FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO

Transcription

1 STERLING MEADOWS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO Prepared by CITY OF ELK GROVE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 8401 LAGUNA PALMS WAY ELK GROVE, CA APRIL 2008

2

3 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR STERLING MEADOWS Prepared by: CITY OF ELK GROVE Development Services 8401 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, CA Phone (916) Fax (916) APRIL 2008

4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Purpose of the EIR Type of Document Intended Uses of the EIR Organization and Scope of the FEIR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 Purpose and Scope of the Environmental Impact Report Project Characteristics Areas of Controversy Project Alternatives Summary Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures PROJECT MODIFICATIONS 3.1 Modifications to the Project Characteristics COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 4.1 Introduction Project Consistency with General Plan Comments on the DEIR and Responses to Comments ERRATA APPENDICES 5.1 Introduction Changes and Edits to the DEIR * Appendices are included on the attached CD. Appendix A Urbemis 2002 Model Output Appendix B Fehr and Peers Traffic Impact Study (2007) Appendix C Water Supply Assessment Appendix D U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence April 2008 i Final Environmental Impact Report

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Table Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures Table Land Use Comparison Table Public Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Commenting on the DEIR LIST OF FIGURES Figure Illustrative Site Plan Figure Proposed General Amendment Figure Proposed Rezone Figure Large Lot Tentative Map Figure Tentative Map Figure Right-of-Way and 24 Private Drive/Alley Figure , 44 and 50 Right-of-Way Figure and 33 Half Right-of-Way and 72 Right-of-Way Figure , 40 and 65 Half Right-of-Way Figure 4-1 Cumulative Plus Project Traffic Conditions Final Environmental Impact Report April 2008 ii

7 1.0 INTRODUCTION

8

9 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132). The is the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed (Project) and has the principal responsibility for approving the Project. This FEIR assesses the expected environmental impacts resulting from approval of the project and associated impacts from subsequent development under the project, as well as responds to comments received on the DEIR. 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR OVERVIEW OF CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION OF AN EIR The (City), acting as the Lead Agency, has prepared this FEIR to provide the public and responsible trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. As described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is a public informational document that assesses potential environmental effects of the proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. Public agencies are charged with the duty to consider and minimize environmental impacts of proposed development where feasible, and obligated to balance a variety of public objectives including economic, environmental, and social factors. CEQA requires the preparation of an environmental impact report prior to approving any project which may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]). The City has determined that the proposed Sterling Meadows project is a "project" within the definition of CEQA. CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR A FEIR CEQA required findings, and any statement of overriding considerations, would be made after the City has considered the FEIR and would be included in the public record. Likewise, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) would be adopted at the same time as the findings and also included in the public record. Section of the State CEQA Guidelines states: The final EIR shall consist of: (a) The DEIR or a revision of the draft. (b) Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. April Final Environmental Impact Report

10 1.0 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS OF THE PROJECT The following is an overview of the environmental review process for the project that has led to the preparation of this FEIR: Notice of Preparation and Initial Study In accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the project on November 23, The City was identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. This notice was circulated to the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the proposed project. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP and responses by interested parties are presented in Appendix 1.0 of the DEIR. Also, an Initial Study for the project was prepared and released for public review along with the NOP. Its conclusions supported preparation of an EIR for the project. The Initial Study is also included in Appendix 1.0 of the DEIR. Notice of Availability and DEIR The Notice of Availability for the DEIR was published on April 22, The DEIR was released for public and agency review on April 25, 2005 with the review period ending June 9, The public was provided with an opportunity to comment on the DEIR during the June 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting; no comments were made at this meeting. The DEIR contains a description of the project, description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, and mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, as well as an analysis of project alternatives. FEIR The City received 13 individual comment letters from agencies, interest groups and the public regarding the DEIR. This document responds to the written comments received as required by CEQA. This document also contains minor edits to the DEIR and the final mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project. This document and the DEIR constitute the FEIR. Certification of the FEIR/Project Consideration The will review and consider the FEIR. The Planning Commission will consider the FEIR and the proposed project and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding certification of the EIR and project approval. If the City Council finds that the FEIR is "adequate and complete", the City may certify the FEIR at a public hearing. However, a public hearing is not required by CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that the EIR can be certified if: 1) it shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and 2) provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the project in contemplation of its environmental consequences. Upon review and consideration of the FEIR, the City may take action to approve, revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the project would be accompanied by written findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section and Section Public Resources Code Section also requires lead agencies to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) to describe measures that have been adopted or made a condition of project approval that mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The final mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project is provided in this document. Final Environmental Impact Report April

