil would occur during the ground up construction process. However, construction activities could generate fugitive dust that could contain C. immitis spores. The project will minimize the generation of fugitive dust during construction activities by complying with ACAPCD Rule 218.

Therefore, this regulation combined with the low probability of the presence of valley fever spores would reduce valley fever impacts to less than significant.

Naturally Occurring Asbestos
According to a map of areas where naturally occurring asbestos in California are likely to occur (U.S.

Geological Survey 2011), there are no such areas near the project site. Therefore, development of the project is not anticipated to expose receptors to naturally occurring asbestos. Impacts would be less than significant.
170
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 9
Impact Summary
The project would not exceed localized ambient air quality impact thresholds for criteria pollutants and is therefore, less than significant for this criterion. The project would not exceed cancer and non-cancer risk thresholds and is therefore, less than significant for this criterion. The project has limited potential to disturb soil that could contain Valley fever spores and regulations to control fugitive dust are expected to reduce the potential impact to less than significant levels. The project is not in an area known to have naturally occurring asbestos and would be less than significant for this criterion.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

1.3.5 - Objectionable Odors
Impact AIR-5: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

Impact Analysis
Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, schools, etc. warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, worksites, and commercial areas.

Project Analysis
The project is a residential used that is not considered to be a potential source of odor impacts.

During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and would not likely be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project’s site boundaries. The potential for diesel odor impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
171
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
10 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting

1.3.6 - Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Impact GHG-1: The project would generate direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions; however, these emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment.

Impact Analysis
Threshold of Significance
No quantitative threshold has been adopted by the ACAPCD or EDCAQMD that can be used to assess emissions for direct and indirect GHG emission impacts. However, several California air quality management districts have identified screening thresholds to identify a level of emissions that would be considered less than significant. The SMAQMD adopted a screening threshold for construction and operational GHG emissions of 1,100 MTCO2e per year (SMAQMD 2015). This amount is considered low enough that at least 90 percent of emissions from development projects would exceed the threshold and would require further analysis or mitigation to satisfy CEQA requirements.

The significance determination for this project is based on whether the project GHG emissions would exceed 1,100 MTCO2e.

Construction
The project would emit GHGs from upstream emission sources and direct sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment). Emissions were analyzed using CalEEMod 2013.2.2 and default construction assumptions. The project was assumed to be completed in 2018.

Construction emissions result from on-site and off-site activities. On-site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O) from heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Off-site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust (CO2, CH4, N2O) from construction material delivery vehicles, and worker travel. GHG emissions from project construction equipment and worker vehicles are shown in Table

5. Table 5: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year MTCO2e (tons/year)
2018 257.6
Threshold 1,100
Source of Threshold: Operational Screening Threshold from SMAQMD CEQA Guide 2015; Appendix A: Modeling Results
The project does not exceed the SMAQMD screening level thresholds for construction GHG emissions; therefore, project GHG impacts are less than significant.

Operation
The project’s operational GHG emission were analyzed using CalEEMod 2013.2.2 with default modeling assumptions for comparison to the SMAQMD small project thresholds that are used to screen out projects that would not have a significant GHG impact. The SMAQMD operational threshold is 1,100 MTCO2e per year. The analysis confirms that project GHG impacts would not 172
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 11
exceed this threshold. Modeling assumptions and outputs from CalEEMod are provided as an attachment to this report. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases
Source
Emissions (MTCO2e per year)
2018
Area 15.24
Energy 38.98
Mobile 129.22
Waste 3.30
Water 2.26
Total 189.00
Threshold 1,100
Exceeds Threshold (Yes or No)? No
Notes:

MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
Source of emissions: CalEEMod output for the year 2018 (Appendix A).

Project operational emissions will be less than the 1,100 MTCO2e threshold; therefore, GHG impacts are less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

1.3.7 - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Impact Analysis
This impact analysis assesses whether the project complies with the requirements of any applicable GHG plan, policy or regulation. Projects that conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation would be considered to have a significant GHG impact.

No GHG reduction plan has been adopted by Amador County. However, the recently adopted Amador County General Plan EIR includes a commitment under Mitigation Measure 4.7-1a to prepare a GHG reduction plan. The GHG Reduction Plan has not yet been prepared. However, the 173
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
12 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
General Plan EIR also includes Mitigation Measure 4.7-1b to implement interim project specific greenhouse gas reduction measures. The goal of the measure is to require discretionary projects to implement mitigation measures to help reach the 2020 emission goals of AB 32 and the significance threshold of 3.09 MTCO2e per service population per year in 2030. The measure includes assessing VMT and implementing measures to reduce VMT, assessing energy consumption and implementing measures to reduce energy use, and reducing water use (Amador County 2014).

The project results in a minimal increase in operational emissions and long term VMT production and energy consumption and would not hinder the ability of the State to reach its 2020 or 2030 goals. Project construction activities are temporary and would not be reflected in the service population target calculations. Therefore, the project would not result in a potentially significant impact that would require mitigation measures.

Scoping Plan
Pursuant to the requirements in AB 32, the ARB adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in 2008, which outlines actions recommended to obtain the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As described in Section 3.3.3, California has adopted numerous regulations to reduce GHG emissions from nearly all sources. The State now indicates that it is on track to achieve the AB 32 target with adopted regulations (Brown 2015). The project will comply with all Scoping Plan regulations that apply to GHG emissions from new development. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the 2008 Scoping Plan (ARB 2008).

On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed SB 32, which updates the targets contained in AB 32 to include a target of reducing emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The ARB released the Draft 2017 Scoping Plan Update that includes a strategy to achieve the new 2030 target. Once the Scoping Plan strategy is adopted that identifies reduction commitments from the State, local agencies will be able to determine the amount of reductions needed by local agencies beyond regulatory compliance (ARB 2017). The project would be completed prior to 2020 and would have no significant continuing impacts after project completion that would affect the State’s ability to reach the 2020 target or the new 2030 target set forth by SB 32. Motor vehicles used by project residents and electricity used by the homes will be subject to increasingly stringent regulations that will provide continued reductions needed to achieve the 2030 target.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation
Less than significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant impact.
174
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
Mitchell Air Quality Consulting 13
References
Amador County. 2014. Amador County General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Website: http://www.co.amador.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=19549. Accessed October 6, 2017.

Amador County. 2015. Amador County Energy Action Plan. Website:
http://www.co.amador.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=23721. Accessed October 6, 2017.

Amador County. 2016. Community-Wide and Municipal Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory with 2005 Baseline Comparison. Website:
http://www.co.amador.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=23725. Accessed October 6, 2017.

Amador County. 2016. Amador County General Plan. October. Website:
http://www.co.amador.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=25588. Accessed October 6, 2017.

Brown, Edmund G. Jr. 2015. Press Release: California Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Goal in North America. April 29. Website: https://www.gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18938.

Accessed October 6, 2017.

CalEEMod. California Emissions Estimator Model. Version 2013.2.2 Website:
http://caleemod.com/. Accessed October 6, 2017.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2008. (includes edits made in 2009) Climate Change Scoping Plan, a framework for change. Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan /document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2017.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, the Proposed Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 20, 2017.

Website: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2030sp_pp_final.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2017.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Website: http://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr /2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2017.

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD). 2002. Guide to Air Quality Assessment. Website:
http://www.edcgov.us/Government/AirQualityManagement/Guide_to_Air_Quality_Assessment .aspx. Accessed October 6, 2017.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2015. CEQA Guidance and Tools. Website: http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-land-use-planning/ceqaguidance-tools. Accessed October 6, 2017.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. Revised March 19, 2015. Website: www.valleyair.org/transportation /GAMAQI_3-19-15.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2017.

175
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Air Quality Analysis Report
14 Mitchell Air Quality Consulting
Attachments
 Latest Broadmeadows Estates Site Plan
 Emission Summary
 CalEEMod Modeling Output
176
Section 4, Item A.
177
Section 4, Item A.

Broadmeadows Estates Emission Summary
2018 Construction Emissions
Construction Emissions
Summer Daily ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2
2018 56.62 24.68 8.01 4.63 18.55 0.03
Construction Emissions
Winter Daily ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2
2018 56.62 24.70 8.01 4.63 18.44 0.03
2018 Operational Emissions
Unmitigated Operational
Emissions Summer Daily ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2
Area 15.87 0.22 2.65 2.65 19.68 0.01
Energy 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00
Mobile 0.70 1.47 0.78 0.22 6.59 0.01
Total 16.58 1.77 3.44 2.88 26.31 0.02
Unmitigated Operational
Emissions Winter Daily ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO SO2
Area 15.87 0.22 2.65 2.65 19.68 0.01
Energy 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00
Mobile 0.66 1.64 0.78 0.22 6.52 0.01
Total 16.54 1.94 3.44 2.88 26.24 0.02
Construction GHG Emissions
Year CO2e
2018 257.55
Total 257.55
Operational GHG Emissions
2018
Area 15.24
Energy 38.98
Mobile 129.22
Waste 3.30
Water 2.26
Total 189.00
Construction 0.00
Total with Amortized Const 189.00
178
Section 4, Item A.