11 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.2 TYPE OF DOCUMENT The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs, each applicable to different project circumstances. This EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section A Project EIR focuses primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project during planning, construction and operation. 1.3 INTENDED USES OF THE EIR This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR is intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project to the greatest extent possible. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126, this EIR should be used as the primary environmental document to evaluate all subsequent planning and permitting actions associated with the project. Subsequent actions that may be associated with the project are identified in Section 3.0 (Project Description) of the DEIR. 1.4 ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE OF THE FEIR This document is organized in the following manner: SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 1.0 provides an overview of the EIR process to date and what the FEIR is required to contain. SECTION 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 2.0 contains the executive summary of the FEIR. SECTION 3.0 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Section 3.0 provides a description of project modifications with a comparative impact analysis comparing the project as publicly circulated under the DEIR with the proposed project modifications. SECTION 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR Section 4.0 provides a list of commenters, copies of written comments (coded for reference) and the responses to those written comments. This section also includes a summary of the Water Supply Assessment prepared by Sacramento County Water Agency for the project and information from a traffic impact study prepared by Fehr & Peers for the project. Neither of these documents identifies an increase in the severity of any environmental impacts or new information or conditions that would result in new significant impacts. SECTION 5.0 ERRATA Section 5.0 consists of minor text changes made to the DEIR as a result of comments on the DEIR. APPENDICES Appendix A URBEMIS 2002 Output April Final Environmental Impact Report

12 1.0 INTRODUCTION Appendix B Transportation Impact Study Appendix C Water Supply Assessment Appendix D U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Correspondence Final Environmental Impact Report April

13 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

14

15 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section provides an overview of the project and the environmental analysis. For additional detail regarding specific issues, please consult the appropriate chapter of Sections 4.1 through 4.13 (Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will provide a reasonably thorough analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This EIR analysis focuses upon potential environmental impacts arising from the project. The EIR adopts this approach in order to provide a credible worst-case scenario of the impacts resulting from project implementation. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project consists of approximately 200 acres. The project proposes rezoning the property from AG-80 to RD-5, RD-7, RD-10, RD-10 with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), RD-20, Limited Commercial (LC), and Recreation (O) zoning designations for the development of singleand multi-family residential dwellings, commercial and parks. Refer to Section 3.0 (Project Description) for a detailed explanation of the proposed project. The project includes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and a Development Agreement as part of this submittal. 2.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY The was identified as the Lead Agency for the proposed project. In accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, the prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Elk Grove General Plan that was circulated for public review on November 23, The NOP included a summary of probable effects on the environment from the implementation of the project. Written comments received on the NOP were considered in the preparation of the DEIR. A summary of NOP comments is included in Section 1.0 (Introduction) and the actual NOP comments are included as Appendix 1.0 of the DEIR. The NOP identified that the proposed project may result in the following environmental impacts to be addressed in the DEIR: Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning April Final Environmental Impact Report

16 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Noise Population/Housing Public Services Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Section 1.0 (Introduction) of the DEIR provides a summary of issues and areas of concerns presented to the City by agencies and the public regarding the proposed project and its associated DEIR during the NOP review period. The City issued the Notice of Availability for the DEIR on April 22, The comment period for the DEIR lasted from April 22, 2005 through June 9, The project was also on the June 19, 2005 Planning Commission agenda. Comments were received from 11 different agencies as well as from the applicant s attorney; no new issues or significant information regarding the project was provided or raised in these comments. 2.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY CEQA Guidelines Section requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and avoid and/or lessen the environmental effects of the project. The alternatives analysis provides a comparative analysis between the project and selected alternatives. Section 6.0 (Project Alternatives) of the DEIR evaluates the following alternatives at qualitative detail: Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative Alternative 2 Reduced Density Alternative 3 Poppy Ridge Road Site 2.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Table displays a summary of impacts and proposed mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize potential impacts. In the table, the level of significance is indicated both before and after the implementation of each mitigation measure. For detailed discussions of all project-level mitigation measures, refer to Sections 4.1 through 4.13 of the DEIR. Final Environmental Impact Report April

17 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE PROJECT IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Land Use Impact The project site is designated as the South Pointe Policy Area in the General Plan. The land use designations proposed by the project are consistent with this designation. Impact The project proposes a rezone of 200+ acres from AG-80 to various residential densities, limited commercial and open space/recreation zoning. In addition, the project requests a special development permit. The rezone and permit would be consistent with General Plan policies and City development standards. Impact Impact Impact The proposed residential, commercial and open space/recreation development would not conflict with the proposed future surrounding land uses. The project s proposed land uses would support the approved Lent Ranch Marketplace Special Planning Area and Laguna Ridge Specific Plan projects. Implementation of the proposed project would develop the South Pointe Policy Area consistent with the General Plan. Implementation of the project would result in the conversion of approximately 200 LS LS LS LS None Required None Required None Required None Required S MM The applicant shall protect one acre of existing farmland or land of equal or higher quality for SU S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

18 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance acres of fallow agricultural land, which includes approximately 67 acres of Prime Farmland and 133 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. each acre of Prime Farmland, (200 acres) Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance that would be developed as a result of the project. This protection may consist of the establishment of a farmland conservation easement, farmland deed restriction or other appropriate farmland conservation mechanism that ensures the preservation of that land from conversion in perpetuity, but may also be utilized for compatible wildlife habitat conservation efforts (e.g., Swainson s hawk foraging habitat mitigation). The farmland/wildlife habitat land to be preserved shall be located within Sacramento County, outside the City of Elk Grove city limits, bounded by Hood-Franklin Road, Kammerer Road, Grant Line Road and the Jackson Highway, by Dillard Road and Clay Station Road, by the Sacramento County line, and by the Sacramento River, and must have adequate water supply to support agricultural use. In deciding whether to approve the land proposed for preservation by the Project applicant, the City shall consider the benefits of preserving farmlands in proximity to other protected lands. The preservation of off-site farmland may be done at one time, prior to the City s approval of the project s first grading permit, or may be done in increments with the build-out of the project, with preservation occurring prior to each grading permit approval. Grading plans shall include the acreage and type of farmland S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

19 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance impacted. In addition, the City shall impose the following minimum conservation easement content standards: A) All owners of the agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation land shall execute the document encumbering the land. B) The document shall be recordable and contain an accurate legal description of the agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation land. C) The document shall prohibit any activity which substantially impairs or diminishes the agricultural productivity of the land. If the conservation easement is also proposed for wildlife habitat mitigation purposes, the document shall also prohibit any activity which substantially impairs or diminishes the wildlife habitat suitability of the land. D) The document shall protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain agricultural uses on the land covered by the document, and retain such water rights for ongoing use on the agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation land. E) Interests in agricultural/habitat mitigation land shall be held in trust by an entity acceptable to the City and/or by the City. The entity shall not sell, lease, or convey S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

20 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance any interest in agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation land which it shall acquire without the prior written approval of the City. F) The applicant shall pay to the City an agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation monitoring fee to cover the costs of administering, monitoring and enforcing the document in an amount determined by the receiving entity, not to exceed 10% of the easement price paid by the applicant, or a different amount approved by the City Council, not to exceed 15% of the easement price paid by the applicant. G) The City shall be named a beneficiary under any document conveying the interest in the agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation land to an entity acceptable to the City. H) If any qualifying entity owning an interest in agricultural/wildlife habitat mitigation land ceases to exist, the duty to hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest shall be transferred to another entity acceptable to the City. I) Before committing to the preservation of any particular farmland pursuant to this measure, the Project proponent shall obtain the City s approval of the farmland S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

21 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance proposed for preservation. Timing/Implementation: Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services - Planning Impact Implementation of the project would place urban land uses adjacent to primarily agricultural uses, which may impair agricultural production and result in land use compatibility conflicts. S MM 4.2.2a All of the landscape corridors directly located between existing agricultural operations or agriculturally zoned properties and the project area shall be fully improved and functional prior to the occupancy of any residence that adjoins the subject corridor. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services- Planning. MM 4.2.2b The project proponent shall ensure that a disclosure statement be provided to all prospective buyers of the properties.regarding nearby agricultural activities, including notice of the Right to Farm Ordinance, against the property. This disclosure statement and notice shall be provided to all prospective buyers of properties within the project notifying such persons that the property may be affected by nearby agricultural uses, including agricultural chemical usage, agricultural odors and agriculture-related noise resulting from existing and future agricultural-related S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

22 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact The project would convert approximately 67 acres of Prime Farmland and 133 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses. This loss would contribute to the cumulative loss of farmland in the region. Impact Cumulative projects could result in impairment to agricultural productivity and land use compatibility impacts. Level of Significance Without Mitigation activities. Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: Mitigation Measure A signed and notarized Affidavit of Compliance of the disclosure statement requirement shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department Planning prior to recordation of Final Map. Notes shall be included on the Final Map as Agricultural properties and uses surrounding this property may continue in perpetuity, subject to the provisions of the city s adopted Right-to-farm ordinance. A disclosure statement will be provided to all potential buyers prior to the sale of lots. Prior to Final Map approval and prior to the sale to prospective buyers. Notes shall be included on the final map. Development Services - Planning. Resulting Level of Significance CS Implement MM SU CS Implement MM 4.2.2a and 4.2.2b. SU S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