CalEEMod Modeling Results -
Winter Daily
179
Section 4, Item A.

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Site Plan Acreage
Construction Phase -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Amador County, Winter
Broadmeadows Estates

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 10.00 Dwelling Unit 2.70 18,000.00 29

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2018
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.25 2.70
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2018
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 180
Section 4, Item A.

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2018 56.6192 24.6963 18.4389 0.0256 6.6801 1.3341 8.0142 3.4014 1.2274 4.6287 0.0000 2,476.488 5 2,476.488
5 0.7516 0.0000 2,492.272
4 Total 56.6192 24.6963 18.4389 0.0256 6.6801 1.3341 8.0142 3.4014 1.2274 4.6287 0.0000 2,476.488 5 2,476.488
5 0.7516 0.0000 2,492.272
4 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2018 56.6192 24.6963 18.4389 0.0256 3.0763 1.3341 4.4104 1.5492 1.2274 2.7766 0.0000 2,476.488 5 2,476.488
5 0.7516 0.0000 2,492.272
4 Total 56.6192 24.6963 18.4389 0.0256 3.0763 1.3341 4.4104 1.5492 1.2274 2.7766 0.0000 2,476.488 5 2,476.488
5 0.7516 0.0000 2,492.272
4 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 181
Section 4, Item A.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.95 0.00 44.97 54.45 0.00 40.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 182
Section 4, Item A.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Energy 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Mobile 0.6571 1.6376 6.5185 9.8000e0030.7664 0.0176 0.7840 0.2054 0.0162 0.2216 811.0210 811.0210 0.0417 811.8976 Total 16.5357 1.9360 26.2367 0.0177 0.7664 2.6774 3.4438 0.2054 2.6759 2.8813 277.7173 1,032.608 9 1,310.326
2 0.3015 0.0237 1,324.018
2 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Energy 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Mobile 0.6571 1.6376 6.5185 9.8000e0030.7664 0.0176 0.7840 0.2054 0.0162 0.2216 811.0210 811.0210 0.0417 811.8976 Total 16.5357 1.9360 26.2367 0.0177 0.7664 2.6774 3.4438 0.2054 2.6759 2.8813 277.7173 1,032.608 9 1,310.326
2 0.3015 0.0237 1,324.018
2 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 183
Section 4, Item A.

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2018 1/3/2018 5 3 2 Grading Grading 1/4/2018 1/11/2018 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2018 11/15/2018 5 220 4 Paving Paving 11/16/2018 11/29/2018 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2018 12/13/2018 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 36,450; Residential Outdoor: 12,150; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 184
Section 4, Item A.

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 4.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 185
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 1.1803 1.1803 1.0859 1.0859 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Total 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 1.5908 1.1803 2.7711 0.1718 1.0859 1.2577 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 186
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0424 0.0700 0.5757 1.0200e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 77.1289 77.1289 4.6600e00377.2267 Total 0.0424 0.0700 0.5757 1.0200e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 77.1289 77.1289 4.6600e00377.2267 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.7158 0.0000 0.7158 0.0773 0.0000 0.0773 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 1.1803 1.1803 1.0859 1.0859 0.0000 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Total 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 0.7158 1.1803 1.8962 0.0773 1.0859 1.1632 0.0000 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 187
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0424 0.0700 0.5757 1.0200e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 77.1289 77.1289 4.6600e00377.2267 Total 0.0424 0.0700 0.5757 1.0200e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 77.1289 77.1289 4.6600e00377.2267 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 1.3333 1.3333 1.2266 1.2266 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Total 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 6.5523 1.3333 7.8856 3.3675 1.2266 4.5941 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 188
Section 4, Item A.

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0529 0.0875 0.7196 1.2700e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 96.4111 96.4111 5.8200e00396.5334 Total 0.0529 0.0875 0.7196 1.2700e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 96.4111 96.4111 5.8200e00396.5334 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.9486 0.0000 2.9486 1.5154 0.0000 1.5154 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 1.3333 1.3333 1.2266 1.2266 0.0000 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Total 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 2.9486 1.3333 4.2818 1.5154 1.2266 2.7420 0.0000 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 189
Section 4, Item A.

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0529 0.0875 0.7196 1.2700e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 96.4111 96.4111 5.8200e00396.5334 Total 0.0529 0.0875 0.7196 1.2700e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 96.4111 96.4111 5.8200e00396.5334 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Total 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 190
Section 4, Item A.

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0221 0.0831 0.3661 2.1000e0045.9500e0031.0700e0037.0200e0031.6900e0039.9000e0042.6800e00319.7331 19.7331 1.6000e00419.7364 Worker 0.0212 0.0350 0.2879 5.1000e0040.0511 3.4000e0040.0514 0.0136 3.1000e0040.0139 38.5644 38.5644 2.3300e00338.6134 Total 0.0433 0.1181 0.6540 7.2000e0040.0570 1.4100e0030.0585 0.0152 1.3000e0030.0165 58.2975 58.2975 2.4900e00358.3497 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 0.0000 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Total 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 0.0000 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 191
Section 4, Item A.

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0221 0.0831 0.3661 2.1000e0045.9500e0031.0700e0037.0200e0031.6900e0039.9000e0042.6800e00319.7331 19.7331 1.6000e00419.7364 Worker 0.0212 0.0350 0.2879 5.1000e0040.0511 3.4000e0040.0514 0.0136 3.1000e0040.0139 38.5644 38.5644 2.3300e00338.6134 Total 0.0433 0.1181 0.6540 7.2000e0040.0570 1.4100e0030.0585 0.0152 1.3000e0030.0165 58.2975 58.2975 2.4900e00358.3497 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 192
Section 4, Item A.

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0794 0.1313 1.0795 1.9100e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 144.6166 144.6166 8.7400e003144.8001 Total 0.0794 0.1313 1.0795 1.9100e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 144.6166 144.6166 8.7400e003144.8001 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 0.0000 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 0.0000 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 193
Section 4, Item A.

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0794 0.1313 1.0795 1.9100e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 144.6166 144.6166 8.7400e003144.8001 Total 0.0794 0.1313 1.0795 1.9100e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 144.6166 144.6166 8.7400e003144.8001 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 56.3153 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Total 56.6139 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 194
Section 4, Item A.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2900e0038.7500e0030.0720 1.3000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e0039.6411 9.6411 5.8000e0049.6533 Total 5.2900e0038.7500e0030.0720 1.3000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e0039.6411 9.6411 5.8000e0049.6533 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 56.3153 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Total 56.6139 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 195
Section 4, Item A.

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.6571 1.6376 6.5185 9.8000e0030.7664 0.0176 0.7840 0.2054 0.0162 0.2216 811.0210 811.0210 0.0417 811.8976 Unmitigated 0.6571 1.6376 6.5185 9.8000e0030.7664 0.0176 0.7840 0.2054 0.0162 0.2216 811.0210 811.0210 0.0417 811.8976

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.2900e0038.7500e0030.0720 1.3000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e0039.6411 9.6411 5.8000e0049.6533 Total 5.2900e0038.7500e0030.0720 1.3000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e0039.6411 9.6411 5.8000e0049.6533 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 196
Section 4, Item A.

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 95.70 100.80 87.70 340,372 340,372 Total 95.70 100.80 87.70 340,372 340,372
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 16.80 7.10 7.90 37.30 20.70 42.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.381673 0.108471 0.168620 0.179219 0.094165 0.012144 0.027973 0.006035 0.001833 0.001043 0.010312 0.001497 0.007014 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 197
Section 4, Item A.

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
880.87 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Total 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing

0.88087 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Total 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 198
Section 4, Item A.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Unmitigated 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1543 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.3852 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 15.3040 0.2076 18.8528 7.3600e0032.6487 2.6487 2.6486 2.6486 277.7173 116.4706 394.1879 0.2563 0.0218 406.3417 Landscaping 0.0256 9.6400e0030.8309 4.0000e0054.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0031.4855 1.4855 1.4700e0031.5164 Total 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4000e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 199
Section 4, Item A.

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

10.0 Vegetation

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1543 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.3852 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 15.3040 0.2076 18.8528 7.3600e0032.6487 2.6487 2.6486 2.6486 277.7173 116.4706 394.1879 0.2563 0.0218 406.3417 Landscaping 0.0256 9.6400e0030.8309 4.0000e0054.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0031.4855 1.4855 1.4700e0031.5164 Total 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4000e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:25 AM 200
Section 4, Item A.

CalEEMod Modeling Results -
Summer Daily
201
Section 4, Item A.

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Site Plan Acreage
Construction Phase -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Amador County, Summer
Broadmeadows Estates

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 10.00 Dwelling Unit 2.70 18,000.00 29

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2018
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.25 2.70
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2018
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 202
Section 4, Item A.