23 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Impact Impact Impact Development of the project would induce a substantial population growth in the area. The increase in population would have direct and indirect environmental effects. Development of the project would increase the housing units in the area and increase direct and indirect environmental impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase of population of up to 3,619 persons and up to 1,179 new residential housing units. This growth was anticipated in the City s General Plan. Impact Soil and groundwater contamination resulting from facilities handling hazardous materials is not anticipated to be present on the project site. Impact Impact Impact Impact Development of the proposed project may expose residents and users of the site to hazardous conditions resulting from an incident at Suburban Propane or Georgia Pacific. Construction of the proposed project could result in the release of hazardous materials. The proposed project is located in the general vicinity of the Sunset Sky Ranch Airport. Implementation of the proposed project could contribute to exposing persons to LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required None Required S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

24 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance hazards during construction and operation. Impact Construction-related traffic associated with construction of the project may impact the LOS of local roadways and intersections. LS None Required Impact The project would increase traffic volumes on area roadways contributing to an unacceptable LOS under existing plus project conditions. S MM Prior to approval of improvement plans for the project, the ultimate improvements to the Grant Line Road/SR 99 Interchange Reconstruction Project shall be constructed and operational. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of improvement plans for the project, or, if applicable, for each phase of the project. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Planning and Public Works Departments. Impact The proposed project has the potential to develop without adequate traffic controls at intersections. and may result in site access and internal circulation impacts. PS MM Prior to approval of improvement plans for the project, or for each phase of the project if it develops in phases, the project applicant shall submit an evaluation of the need for traffic signals at intersections within the project site to the Development Services for review and approval. The project applicant shall construct traffic signals at all intersections within or immediately adjacent the project site, such as the intersection of Lotz Parkway with Kammerer Road, where signalization is warranted and deemed necessary by the City. LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

25 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of improvement plans for the project, or, if applicable, for each phase of the project. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Public Works. Impact The proposed project would contribute to demand on the regional transit system and would be required to fund its fair-share of increased demand for transit facilities through the City s Development Impact Fee Program. LS None Required. Impact Implementation of the proposed General Plan as well as potential development within the City and adjacent areas would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant impacts on local roadways under cumulative conditions. LCC None Required. Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant degradation of study interchanges and freeway facilities under cumulative conditions. The project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. LCC None Required. Impact Implementation of the proposed Sterling Meadows would contribute to a cumulative increase in the demand for transit service as well as bicycle and pedestrian usage. LS None Required S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

26 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Impact Construction activities associated with the proposed project would temporarily increase noise levels in nearby areas. S MM 4.6.1a Site preparation and construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. whenever such activity is adjacent to residential uses (Elk Grove General Plan Policy NO-3-Action 1). Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours. SU Timing/Implementation: Included as a note in all project construction plans and implemented during all construction phases of the project. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning and Public Works Department. MM 4.6.1b The project applicant shall prepare construction specifications that require the contractor to perform the following tasks: Equip all construction equipment with appropriate mufflers in good working condition. Locate stationary construction equipment and construction staging areas as far from noise sensitive uses as feasible. Install temporary or portable acoustic barriers around the equipment and staging area when within 100 feet or less of residential properties or other sensitive uses. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

27 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: MM 4.6.1c Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: MM 4.6.1d Included as a note in all grading and improvement plans during all grading and construction phases of the project. Development Services Department, Planning and Public Works Department. Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted on a sign no larger that 4 foot by 8 foot at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding and onsite property owners to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. Included as a note in all project construction plans during all construction phases of the project. Development Services Department, Planning and Public Works Department. Prior to the commencement of any pile driver operation in proximity to residential areas, an assessment of vibrations induced by pile driving at the site shall be completed. During indicator pile driving, vibrations should be measured at regular intervals to determine the April Final Environmental Impact Report

28 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact Development of noise-producing uses within the proposed site would exceed noise standards. Level of Significance Without Mitigation Timing/Implementation: Mitigation Measure levels of vibration at various distances from pile driving equipment. The indicator piles shall be driven at locations at least 400 feet from any existing residents. After monitoring, methods of reducing the peak ground velocities to less than 0.4 inches/second shall be determined and implemented during production pile driving. Methods to reduce vibrations, if needed, could include cut-off trenches, and the use of smaller hammers. The vibration reduction techniques to be used should be described in a note attached to the construction plans for the project to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate City regulatory agency prior to issuance of building permits. This requirement shall be included as a note in all project construction plans. Prior to any pile driving activities. Enforcement/Monitoring: Community Development Department, Planning Division and Public Works Department. PS MM 4.6.2a A six-foot high wall of solid masonry material shall be constructed between any park uses located adjacent to residential uses. The location of these walls shall be shown on improvement plans. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans. Resulting Level of Significance LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