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2018 56.6200 24.6821 18.5504 0.0257 6.6801 1.3341 8.0142 3.4014 1.2274 4.6287 0.0000 2,486.757 7 2,486.757
7 0.7516 0.0000 2,502.541
5 Total 56.6200 24.6821 18.5504 0.0257 6.6801 1.3341 8.0142 3.4014 1.2274 4.6287 0.0000 2,486.757 7 2,486.757
7 0.7516 0.0000 2,502.541
5 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2018 56.6200 24.6821 18.5504 0.0257 3.0763 1.3341 4.4104 1.5492 1.2274 2.7766 0.0000 2,486.757 7 2,486.757
7 0.7516 0.0000 2,502.541
5 Total 56.6200 24.6821 18.5504 0.0257 3.0763 1.3341 4.4104 1.5492 1.2274 2.7766 0.0000 2,486.757 7 2,486.757
7 0.7516 0.0000 2,502.541
5 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 203
Section 4, Item A.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.95 0.00 44.97 54.45 0.00 40.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 204
Section 4, Item A.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Energy 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Mobile 0.7030 1.4665 6.5932 0.0107 0.7664 0.0175 0.7839 0.2054 0.0161 0.2215 883.0239 883.0239 0.0417 883.9002 Total 16.5816 1.7650 26.3114 0.0187 0.7664 2.6773 3.4437 0.2054 2.6758 2.8812 277.7173 1,104.611 8 1,382.329
2 0.3015 0.0237 1,396.020
9 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Energy 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Mobile 0.7030 1.4665 6.5932 0.0107 0.7664 0.0175 0.7839 0.2054 0.0161 0.2215 883.0239 883.0239 0.0417 883.9002 Total 16.5816 1.7650 26.3114 0.0187 0.7664 2.6773 3.4437 0.2054 2.6758 2.8812 277.7173 1,104.611 8 1,382.329
2 0.3015 0.0237 1,396.020
9 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 205
Section 4, Item A.

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2018 1/3/2018 5 3 2 Grading Grading 1/4/2018 1/11/2018 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2018 11/15/2018 5 220 4 Paving Paving 11/16/2018 11/29/2018 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2018 12/13/2018 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 36,450; Residential Outdoor: 12,150; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 206
Section 4, Item A.

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 4.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 207
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.5908 0.0000 1.5908 0.1718 0.0000 0.1718 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 1.1803 1.1803 1.0859 1.0859 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Total 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 1.5908 1.1803 2.7711 0.1718 1.0859 1.2577 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 208
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0485 0.0587 0.6649 1.1500e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 87.3980 87.3980 4.6600e00387.4959 Total 0.0485 0.0587 0.6649 1.1500e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 87.3980 87.3980 4.6600e00387.4959 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.7158 0.0000 0.7158 0.0773 0.0000 0.0773 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 1.1803 1.1803 1.0859 1.0859 0.0000 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Total 2.1932 24.5707 15.3552 0.0238 0.7158 1.1803 1.8962 0.0773 1.0859 1.1632 0.0000 2,399.359 6 2,399.359
6 0.7470 2,415.045
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 209
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0485 0.0587 0.6649 1.1500e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 87.3980 87.3980 4.6600e00387.4959 Total 0.0485 0.0587 0.6649 1.1500e0030.1022 6.8000e0040.1029 0.0271 6.3000e0040.0277 87.3980 87.3980 4.6600e00387.4959 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 1.3333 1.3333 1.2266 1.2266 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Total 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 6.5523 1.3333 7.8856 3.3675 1.2266 4.5941 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 210
Section 4, Item A.

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0606 0.0733 0.8311 1.4400e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 109.2476 109.2476 5.8200e003109.3699 Total 0.0606 0.0733 0.8311 1.4400e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 109.2476 109.2476 5.8200e003109.3699 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 2.9486 0.0000 2.9486 1.5154 0.0000 1.5154 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 1.3333 1.3333 1.2266 1.2266 0.0000 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Total 2.3737 24.6088 17.7193 0.0205 2.9486 1.3333 4.2818 1.5154 1.2266 2.7420 0.0000 2,069.391 4 2,069.391
4 0.6442 2,082.920
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 211
Section 4, Item A.

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0606 0.0733 0.8311 1.4400e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 109.2476 109.2476 5.8200e003109.3699 Total 0.0606 0.0733 0.8311 1.4400e0030.1277 8.5000e0040.1286 0.0339 7.8000e0040.0347 109.2476 109.2476 5.8200e003109.3699 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Total 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 212
Section 4, Item A.

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0164 0.0778 0.2368 2.1000e0045.9500e0031.0600e0037.0100e0031.6900e0039.7000e0042.6700e00319.9097 19.9097 1.5000e00419.9129 Worker 0.0243 0.0293 0.3324 5.8000e0040.0511 3.4000e0040.0514 0.0136 3.1000e0040.0139 43.6990 43.6990 2.3300e00343.7480 Total 0.0406 0.1072 0.5692 7.9000e0040.0570 1.4000e0030.0584 0.0152 1.2800e0030.0165 63.6087 63.6087 2.4800e00363.6608 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 0.0000 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Total 2.9004 20.5600 15.6637 0.0249 1.2511 1.2511 1.1992 1.1992 0.0000 2,317.208 9 2,317.208
9 0.4980 2,327.666
4 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 213
Section 4, Item A.

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0164 0.0778 0.2368 2.1000e0045.9500e0031.0600e0037.0100e0031.6900e0039.7000e0042.6700e00319.9097 19.9097 1.5000e00419.9129 Worker 0.0243 0.0293 0.3324 5.8000e0040.0511 3.4000e0040.0514 0.0136 3.1000e0040.0139 43.6990 43.6990 2.3300e00343.7480 Total 0.0406 0.1072 0.5692 7.9000e0040.0570 1.4000e0030.0584 0.0152 1.2800e0030.0165 63.6087 63.6087 2.4800e00363.6608 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 214
Section 4, Item A.

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0909 0.1100 1.2466 2.1700e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 163.8713 163.8713 8.7400e003164.0548 Total 0.0909 0.1100 1.2466 2.1700e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 163.8713 163.8713 8.7400e003164.0548 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 0.0000 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3885 14.0727 11.8278 0.0176 0.8417 0.8417 0.7755 0.7755 0.0000 1,749.833 4 1,749.833
4 0.5343 1,761.052
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 215
Section 4, Item A.

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0909 0.1100 1.2466 2.1700e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 163.8713 163.8713 8.7400e003164.0548 Total 0.0909 0.1100 1.2466 2.1700e0030.1916 1.2800e0030.1929 0.0508 1.1800e0030.0520 163.8713 163.8713 8.7400e003164.0548 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 56.3153 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Total 56.6139 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 216
Section 4, Item A.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0600e0037.3300e0030.0831 1.4000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e00310.9248 10.9248 5.8000e00410.9370 Total 6.0600e0037.3300e0030.0831 1.4000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e00310.9248 10.9248 5.8000e00410.9370 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 56.3153 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2986 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Total 56.6139 2.0058 1.8542 2.9700e0030.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.1506 0.0000 281.4485 281.4485 0.0267 282.0102 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 217
Section 4, Item A.

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.7030 1.4665 6.5932 0.0107 0.7664 0.0175 0.7839 0.2054 0.0161 0.2215 883.0239 883.0239 0.0417 883.9002 Unmitigated 0.7030 1.4665 6.5932 0.0107 0.7664 0.0175 0.7839 0.2054 0.0161 0.2215 883.0239 883.0239 0.0417 883.9002

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0600e0037.3300e0030.0831 1.4000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e00310.9248 10.9248 5.8000e00410.9370 Total 6.0600e0037.3300e0030.0831 1.4000e0040.0128 9.0000e0050.0129 3.3900e0038.0000e0053.4700e00310.9248 10.9248 5.8000e00410.9370 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 218
Section 4, Item A.

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 95.70 100.80 87.70 340,372 340,372 Total 95.70 100.80 87.70 340,372 340,372
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 16.80 7.10 7.90 37.30 20.70 42.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.381673 0.108471 0.168620 0.179219 0.094165 0.012144 0.027973 0.006035 0.001833 0.001043 0.010312 0.001497 0.007014 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 219
Section 4, Item A.

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
880.87 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Total 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing

0.88087 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Total 9.5000e0030.0812 0.0345 5.2000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e0036.5600e003103.6318 103.6318 1.9900e0031.9000e003104.2625 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 220
Section 4, Item A.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Unmitigated 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4100e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1543 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.3852 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 15.3040 0.2076 18.8528 7.3600e0032.6487 2.6487 2.6486 2.6486 277.7173 116.4706 394.1879 0.2563 0.0218 406.3417 Landscaping 0.0256 9.6400e0030.8309 4.0000e0054.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0031.4855 1.4855 1.4700e0031.5164 Total 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4000e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 221
Section 4, Item A.