29 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Planning and Public Works MM 4.6.2b A six-foot high wall of solid masonry material shall be constructed between multi-family uses and any adjacent single-family uses. The location of these walls shall be shown on improvement plans. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Planning and Public Works Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in potential exposure to noise from the neighboring Lent Ranch Marketplace. LS None Required Impact Residential uses proposed in the Sterling Meadows project could be exposed to exterior noise levels exceeding the acceptable Ldn noise exposure criteria resulting from agricultural operations adjacent to the project site. S MM The project applicant shall construct a six (6) foot high wall of solid masonry material to provide a noise buffer between the residential and adjacent agricultural uses. The wall shall be constructed where residential uses border adjacent agricultural land uses to the west. SU In lieu of constructing the solid masonry wall, the project developer may provide a 100-foot buffer between the residential and agricultural land use areas. Roadways between the residential uses and agricultural areas are considered part of the 100-foot buffer. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

30 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Phasing the project and developing the residential areas 100 feet or more from the agricultural uses would provide this buffer. The solid masonry wall or buffer would not be required at the time that the adjacent property is no longer zoned for agricultural use. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of Improvement Plans. Wall shall be constructed prior to issuance of building permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning and Public Works. Impact Implementation of the project, along with approved and planned urban development in the region, would increase traffic volumes within and adjacent to the project area which would increase transportation related noise levels in excess of the noise standards. CS MM To mitigate exposure to noise from surrounding roadways and internal uses, the project applicant shall construct a 6-foot high solid masonry wall along B Drive, a 7-foot high solid masonry wall along Lotz Parkway and an 8-foot high solid masonry wall along Kammerer Road. The location of these walls shall be shown on improvement plans. SU Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and Public Works. Impact Construction activities associated with the development of the proposed project may emit pollutants equal or greater than five PS MM 4.7.1a The project applicant shall require that the contractor limit vehicle speed for onsite construction vehicles to 15 mph when winds LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

31 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance percent of the CAAQS and would exceed the threshold for NOx and PM 10 emissions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. exceed 20 miles per hour. Timing/Implementation: This measure shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services; SMAQMD. MM 4.7.1b The project applicant shall require that the contractors water all haul roads at least twice daily during construction activities. Timing/Implementation: This measure shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Service; SMAQMD. MM 4.7.1c Wash dirt off construction vehicles and equipment within the staging area prior to leaving the construction site. This requirement shall be noted in project improvement plans. Timing/Implementation: This measure shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and shall be included as a S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

32 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services and SMAQMD. MM 4.7.1d The project applicant shall require that, when transporting materials by truck during construction activities, two feet of freeboard shall be maintained by the contractor, and that the materials are covered. Timing/Implementation: This measure shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services; SMAQMD MM 4.7.1e Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-stick) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas. Timing/Implementation: This measure shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services and SMAQMD. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

33 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance MM 4.7.1f The project shall provide a plan for approval by SMAQMD demonstrating that the heavyduty (> 50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average at time of construction; and, The project applicant shall submit to SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use or fuel throughput for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide SMAQMD with the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

34 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Timing/Implementation: Plan shall be submitted to SMAQMD for review and approval prior to approval of grading and improvement plans and shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services; SMAQMD. MM 4.7.1g The project applicant shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately, and SMAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of noncompliant equipment. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. The SMAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this section shall S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

35 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance supercede other SMAQMD or state rules or regulations. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permit and during all grading and construction phases of the project. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services; SMAQMD. MM 4.7.1h The project applicant shall require paved streets adjacent to construction sites to be washed or swept daily to remove accumulated dust. Timing/Implementation: This measure shall be implemented during all grading and construction phases of the project and shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services; SMAQMD MM 4.7.1i The project applicant shall be required to pay SMAQMD fees to mitigate NOx emissions. Fees shall be paid in accordance with SMAQMD calculations. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services; SMAQMD. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

36 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Impact Project emissions from mobile and area sources during the operational phase exceed SMAQMD s significance threshold. PS MM 4.7.2a The project applicant shall update its Air Quality Plan to reflect the current project map. The Plan shall reflect current transit services and any revisions to the SMAQMD Land Use Emissions Reduction measures to ensure the project s compliance with the General Plan policy CAQ-30. The updated plan shall be submitted to the SMAQMD and the for approval. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to Tentative Map approval. All measures shall be implemented during all phases of the project as required in the plan. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and SMAQMD. MM 4.7.2b The project applicant shall pay off-site in-lieu fees, as determined by SMAQMD, for operational air quality emissions in excess of the SMAQMD thresholds. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and SMAQMD. Impact Increased volumes of traffic to the project site would result in elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide. However, the increases in carbon monoxide concentrations would not result in violations of any state or federal ambient air LS None Required S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