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

10.0 Vegetation

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.1543 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.3852 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 15.3040 0.2076 18.8528 7.3600e0032.6487 2.6487 2.6486 2.6486 277.7173 116.4706 394.1879 0.2563 0.0218 406.3417 Landscaping 0.0256 9.6400e0030.8309 4.0000e0054.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0034.5300e0031.4855 1.4855 1.4700e0031.5164 Total 15.8691 0.2173 19.6837 7.4000e0032.6532 2.6532 2.6532 2.6532 277.7173 117.9561 395.6734 0.2578 0.0218 407.8582 Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 21 Date: 10/3/2017 9:24 AM 222
Section 4, Item A.

CalEEMod Modeling Results - Annual
223
Section 4, Item A.

Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Site Plan Acreage
Construction Phase -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Amador County, Annual
Broadmeadows Estates

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 10.00 Dwelling Unit 2.70 18,000.00 29

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
2 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Operational Year 2018
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.25 2.70
tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2018
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 1 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 224
Section 4, Item A.

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2018 0.6244 2.4663 1.9418 3.0300e0030.0296 0.1485 0.1781 0.0124 0.1420 0.1544 0.0000 256.3933 256.3933 0.0553 0.0000 257.5551 Total 0.6244 2.4663 1.9418 3.0300e0030.0296 0.1485 0.1781 0.0124 0.1420 0.1544 0.0000 256.3933 256.3933 0.0553 0.0000 257.5551 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2018 0.6244 2.4663 1.9418 3.0300e0030.0175 0.1485 0.1660 6.6800e0030.1420 0.1487 0.0000 256.3930 256.3930 0.0553 0.0000 257.5548 Total 0.6244 2.4663 1.9418 3.0300e0030.0175 0.1485 0.1660 6.6800e0030.1420 0.1487 0.0000 256.3930 256.3930 0.0553 0.0000 257.5548 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 2 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 225
Section 4, Item A.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7282 9.3800e0030.8477 3.1000e0040.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 10.3296 4.4534 14.7829 9.6500e0038.1000e00415.2375 Energy 1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 38.7934 38.7934 1.3100e0035.2000e00438.9811 Mobile 0.1079 0.2721 1.0782 1.7200e0030.1270 3.0100e0030.1300 0.0342 2.7700e0030.0369 0.0000 129.0875 129.0875 6.5100e0030.0000 129.2241 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.4717 0.0000 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2067 1.4438 1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2573 Total 0.8379 0.2963 1.9322 2.1200e0030.1270 0.1132 0.2402 0.0342 0.1130 0.1471 12.0080 173.7780 185.7860 0.1257 1.8400e003188.9982 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.99 0.00 6.81 46.04 0.00 3.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 3 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 226
Section 4, Item A.

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.7282 9.3800e0030.8477 3.1000e0040.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 10.3296 4.4534 14.7829 9.6500e0038.1000e00415.2375 Energy 1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 38.7934 38.7934 1.3100e0035.2000e00438.9811 Mobile 0.1079 0.2721 1.0782 1.7200e0030.1270 3.0100e0030.1300 0.0342 2.7700e0030.0369 0.0000 129.0875 129.0875 6.5100e0030.0000 129.2241 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.4717 0.0000 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2067 1.4438 1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2570 Total 0.8379 0.2963 1.9322 2.1200e0030.1270 0.1132 0.2402 0.0342 0.1130 0.1471 12.0080 173.7780 185.7860 0.1257 1.8400e003188.9978 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 4 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 227
Section 4, Item A.

Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/1/2018 1/3/2018 5 3 2 Grading Grading 1/4/2018 1/11/2018 5 6
3 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2018 11/15/2018 5 220 4 Paving Paving 11/16/2018 11/29/2018 5 10
5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/30/2018 12/13/2018 5 10 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 36,450; Residential Outdoor: 12,150; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 5 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 228
Section 4, Item A.

Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 4.00 1.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 6 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 229
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 2.3900e0030.0000 2.3900e0032.6000e0040.0000 2.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2900e0030.0369 0.0230 4.0000e0051.7700e0031.7700e0031.6300e0031.6300e0030.0000 3.2650 3.2650 1.0200e0030.0000 3.2863 Total 3.2900e0030.0369 0.0230 4.0000e0052.3900e0031.7700e0034.1600e0032.6000e0041.6300e0031.8900e0030.0000 3.2650 3.2650 1.0200e0030.0000 3.2863 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Clean Paved Roads
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 7 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 230
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e0051.0000e0048.7000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1082 0.1082 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1084 Total 6.0000e0051.0000e0048.7000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1082 0.1082 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1084 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.0700e0030.0000 1.0700e0031.2000e0040.0000 1.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.2900e0030.0369 0.0230 4.0000e0051.7700e0031.7700e0031.6300e0031.6300e0030.0000 3.2650 3.2650 1.0200e0030.0000 3.2863 Total 3.2900e0030.0369 0.0230 4.0000e0051.0700e0031.7700e0032.8400e0031.2000e0041.6300e0031.7500e0030.0000 3.2650 3.2650 1.0200e0030.0000 3.2863 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 8 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 231
Section 4, Item A.

3.2 Site Preparation - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 6.0000e0051.0000e0048.7000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1082 0.1082 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1084 Total 6.0000e0051.0000e0048.7000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0044.0000e0050.0000 4.0000e0050.0000 0.1082 0.1082 1.0000e0050.0000 0.1084 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0197 0.0000 0.0197 0.0101 0.0000 0.0101 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.1200e0030.0738 0.0532 6.0000e0054.0000e0034.0000e0033.6800e0033.6800e0030.0000 5.6320 5.6320 1.7500e0030.0000 5.6688 Total 7.1200e0030.0738 0.0532 6.0000e0050.0197 4.0000e0030.0237 0.0101 3.6800e0030.0138 0.0000 5.6320 5.6320 1.7500e0030.0000 5.6688 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 9 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 232
Section 4, Item A.

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e0042.5000e0042.1700e0030.0000 3.7000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2706 0.2706 2.0000e0050.0000 0.2709 Total 1.5000e0042.5000e0042.1700e0030.0000 3.7000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2706 0.2706 2.0000e0050.0000 0.2709 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 8.8500e0030.0000 8.8500e0034.5500e0030.0000 4.5500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.1200e0030.0738 0.0532 6.0000e0054.0000e0034.0000e0033.6800e0033.6800e0030.0000 5.6320 5.6320 1.7500e0030.0000 5.6688 Total 7.1200e0030.0738 0.0532 6.0000e0058.8500e0034.0000e0030.0129 4.5500e0033.6800e0038.2300e0030.0000 5.6320 5.6320 1.7500e0030.0000 5.6688 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 10 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 233
Section 4, Item A.

3.3 Grading - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.5000e0042.5000e0042.1700e0030.0000 3.7000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2706 0.2706 2.0000e0050.0000 0.2709 Total 1.5000e0042.5000e0042.1700e0030.0000 3.7000e0040.0000 3.7000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.2706 0.2706 2.0000e0050.0000 0.2709 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.3190 2.2616 1.7230 2.7400e0030.1376 0.1376 0.1319 0.1319 0.0000 231.2350 231.2350 0.0497 0.0000 232.2786 Total 0.3190 2.2616 1.7230 2.7400e0030.1376 0.1376 0.1319 0.1319 0.0000 231.2350 231.2350 0.0497 0.0000 232.2786 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 11 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 234
Section 4, Item A.

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1000e0039.0300e0030.0336 2.0000e0056.3000e0041.2000e0047.5000e0041.8000e0041.1000e0042.9000e0040.0000 1.9794 1.9794 2.0000e0050.0000 1.9797 Worker 2.2400e0033.5900e0030.0318 6.0000e0055.4100e0034.0000e0055.4500e0031.4400e0033.0000e0051.4700e0030.0000 3.9680 3.9680 2.3000e0040.0000 3.9729 Total 4.3400e0030.0126 0.0654 8.0000e0056.0400e0031.6000e0046.2000e0031.6200e0031.4000e0041.7600e0030.0000 5.9474 5.9474 2.5000e0040.0000 5.9526 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.3190 2.2616 1.7230 2.7400e0030.1376 0.1376 0.1319 0.1319 0.0000 231.2347 231.2347 0.0497 0.0000 232.2783 Total 0.3190 2.2616 1.7230 2.7400e0030.1376 0.1376 0.1319 0.1319 0.0000 231.2347 231.2347 0.0497 0.0000 232.2783 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 12 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 235
Section 4, Item A.