37 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact Impact quality standard for this pollutant. The project may subject sensitive receptors to short-term, temporary construction emissions. However, no odor producing uses are proposed on the project site. Implementation of the proposed Sterling Meadows project along with potential development in the region would exacerbate existing regional problems with ozone and particulate matter. Impact Soil disturbance associated with construction activities for the proposed project could cause accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation or the release of other pollutants to local waterways. Level of Significance Without Mitigation LS CS None Required Mitigation Measure Implement MM 4.7.1a through MM 4.7.1g and MM 4.7.2a and 4.7.2b PS MM Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be administered through all phases of grading and project construction. The SWPPP shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) which describe the site, erosion and sediment controls, means of waste disposal, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, water quality monitoring and reporting during storm events (which will be responsibility of the project applicant), corrective actions for identified water quality problems and non-storm water management controls. The SWPPP shall address spill prevention and include a countermeasure plan describing measures to ensure proper collection and disposal of all pollutants handled or produced on the site during construction, including sanitary wastes, Resulting Level of Significance SU LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

38 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance cement, and petroleum products. The measures included in the SWPPP shall ensure compliance with applicable regional, state and federal water quality standards. These measures shall be consistent with the City s Drainage Manual and Land Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance which may include (1) restricting grading to the dry season; (2) protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as erosion control matting and hydroseeding; (3) protecting downstream storm drainage facilities from sedimentation; (4) use of silt fencing and hay bales to retain sediment on the project site; (5) use of temporary water conveyance and water diversion structures to eliminate runoff; and (6) any other suitable measures. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City for review. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to retain a copy of the approved SWPPP on each construction site. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning and Public Works. Impact Constituents found in urban runoff may degrade surface water quality. PS MM 4.8.2a The project applicant shall implement BMPs to ensure that long-term water quality is protected. The BMPs shall be designed, constructed and maintained to meet a LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

39 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance performance standard established by the City and shall conform to the provisions of the City s NPDES permit. The City or project applicant shall retain a qualified specialist to monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs selected. Monitoring activities, along with funding for monitoring, shall be established and shall include, but not be limited to, initial setup, annual maintenance, and annual monitoring. The project shall implement actions and procedures established to reduce the pollutant loadings in storm drain systems. The two main categories of these BMPs are source control and treatment control. Source control BMPs are usually the most effective and economical in preventing pollutants from entering storm and non-storm runoff. Source control BMPs relevant to the proposed project that shall be implemented include: 1) Public Education/Participation activities. Information shall be provided to new project residents regarding pollution prevention; 2) Illegal Dumping controls. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C, C, & R s) for the project shall include a prohibition on the dumping of waste products (solid waste/liquid waste and yard trash) into storm drain systems, open space areas, and creeks; S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

40 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance 3) Stormwater pollution source controls shall be conditioned to provide a permanent storm drain message No Dumping Flows to Creek or other approved message at each storm drain inlet. This may be accomplished with a stamped concrete impression (for curbs) or manufactured colored tiles, which are epoxied in place adjacent to the inlet (for parking lots and areas without curbs). 4) Street and storm drain maintenance activities. These activities control the movement of pollutants and remove them from pavements through catch basin cleaning, storm drain flushing, street sweeping, and by regularly removing illegally dumped material from storm channels and creeks. (The City of Elk Grove would be responsible for regular storm drain maintenance within the public right of way; grease traps and other stormwater quality control devices on private property shall be maintained by the project.) Timing/Implementation: BMPs and implementation procedures shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of grading permit; BMPs shall be implemented and monitored throughout the life of the project. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

41 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Enforcement/Monitoring: MM 4.8.2b Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: MM 4.8.2c Timing/Implementation: Development Services Department. Biofilter swales and vegetated strips shall be placed in the bottom of channel areas and be designed to provide biofiltration of pollutants in project runoff. The project engineer shall consult with the City when designing these areas, and the developer shall submit designs of the areas to the City for review and approval prior to approval of the improvement plans. Water quality control features shall be consistent with the City s NPDES permit (NPDES No. CAS082597). Prior to approval of improvement plans for each water quality facility. Development Services. Non-residential development shall be required to locate all storage areas away from any drainage features and provide water quality control measures in storm drainage facilities such as grease and sediment traps, vegetative filters, and containment structures for hazardous materials. This requirement shall be reflected on site plans and improvement plans. Water quality control features shall be consistent with the City s NPDES permit (NPDES No. CAS082597). Prior to approval of site plans and April Final Environmental Impact Report

42 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance improvement plan for nonresidential development. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services. MM 4.8.2d The project applicant shall consult with the City when designing the proposed detention basin. The developer shall submit detention basin designs and proposed plantings for in and around the detention basin for review and approval by the City. Development of the detention basin shall be subject to BMPs identified in mitigation measure MM Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permits or improvement plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning, Public Works and RWQCB. Impact Implementation of the project would not result in groundwater consumption levels in excess of the historical groundwater consumption of the project site. LS None Required Impact Development of the proposed project may result in increased surface runoff and localized flooding. PS MM Prior to the approval of improvement plans, the project applicant shall be required to demonstrate that permanent drainage facilities will adequately serve the project, or phase of the project, consistent with City standards. The project applicant shall demonstrate that increases in off-site flooding impacts will not LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

43 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance result, and that the planned drainage facilities are either available or will be available upon site development. This demonstration may take the form of final plans and/or reports, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City. Interim storm drainage facilities shall be considered on a case-by-case basis to meet this mitigation measure. Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of improvement plans for each phase of the project. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Public Works. Impact The proposed project would contribute to the cumulative effects of degradation of regional water quality, changes to runoff patterns, and the potential for increased flooding. PS Implement MM 4.8.1, MM 4.8.2a through MM 4.8.2d, and MM LS Impact Development of the project and offsite improvements may include grading that could result in increased soil erosion due to excavation and grading activities. PS Implement MM 4.8.1, MM 4.8.2a, MM 4.8.2b, and MM 4.8.2c. LS Impact Possible seismic ground shaking in the project area would increase hazards to life and structures and must be considered, however there are no known faults in the area and the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo earthquake hazard zone. LS None Required S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

44 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Impact Impact Proposed buildings, pavement, and utilities could incur significant damage as a result of underlying expansive or unstable soil properties. The project would be required to comply with all codes and standards relative to soils and foundation engineering. Proposed buildings, pavements, and utilities within the Planning Area could incur significant damage as a result of underlying expansive or unstable soil properties. Individual projects must comply with city requirements and the UBC. Impact Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of common vegetation. Impact Development of the proposed project could result in the loss of common wildlife species. Impact Development of the proposed project would result in the loss of 200 acres of foraging habitat for Swainson s hawk, other special-status raptors, and other birds. LS LS LS LS None Required None Required None Required None Required PS MM In order to mitigate for the loss of Swainson s hawk foraging habitat to a less than significant level, the project applicant shall acquire conservation easements or other instruments to preserve suitable foraging habitat for Swainson s hawk, as determined by the CDFG. The location of mitigation parcels as well as the conservation instruments protecting them shall be acceptable to the City and to the CDFG. The amount of land preserved shall be governed by a 1:1 mitigation ratio for each acre developed at the LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

45 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance project site. In deciding whether to approve the land proposed for preservation by the project applicant, the City shall consider the benefits of preserving lands in proximity to other protected lands. The preservation of land shall be done prior to any site disturbance, such as clearing or grubbing, or the issuance of any permits for grading, building, or other site improvements, whichever occurs first. In addition, the City shall impose the following minimum conservation easement content standards: A) The land to be preserved shall be deemed suitable Swainson s hawk foraging habitat by the CDFG. B) All owners of the mitigation land shall execute the document encumbering the land. C) The document shall be recordable and contain an accurate legal description of the mitigation land. D) The document shall prohibit any activity, which substantially impairs or diminishes the land s capacity as suitable Swainson s hawk foraging habitat. E) If the land s suitability as foraging habitat is related to existing agricultural uses on the land, the document shall protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain such agricultural uses on the S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

46 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance land covered by the document, and retain such water rights for ongoing use on the mitigation land. F) The applicant shall pay to the City a mitigation monitoring fee to cover the costs of administering, monitoring and enforcing the document in an amount determined by the receiving entity, not to exceed 10% of the easement price paid by the applicant, or a different amount approved by the City Council, not to exceed 15% of the easement price paid by the applicant. G) Interests in mitigation land shall be held in trust by an entity acceptable to the City and/or the City in perpetuity. The entity shall not sell, lease, or convey any interest in mitigation land, which it shall acquire without the prior written approval of the City. H) The City shall be named a beneficiary under any document conveying the interest in the mitigation land to an entity acceptable to the City. I) If any qualifying entity owning an interest in mitigation land ceases to exist, the duty to hold, administer, monitor and enforce the interest shall be transferred to another entity acceptable to the City or to the City. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

47 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Before committing to the preservation of any particular land pursuant to this measure, the project proponent shall obtain the City s approval of the land proposed for preservation. This mitigation measure may be fulfilled in combination with a mitigation measure imposed on the project requiring the preservation of agricultural land as long as the agricultural land is determined by the Department of Fish and Game to be suitable Swainson s hawk habitat. Timing/Implementation: Prior to the issuance of grading permits or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. Impact Implementation of the proposed project could result in disturbance to nesting raptors and other migratory birds, including burrowing owl, northern harrier, and tricolored blackbird. PS MM a If construction is proposed during the raptor breeding season (February August), a focused survey for ground nesting raptors (including burrowing owls), migratory bird nests, and bat roosts shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the beginning of construction activities by a qualified biologist in order to identify active nests onsite. If active nests are found, no construction activities shall take place within 250 feet of the nest until the young have fledged. This 250-foot construction prohibition zone may be reduced based on consultation and approval by the CDFG. If no LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