3.4 Building Construction - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.1000e0039.0300e0030.0336 2.0000e0056.3000e0041.2000e0047.5000e0041.8000e0041.1000e0042.9000e0040.0000 1.9794 1.9794 2.0000e0050.0000 1.9797 Worker 2.2400e0033.5900e0030.0318 6.0000e0055.4100e0034.0000e0055.4500e0031.4400e0033.0000e0051.4700e0030.0000 3.9680 3.9680 2.3000e0040.0000 3.9729 Total 4.3400e0030.0126 0.0654 8.0000e0056.0400e0031.6000e0046.2000e0031.6200e0031.4000e0041.7600e0030.0000 5.9474 5.9474 2.5000e0040.0000 5.9526 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.9400e0030.0704 0.0591 9.0000e0054.2100e0034.2100e0033.8800e0033.8800e0030.0000 7.9371 7.9371 2.4200e0030.0000 7.9880 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.9400e0030.0704 0.0591 9.0000e0054.2100e0034.2100e0033.8800e0033.8800e0030.0000 7.9371 7.9371 2.4200e0030.0000 7.9880 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 13 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 236
Section 4, Item A.

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0046.1000e0045.4200e0031.0000e0059.2000e0041.0000e0059.3000e0042.5000e0041.0000e0052.5000e0040.0000 0.6764 0.6764 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6772 Total 3.8000e0046.1000e0045.4200e0031.0000e0059.2000e0041.0000e0059.3000e0042.5000e0041.0000e0052.5000e0040.0000 0.6764 0.6764 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6772 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.9400e0030.0704 0.0591 9.0000e0054.2100e0034.2100e0033.8800e0033.8800e0030.0000 7.9371 7.9371 2.4200e0030.0000 7.9880 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.9400e0030.0704 0.0591 9.0000e0054.2100e0034.2100e0033.8800e0033.8800e0030.0000 7.9371 7.9371 2.4200e0030.0000 7.9880 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 14 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 237
Section 4, Item A.

3.5 Paving - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0046.1000e0045.4200e0031.0000e0059.2000e0041.0000e0059.3000e0042.5000e0041.0000e0052.5000e0040.0000 0.6764 0.6764 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6772 Total 3.8000e0046.1000e0045.4200e0031.0000e0059.2000e0041.0000e0059.3000e0042.5000e0041.0000e0052.5000e0040.0000 0.6764 0.6764 4.0000e0050.0000 0.6772 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4900e0030.0100 9.2700e0031.0000e0057.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.2000e0040.0000 1.2792 Total 0.2831 0.0100 9.2700e0031.0000e0057.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.2000e0040.0000 1.2792 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 15 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 238
Section 4, Item A.

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e0054.0000e0053.6000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0451 0.0451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0452 Total 3.0000e0054.0000e0053.6000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0451 0.0451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0452 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.4900e0030.0100 9.2700e0031.0000e0057.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.2000e0040.0000 1.2792 Total 0.2831 0.0100 9.2700e0031.0000e0057.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0047.5000e0040.0000 1.2766 1.2766 1.2000e0040.0000 1.2792 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 16 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 239
Section 4, Item A.

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1079 0.2721 1.0782 1.7200e0030.1270 3.0100e0030.1300 0.0342 2.7700e0030.0369 0.0000 129.0875 129.0875 6.5100e0030.0000 129.2241 Unmitigated 0.1079 0.2721 1.0782 1.7200e0030.1270 3.0100e0030.1300 0.0342 2.7700e0030.0369 0.0000 129.0875 129.0875 6.5100e0030.0000 129.2241

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2018
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.0000e0054.0000e0053.6000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0451 0.0451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0452 Total 3.0000e0054.0000e0053.6000e0040.0000 6.0000e0050.0000 6.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e0050.0000 0.0451 0.0451 0.0000 0.0000 0.0452 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 17 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 240
Section 4, Item A.

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 95.70 100.80 87.70 340,372 340,372 Total 95.70 100.80 87.70 340,372 340,372
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 16.80 7.10 7.90 37.30 20.70 42.00 86 11 3

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH

0.381673 0.108471 0.168620 0.179219 0.094165 0.012144 0.027973 0.006035 0.001833 0.001043 0.010312 0.001497 0.007014 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 18 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 241
Section 4, Item A.

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.6360 21.6360 9.8000e0042.0000e00421.7193 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 21.6360 21.6360 9.8000e0042.0000e00421.7193 NaturalGas
Mitigated

1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 17.1574 17.1574 3.3000e0043.1000e00417.2618 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 17.1574 17.1574 3.3000e0043.1000e00417.2618

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
321518 1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 17.1574 17.1574 3.3000e0043.1000e00417.2618 Total 1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 17.1574 17.1574 3.3000e0043.1000e00417.2618 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 19 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 242
Section 4, Item A.

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
321518 1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 17.1574 17.1574 3.3000e0043.1000e00417.2618 Total 1.7300e0030.0148 6.3000e0039.0000e0051.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0031.2000e0030.0000 17.1574 17.1574 3.3000e0043.1000e00417.2618 Mitigated

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
74373 21.6360 9.8000e0042.0000e00421.7193
Total 21.6360 9.8000e0042.0000e00421.7193
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 20 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 243
Section 4, Item A.

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.7282 9.3800e0030.8477 3.1000e0040.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 10.3296 4.4534 14.7829 9.6500e0038.1000e00415.2375 Unmitigated 0.7282 9.3800e0030.8477 3.1000e0040.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 10.3296 4.4534 14.7829 9.6500e0038.1000e00415.2375

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
74373 21.6360 9.8000e0042.0000e00421.7193
Total 21.6360 9.8000e0042.0000e00421.7193
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 21 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 244
Section 4, Item A.

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0703 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.6275 8.5100e0030.7730 3.0000e0040.1086 0.1086 0.1086 0.1086 10.3296 4.3321 14.6617 9.5300e0038.1000e00415.1137 Landscaping 2.3100e0038.7000e0040.0748 0.0000 4.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0040.0000 0.1213 0.1213 1.2000e0040.0000 0.1238 Total 0.7282 9.3800e0030.8478 3.0000e0040.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 10.3296 4.4534 14.7829 9.6500e0038.1000e00415.2375 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 22 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 245
Section 4, Item A.

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2570
Unmitigated 1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2573

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0282 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0703 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.6275 8.5100e0030.7730 3.0000e0040.1086 0.1086 0.1086 0.1086 10.3296 4.3321 14.6617 9.5300e0038.1000e00415.1137 Landscaping 2.3100e0038.7000e0040.0748 0.0000 4.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0044.1000e0040.0000 0.1213 0.1213 1.2000e0040.0000 0.1238 Total 0.7282 9.3800e0030.8478 3.0000e0040.1090 0.1090 0.1090 0.1090 10.3296 4.4534 14.7829 9.6500e0038.1000e00415.2375 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 23 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 246
Section 4, Item A.

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

0.65154 /

0.410754

1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2573
Total 1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2573
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

0.65154 /

0.410754

1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2570
Total 1.6505 0.0213 5.1000e0042.2570
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 24 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 247
Section 4, Item A.

Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981
Unmitigated 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

7.25 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981
Total 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 25 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 248
Section 4, Item A.

10.0 Vegetation

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing

7.25 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981
Total 1.4717 0.0870 0.0000 3.2981
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Page 26 of 26 Date: 10/3/2017 9:22 AM 249
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.

P.O. Box 4086
Oakhurst, CA 93644
(559) 683-5335 Office
(559) 760-0468 Direct
[email protected]
1 May 11, 2017
Bruce Baracco, Principal Planner
Baracco and Associates
40 Eureka Street
P.O. Box 401
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
(209) 304 - 0028 (Office)
[email protected]
RE: Biological Evaluation Letter Report
Broad Meadows Estates Project, City of Sutter Creek, CA Dear Mr. Baracco,
At your request, ESR, Inc. (ESR) has prepared this letter report to provide the results of the reconnaissance level biological evaluation for the completion of the Broad Meadows Estates single family residential units. The project owners (Mr. David Mabrey and Mr.

Frank Trujillo) have proposed completing the next phase of the existing Golden Hills Subdivision. The 10 parcels (averaging approximately 11,290 ft2 ) that were assessed
are currently developed with the graded pad sites, easements, and infrastructure (curbs, gutters, storm drains, electrical, water conveyance, etc.) already in place.

It is our understanding, following site visits on October 12, 2017, January 18-19, 2018, February 9, 2018, February 22, 2018, March 1, 2018 and April 22, 2018, including a subsequent meeting at your offices, that the project location lays within the limits of the City of Sutter Creek and that the City of Sutter Creek requested this letter report to complete the environmental documentation for this project. The information requested by the city from a qualified biological professional is to provide data regarding the environmental condition of the already developed project site in order to complete the project.

The results of our assessment indicate that the site is a developed site and the completion of the development would not hinder or impact any sensitive species or habitat. There were no impacts that were identified that would need the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less than significant. 250
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
2 The letter report includes a description of the site; the habitat located on the site with a habitat map; listings of the species identified within a nine USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle; a discussion of the impacts of the proposed development; and, suggested mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to “less than significant”, if needed. No potentially significant impacts are anticipated at this time.

ESR’s site and database search assessments coupled with this subsequent letter should provide the information to evaluate the biological resources at the site. The assessment was based on a series of site visits and a background review of the project location habitat and species by accessing various databases, which included the California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) lists; California Native Plant Society Rare and Threatened Species Lists, National Wetlands Inventory; and Natural Resources Soil Inventory, etc. to evaluate potential biological concerns.

ESR has completed a review of the data provided in these documents and the results of those studies corroborate the information acquired from the site visits. The site did not exhibit any habitat that would be utilized by any of the special status species due primarily to the advanced state of development at the location and the surrounding residential units. ESR, Inc. is not proposing to conduct any further protocol or reconnaissance level surveys for sensitive species. The closest species listing (Wedge prairie grass) is approximately 2 miles south of the project location and in a different watershed.

The site exhibits no wetlands, open water, seasonal or ephemeral drainages, vernal pools, or any other feature that would meet any criteria as jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act; therefore, no wetland assessments was needed or conducted.

As previously stated, the site has been completely developed with the graded pad sites, easements, and infrastructure (curbs, gutters, storm drains, electrical, water conveyance, etc.) already in place. The areas that are not barren have been inhabited by ruderal weed species of which none are special status species. There are a few areas that have been overtaken by noxious weeks such as thistle and medusa grass.

Further development of the site should reduce these noxious weed outbreaks. 251
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
3 Figure 1 - Broad Meadows Vicinity Map
±
0 25,000 50,000
Feet
Legend
Approximate Boundary
Amador County
Project Location
252
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
4 Figure 2 - Broad Meadows Aerial Site Map
±
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Legend
Approximate Boundary
253
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
5 Figure 3 - Broad Meadows Nine Quadrangle CNDDB Search IONE

LATROBE AUKUM

JACKSON

IRISH HILL PINE GROVE

FIDDLETOWN

AMADOR CITY

MOKELUMNE HILL
great gray owl
great gray owl
great gray owl
Grady's Cave amphipod
Grady's Cave amphipod
pallid bat
Ione Chaparral
Ione manzanita
Ione manzanita
Ione manzanita
prairie wedge grass
Ione Chaparral
Leech's skyline diving beetle
pincushion navarretia
Central Valley Drainage Hardhead/Squawfish Stream
prairie wedge grass
Tulare cuckoo wasp Bisbee Peak rush-rose
Tuolumne button-celery
Rudolph's cave harvestman
Ione Chaparral
Ione manzanita
pincushion navarretia
tricolored blackbird
Ione Chaparral
Ione manzanita
Red Hills soaproot
Ione Chaparral
Ione manzanita
tricolored blackbird
Parry's horkelia
Ione manzanita
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
Bisbee Peak rush-rose
Ione buckwheat
Parry's horkelia
Ione Chaparral
Red Hills soaproot
Ione manzanita
Brandegee's clarkia
Red Hills soaproot
Brandegee's clarkia
prairie wedge grass
Tuolumne button-celery
Ione manzanita
Red Hills soaproot
Parry's horkelia
great gray owl
Tuolumne button-celery
Ione manzanita
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
western pond turtle
Red Hills soaproot
foothill yellow-legged frog
±
0 50,000 100,000
Feet
Legend
Approximate Boundary
Project Location
254
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
6 Figure 4 - Broad Meadows Nine Quadrangle CNDDB Search prairie wedge grass
±
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Miles
Legend
1 Mile CNDDB Buffer
Approximate Boundary
CNDDB Polygons
Plant (80m)
""
" " "
" " " "
"
"
" Plant (specific)
"
" " "
"
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
" " " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" Animal (specific)
"
"" " "
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terr. Comm. (80) " "
" "
" "
"
"" "
"
"
"
"
Terr. Comm. (specific)
"
" "
""
Terr. Comm. (non-specific)
Terr. Comm. (circular)
Aqu. Comm. (80)
"
"
" "
"
" "
" " Aqu. Comm. (specific)
"
"
" "
Aqu. Comm. (non-specfic)
Aqu. Comm. (circular)
Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)
255
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
7 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird Birds None Candidate Endangered BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern | IUCN_ENEndangered | NABCI_RWL-Red Watch List | USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation Concern Freshwater marsh | Marsh & swamp | Swamp | Wetland
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to California.

Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander Amphibians Threatened Threatened CDFW_WL-Watch List | IUCN_VUVulnerable
Cismontane woodland | Meadow & seep | Riparian woodland | Valley & foothill grassland | Vernal pool | Wetland Central Valley DPS federally listed as threatened. Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties DPS federally listed as endangered.

Need underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows, and vernal pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding.

No suitable breeding or aestivation habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat Mammals None None
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern | IUCN_LCLeast Concern | USFS_S-Sensitive | WBWG_H-High Priority Chaparral | Coastal scrub | Desert wash | Great Basin grassland | Great Basin scrub | Mojavean desert scrub | Riparian woodland | Sonoran desert scrub | Upper montane coniferous forest | Valley & foothill grassland Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.

Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

No suitable roosting habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Arctostaphylos myrtifolia Ione manzanita Dicots Threatened None 1B.2 Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Ione formation
Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

On Ione clay with chaparral associates. Often comprises 50-80% cover. 90-560 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 256
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
8 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Ardea herodias Great blue heron Birds None None
CDF_S-Sensitive | IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Brackish marsh | Estuary | Freshwater marsh | Marsh & swamp | Riparian forest | Wetland Colonial nester in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered spots on marshes.

Rookery sites in close proximity to foraging areas: marshes, lake margins, tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows.

No suitable breeding habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Balsamorhiza macrolepis Big-scale balsamroot Dicots None None 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive | USFS_S-Sensitive Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Ultramafic | Valley & foothill grassland Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, cismontane woodland.

Sometimes on serpentine. 35-1465 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Banksula rudolphi Rudolph's cave harvestman Arachnids None None Limestone Known only from the type locality, Chrome Cave, Pardee Reservoir, Amador County.

Species is troglobitic.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Central Valley Drainage Hardhead/Squawfish Stream
Central Valley Drainage Hardhead/Squawfish Stream
Inland Waters None None
No aquatic habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Chlorogalum grandiflorum Red Hills soaproot Monocots None None 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Lower montane coniferous forest | Ultramafic Cismontane woodland, chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest.

Occurs frequently on serpentine or gabbro, but also on nonultramafic substrates; often on "historically disturbed" sites. 265-1695 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 257
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
9 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Chrysis tularensis Tulare cuckoo wasp Insects None None Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeeae Brandegee's clarkia Dicots None None 4.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Lower montane coniferous forest Chaparrals, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.

Often in road cuts. 75-915 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat Mammals None None
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern | IUCN_LCLeast Concern | USFS_S-Sensitive | WBWG_H-High Priority Broadleaved upland forest | Chaparral | Chenopod scrub | Great Basin grassland | Great Basin scrub | Joshua tree woodland | Lower montane coniferous forest | Meadow & seep | Mojavean desert scrub | Riparian forest | Riparian woodland | Sonoran desert scrub Throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common in mesic sites.

Roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance.

No suitable roosting habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Crocanthemum suffrutescens
Bisbee Peak rushrose Dicots None None 3.2 Chaparral | Ione formation | Ultramafic Chaparral.

Often on serpentine, gabbroic, or Ione formation soils; in openings in chaparral. 45-840 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 258
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
10 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Desmocerus californicus dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn beetle Insects Threatened None Riparian scrub Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in association with blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana).

Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8 inches in diameter; some preference shown for "stressed" elderberries.

No Elderberry plants located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Emys marmorata Western pond turtle Reptiles None None
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern | IUCN_VUVulnerable | USFS_S-Sensitive Aquatic | Artificial flowing waters | Klamath/North coast flowing waters | Klamath/North coast standing waters | Marsh & swamp | Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters | Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters | South coast flowing waters A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation.

Needs basking sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields) upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

No suitable aquatic habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine Mammals None None IUCN_LC-Least Concern Broadleaved upland forest | Cismontane woodland | Closedcone coniferous forest | Lower montane coniferous forest | North coast coniferous forest | Upper montane coniferous forest Forested habitats in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, and Coast ranges, with scattered observations from forested areas in the Transverse Ranges.

Wide variety of coniferous and mixed woodland habitat.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Eriogonum apricum var. apricum Ione buckwheat Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.1 SB_UCBBG-UC Berkeley Botanical Garden
Chaparral | Ione formation Chaparral.

In gravelly openings on Ione formation soil. 85-150 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 259
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
11 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Eriogonum apricum var. prostratum Irish Hill buckwheat Dicots Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Chaparral | Ione formation Chaparral. Gravelly openings on Ione formation soils. 90-100 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Eryngium pinnatisectum
Tuolumne buttoncelery Dicots None None 1B.2
Cismontane woodland | Lower montane coniferous forest | Vernal pool | Wetland Vernal pools, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.

Volcanic soils; vernal pools and mesic sites within other natural communities. 70-915 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Erythranthe marmorata
Stanislaus monkeyflower Dicots None None 1B.1
Cismontane woodland | Lower montane coniferous forest
Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.
300-1435 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Horkelia parryi Parry's horkelia Dicots None None 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive | USFS_S-Sensitive Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Ione formation
Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Openings in chaparral or woodland; especially known from the Ione formation in Amador County. 85-1115 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Hydroporus leechi Leech's skyline diving beetle Insects None None Aquatic Aquatic.

No aquatic habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 260
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
12 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Ione Chaparral Ione Chaparral Scrub None None Chaparral No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Navarretia myersii ssp. myersii Pincushion navarretia Dicots None None 1B.1 Vernal pool | Wetland Vernal pools.

Clay soils within nonnative grassland. 45-100 m.

No wetland or vernal pool habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Rana boylii Foothill yellow-legged frog Amphibians None Candidate Threatened BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern | IUCN_NTNear Threatened | USFS_S-Sensitive Aquatic | Chaparral | Cismontane woodland | Coastal scrub | Klamath/North coast flowing waters | Lower montane coniferous forest | Meadow & seep | Riparian forest | Riparian woodland | Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats.

Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egglaying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis.

No suitable breeding or aestivation or aquatic habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 261
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
13 Table 1 - Special Status Species Summary, May 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Taxon Group Federal List State List CNPS Rank Other Status Habitats General Habitat Micro Habitat Comments Rana draytonii California red-legged frog Amphibians Threatened None CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special Concern | IUCN_VUVulnerable Aquatic | Artificial flowing waters | Artificial standing waters | Freshwater marsh | Marsh & swamp | Riparian forest | Riparian scrub | Riparian woodland | Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters | Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters | South coast flow Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation.

Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to aestivation habitat.

No suitable breeding or aestivation habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Sphenopholis obtusata Prairie wedge grass Monocots None None 2B.2 Cismontane woodland | Meadow & seep | Wetland
Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps.

Open moist sites, along rivers and springs, alkaline desert seeps. 15-2625 m.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. Nearest sighting ~2 miles south.

Strix nebulosa Great gray owl Birds None Endangered
CDF_S-Sensitive | IUCN_LC-Least Concern | USFS_SSensitive Lower montane coniferous forest | Old growth | Subalpine coniferous forest | Upper montane coniferous forest Resident of mixed conifer or red fir forest habitat, in or on edge of meadows.

Requires large diameter snags in a forest with high canopy closure, which provide a cool sub-canopy microclimate.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys.

Stygobromus gradyi Grady's Cave amphipod Crustaceans None None IUCN_VU- Vulnerable Limestone Known only from Central California.

Known only from springs and caves in the Mother Lode karst region.

No suitable habitat located on site. Likelihood of presence is considered low. No species located during site surveys. 262
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
14 Figure 5 - Broad Meadows Habitat Map
hg
±
0 100 200 300 400 500
Feet
Legend
Approximate Boundary
Developed or Distrubed
Ruderal Vegetation
hg Oak Tree
263
Section 4, Item A.

ESR, Inc.
15 ESR appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter report for the completion of the Broad Meadows Estates project. If there are questions, or clarification concerning this letter report, please do not hesitate to contact ESR at (559) 683-5335 or (559) 760-0468.

Sincerely,
ESR, Inc.

William Stolp
VP/Senior Biologist
William Stolp
264
Section 4, Item A.
265
Section 4, Item A.
266
Section 4, Item A.
267
Section 4, Item A.
268
Section 4, Item A.
269
Section 4, Item A.

UP STREAM STRUCTURE
DOWN
STREAM

STRUCTURE

AREA ID DRAINAGE AREA ACRES
RUNOFF
COEFF
CxA
SUM
ACRES Tc (MIN)

RAINFAL
L
(IN/HR)
Q=CIA
(CFS)

TOTAL Q
(CFS)

PIPE DIA
(INCHES)

PIPE AREA
(SQ FT)
WETTED

PERIM (FT)

PIPE SLOPE
(FT/FT)

PIPE CAP
(CFS) MAX

PIPE CAP
(CFS)
DESIGN

DESIGN LESS

THAN MAX

CAPACITY
SDCB-A1 OUTFALL I 87,296 2.00 0.59 1.18 21.09 15.00 1.90 2.25 23.56 30.00 4.91 7.85 0.010 48.58 23.56 TRUE SDCB-A3 SDCB-A1 H 136,647 3.14 0.57 1.79 19.08 15.00 1.90 3.40 21.32 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.064 67.78 21.32 TRUE SDMH-A1 SDCB-A3 A+B+C+D+E+F+G 694,612 15.95 15.95 17.92 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.122 93.43 17.92 TRUE SDCB-B8 SDMH-A1 G 95,852 2.20 0.60 1.32 5.33 15.00 1.90 2.51 5.77 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.010 4.22 5.77 FALSE SDCB-B10 SDCB-B8 F 136,148 3.13 0.55 1.72 3.13 15.00 1.90 3.27 3.27 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.182 17.98 3.27 TRUE SDCB-A5 SDMH-A1 E 133,622 3.07 0.57 1.75 6.45 15.00 1.90 3.32 7.31 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.070 32.92 7.31 TRUE SDCB-A7 SDCB-A5 D 147,533 3.39 0.62 2.10 3.39 15.00 1.90 3.99 3.99 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.158 16.77 3.99 TRUE SDCB-B6 SDMH-A1 C 48,483 1.11 0.60 0.67 4.17 15.00 1.90 1.27 4.83 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.010 12.44 4.83 TRUE SDCB-B4 SDCB-B6 B 36,094 0.83 0.68 0.56 3.05 15.00 1.90 1.07 3.56 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 3.56 TRUE SDCB-B2 SDCB-B4 A 96,880 2.22 0.59 1.31 2.22 15.00 1.90 2.49 2.49 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 2.49 TRUE NOTE: FLOW CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON A 10 YEAR STORM, I=1.9 IN/HR

UP STREAM STRUCTURE
DOWN
STREAM

STRUCTURE

AREA ID DRAINAGE AREA ACRES
RUNOFF
COEFF
CxA
SUM
ACRES Tc (MIN)

RAINFAL
L
(IN/HR)
Q=CIA
(CFS)

TOTAL Q
(CFS)

PIPE DIA
(INCHES)

PIPE AREA
(SQ FT)
WETTED

PERIM (FT)

PIPE SLOPE
(FT/FT)

PIPE CAP
(CFS) MAX

PIPE CAP
(CFS)
DESIGN

DESIGN LESS

THAN MAX

CAPACITY
SDCB-A1 OUTFALL I 87,296 2.00 0.59 1.18 21.09 15.00 2.60 3.07 30.57 30.00 4.91 7.85 0.010 48.58 30.57 TRUE SDCB-A3 SDCB-A1 H 136,647 3.14 0.57 1.79 19.08 15.00 2.60 4.65 27.50 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.064 67.78 27.50 TRUE SDMH-A1 SDCB-A3 A+B+C+D+E+F+G 694,612 15.95 15.95 22.85 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.122 93.43 22.85 TRUE SDCB-B8 SDMH-A1 G 95,852 2.20 0.60 1.32 5.33 15.00 2.60 3.43 7.90 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.010 4.22 7.90 FALSE SDCB-B10 SDCB-B8 F 136,148 3.13 0.55 1.72 3.13 15.00 2.60 4.47 4.47 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.182 17.98 4.47 TRUE SDCB-A5 SDMH-A1 E 133,622 3.07 0.57 1.75 6.45 15.00 2.60 4.55 7.15 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.070 32.92 7.15 TRUE SDCB-A7 SDCB-A5 D 147,533 3.39 0.62 2.10 3.39 10.00 15.00 2.60 2.60 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.158 16.77 2.60 TRUE SDCB-B6 SDMH-A1 C 48,483 1.11 0.60 0.67 4.17 10.00 15.00 2.60 7.80 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.010 12.44 7.80 TRUE SDCB-B4 SDCB-B6 B 36,094 0.83 0.68 0.56 3.05 10.00 15.00 2.60 5.20 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 5.20 TRUE SDCB-B2 SDCB-B4 A 96,880 2.22 0.59 1.31 2.22 10.00 15.00 2.60 2.60 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 2.60 TRUE NOTE: FLOW CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON A 100 YEAR STORM, I=2.6 IN/HR

STORM DRAIN HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

GOLDEN HILLS ROAD AND SURROUNDING SUBDIVISION - POST BROAD MEADOWS CONNECTION

HYDROLOGY CAPACITY

HYDROLOGY CAPACITY
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM BASED ON A 10 YEAR STORM
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM BASED ON A 100 YEAR STORM
This page of calculations shows the Post-Broad Meadows cul-de-sac connection. The table shows the system has a bottle neck at the Golden Hills Drive and Broad Meadows Court intersection. The north catch basin has a 12" pipe and is installed at a shallow 1% slope. This limits the amount of water that can be conveyed through the system. This section of pipe will need to be increased in size to accommodate the increase in storm water flow.
270
Section 4, Item A.

UP STREAM STRUCTURE
DOWN
STREAM

STRUCTURE

AREA ID DRAINAGE AREA ACRES
RUNOFF
COEFF
CxA
SUM
ACRES Tc (MIN)

RAINFAL
L
(IN/HR)
Q=CIA
(CFS)

TOTAL Q
(CFS)

PIPE DIA
(INCHES)

PIPE AREA
(SQ FT)
WETTED

PERIM (FT)

PIPE SLOPE
(FT/FT)

PIPE CAP
(CFS) MAX

PIPE CAP
(CFS)
DESIGN

DESIGN LESS

THAN MAX

CAPACITY
SDCB-A1 OUTFALL I 87,296 2.00 0.59 1.18 21.09 15.00 1.90 2.25 23.56 30.00 4.91 7.85 0.010 48.58 23.56 TRUE SDCB-A3 SDCB-A1 H 136,647 3.14 0.57 1.79 19.08 15.00 1.90 3.40 21.32 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.064 67.78 21.32 TRUE SDMH-A1 SDCB-A3 A+B+C+D+E+F+G 694,612 15.95 15.95 17.92 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.122 93.43 17.92 TRUE SDCB-B8 SDMH-A1 G 95,852 2.20 0.60 1.32 5.33 15.00 1.90 2.51 5.77 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.010 12.44 5.77 TRUE SDCB-B10 SDCB-B8 F 136,148 3.13 0.55 1.72 3.13 15.00 1.90 3.27 3.27 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.182 17.98 3.27 TRUE SDCB-A5 SDMH-A1 E 133,622 3.07 0.57 1.75 6.45 15.00 1.90 3.32 7.31 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.070 32.92 7.31 TRUE SDCB-A7 SDCB-A5 D 147,533 3.39 0.62 2.10 3.39 15.00 1.90 3.99 3.99 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.158 16.77 3.99 TRUE SDCB-B6 SDMH-A1 C 48,483 1.11 0.60 0.67 4.17 15.00 1.90 1.27 4.83 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.010 12.44 4.83 TRUE SDCB-B4 SDCB-B6 B 36,094 0.83 0.68 0.56 3.05 15.00 1.90 1.07 3.56 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 3.56 TRUE SDCB-B2 SDCB-B4 A 96,880 2.22 0.59 1.31 2.22 15.00 1.90 2.49 2.49 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 2.49 TRUE NOTE: FLOW CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON A 10 YEAR STORM, I=1.9 IN/HR

UP STREAM STRUCTURE
DOWN
STREAM

STRUCTURE

AREA ID DRAINAGE AREA ACRES
RUNOFF
COEFF
CxA
SUM
ACRES Tc (MIN)

RAINFAL
L
(IN/HR)
Q=CIA
(CFS)

TOTAL Q
(CFS)

PIPE DIA
(INCHES)

PIPE AREA
(SQ FT)
WETTED

PERIM (FT)

PIPE SLOPE
(FT/FT)

PIPE CAP
(CFS) MAX

PIPE CAP
(CFS)
DESIGN

DESIGN LESS

THAN MAX

CAPACITY
SDCB-A1 OUTFALL I 87,296 2.00 0.59 1.18 21.09 15.00 2.60 3.07 30.57 30.00 4.91 7.85 0.010 48.58 30.57 TRUE SDCB-A3 SDCB-A1 H 136,647 3.14 0.57 1.79 19.08 15.00 2.60 4.65 27.50 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.064 67.78 27.50 TRUE SDMH-A1 SDCB-A3 A+B+C+D+E+F+G 694,612 15.95 15.95 22.85 24.00 3.14 6.28 0.122 93.43 22.85 TRUE SDCB-B8 SDMH-A1 G 95,852 2.20 0.60 1.32 5.33 15.00 2.60 3.43 7.90 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.010 12.44 7.90 TRUE SDCB-B10 SDCB-B8 F 136,148 3.13 0.55 1.72 3.13 15.00 2.60 4.47 4.47 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.182 17.98 4.47 TRUE SDCB-A5 SDMH-A1 E 133,622 3.07 0.57 1.75 6.45 15.00 2.60 4.55 7.15 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.070 32.92 7.15 TRUE SDCB-A7 SDCB-A5 D 147,533 3.39 0.62 2.10 3.39 10.00 15.00 2.60 2.60 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.158 16.77 2.60 TRUE SDCB-B6 SDMH-A1 C 48,483 1.11 0.60 0.67 4.17 10.00 15.00 2.60 7.80 18.00 1.77 4.71 0.010 12.44 7.80 TRUE SDCB-B4 SDCB-B6 B 36,094 0.83 0.68 0.56 3.05 10.00 15.00 2.60 5.20 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 5.20 TRUE SDCB-B2 SDCB-B4 A 96,880 2.22 0.59 1.31 2.22 10.00 15.00 2.60 2.60 12.00 0.79 3.14 0.145 16.07 2.60 TRUE NOTE: FLOW CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON A 100 YEAR STORM, I=2.6 IN/HR

STORM DRAIN HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
GOLDEN HILLS ROAD AND SURROUNDING SUBDIVISION - POST BROAD MEADOWS CONNECTION - PIPE UPGRADE (12" to 18")

HYDROLOGY CAPACITY

HYDROLOGY CAPACITY
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM BASED ON A 10 YEAR STORM
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM BASED ON A 100 YEAR STORM
This page of calculations shows the Post-Broad Meadows cul-de-sac connection with an up-sized pipe connecting the existing catch basin to the existing manhole in the Golden Hills Drive and Broad Meadows Court intersection. The existing pipeline will need to be up-sized from 12" to 18" to pass the calculated 100 year storm. The table shows the system can operate successfully at a 100 year storm. 271
Section 4, Item A.
272
Section 4, Item A.
273
Section 4, Item A.
274
Section 4, Item A.
275
Section 4, Item A.
276
Section 4, Item A.
277
Section 4, Item A.
278
Section 4, Item A.
279
Section 4, Item A.
280
Section 4, Item A.
281
Section 4, Item A.
282
Section 4, Item A.
283
Section 4, Item A.
284
Section 4, Item A.
285
Section 4, Item A.
286
Section 4, Item A.
287
Section 4, Item A.
288
Section 4, Item A.
289
Section 4, Item A.
290
Section 4, Item A.
291
Section 4, Item A.
292
Section 4, Item A.

Transportation Engineers
3853 Taylor Road, Suite G ~ Loomis, CA 95650 ~ (916) 660 -1555 • FAX (916) 660-1535 June 14, 2018
Mr. Stan Gamble

TRAFALGER, INC
237 S Hillview Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
RE: TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF FOR PANNER CREEK SUBDIVISION, SUTTER

CREEK, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Gamble:

Thanks for contacting KDAnderson & Associates regarding the Panner Creek subdivisions in Sutter Creek CA. As we discussed, the project is conditioned to construct portions of Golden Hills Drive that would contribute towards completion of a new route between Gopher Flat Road on the north and Sutter Creek Road on the south. However, to complete the entire length of route a new bridge is required. The traffic analysis we have completed is intended to determine whether development of the subdivision, along with other approved development in this area, creates traffic volumes that justify completing the route by building the bridge, and if so, how many lots can be occupied before triggering conditions are reached.

Technical Approach
The technical approach to answer these questions was identified by Mr. John Gedney at the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC). A baseline of current daily traffic volumes has been identified through new traffic counts east and west of the Golden Hills Drive alignment on Gopher Flat Road and on Sutter Creek Road. These volumes have been compared to the daily traffic volume Level of Service thresholds accepted by ACTC and the City of Sutter Creek to determine whether current conditions satisfy the minimum Level of Service requirements of both agencies. We then identified the amount of additional vehicular traffic that could be generated by approved but unoccupied subdivisions in the area and by the two proposed projects. These new trips will be added to the study area street system assuming the bridge is not constructed, and resulting Level of Service will be identified. Level of Service criteria were then reviewed to determine whether minimum standards would still be satisfied with both approved and proposed residences or what level of development could proceed before reaching the applicable threshold.

Project Description
The Panner Creek Subdivision is located in the area between Gopher Flat Road and Sutter Creek Road east of downtown Sutter Creek. The project was originally part of the Golden Hills Estates Subdivision, and other portions of that original approved subdivision have proceeded. Panner Creek, Unit 1 totals 21 lots and is located along an extension of Golden Hills Drive. Panner Creek, Unit 2 totals 20 lots and is further south between Unit 1 and Sutter Creek Road.

Figures 1 and 2 are the original tentative maps for each area. 293
Section 4, Item A.

Mr. Stan Gamble
TRAFALGER, INC.

June 14, 2018