48 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance active nests are found during the focused survey, no further mitigation will be required. Timing/Implementation: Within thirty (30) days prior to construction activities during breeding season of February August. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Planning. MM b Within 30 days prior to the onset of construction activities outside of the breeding season (September January), a qualified biologist shall conduct a burrow survey to determine if burrowing owls are present on the project site. If burrowing owls are observed on the site, measures shall be implemented to ensure that no owls or active burrows are inadvertently buried during construction. Such measures include: flagging the burrow and avoiding disturbance; securing and preserving suitable habitat offsite; passive relocation and/or active relocation to move owls from the site. All measures shall be determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the CDFG. All burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted according to CDFG protocol. The protocol requires, at a minimum, four field surveys of the entire site and areas within 500 feet of the site by walking transects close enough that the entire site is visible. The survey shall be at S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

49 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance least three hours in length, either from one hour before sunrise to two hours after or two hours before sunset to one hour after. Surveys shall not be conducted during inclement weather, when burrowing owls are typically less active and visible. Timing/Implementation Within thirty (30) days prior to construction activities during nonbreeding season of September- January. Enforcement/Monitoring Development Services Planning. MM c Pursuant to the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, if active songbird nests or active owl burrows are found within the survey area, clearing and construction shall be postponed or halted within a minimum of 250 feet, or as determined by a qualified biologist to ensure disturbance to the nest will be minimized. Construction will not resume within the buffer until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The perimeter of the protected area shall be indicated by orange mesh temporary fencing. No construction activities or personnel shall enter the protected area, except with approval of the biologist. Timing/Implementation: Prior to construction activities. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

50 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Planning. Impact Development of the proposed project could result in removal of sensitive vernal pool invertebrate habitat (including federallylisted species) and may cause direct impacts to this species. S MM The applicant can forego surveys required under A) and assume presence of listed vernal pool invertebrates in the appropriate water features on the site. Mitigation responsibilities would then commence with B). LS The applicant shall evaluate wetland features on the project site to determine their suitability to support listed vernal pool invertebrates. A) Protocol level surveys (using methodologies approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service) shall be employed to determine if the wetland features on site support listed vernal pool invertebrates. If it is determined that these features do not support listed vernal pool invertebrates, no additional mitigation for this impact is necessary. B) If it is determined that listed vernal pool invertebrates are present, the applicant shall receive authorization from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to impact these features. Mitigation for impacts shall include creation, restoration and/or preservation of listed vernal pool invertebrate habitat at no less than 3 acres of habitat created, restored and/or preserved for each acre impacted. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

51 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Mitigation can be completed through purchase of credits in a United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved mitigation bank. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permit or approval of improvement plans, which ever occurs first. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Service, Planning and USFWS. Impact Development of the proposed project could result in removal of habitat for giant garter snake and may cause direct impacts to this species. S MM a Within 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities, a pre-construction survey of land within 200 feet of all wetlands, channels, ponds, and other such waterways within the project site shall be conducted by a qualified biologist retained by the City and funded by the project applicant who is approved by the USFWS s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. In order to protect snakes, de-watering of areas within the site shall not occur prior to completion of the preconstruction surveys. The biologist will provide the Service with a field report form documenting the monitoring efforts within 24- hours of commencement of construction activities. The monitoring biologist shall be retained by the City and funded by the project applicant to routinely monitor construction activities. If a snake is encountered during construction activities, the monitoring biologist shall contact the City Community Development Department, Planning Division LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

52 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance and will have the authority to stop construction activities until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it is determined that the snake will not be harmed. GGSs encountered during construction activities should be allowed to move away from construction activities on their own. Capture and relocation of trapped or injured individuals can only be attempted by personnel or individuals with current Service recovery permits pursuant to Section 10(a) 1(A) of the Act. The biologist shall be required to report any incidental take to the Service immediately by telephone at (916) and by written letter addressed to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, within one working day. The project area shall be re-inspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of two weeks or greater has occurred. Timing/Implementation: Within thirty (30) days prior to grading and/or commencement of construction activities. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. MM b If a GGS is identified within the project site either during pre-construction surveys or during construction, the following shall occur: 1) The shall be notified; S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

53 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: MM c 2) The City shall suspend all construction activities on the site of the sighting and along any water feature within the plan area that is hydrologically connected to the site of the sighting; 3) Protocol surveys shall be conducted by qualified biologists retained by the City and funded by the project applicant who are approved by the Service s Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office; 4) The project applicant shall consult with the USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate mitigation for the species and habitat loss, possibly including Section 10 consultation with the USFWS and Section 2081 consultation with the CDFG; and, 5) The project applicant shall provide the City with proof of the consultation and compliance with USFWS and CDFG mitigation requirements before construction activities may resume. Prior to and during construction activities. City of Elk Development Services, Planning, USFWS and CDFG. No grading or other construction activities shall be conducted from October 1 to April 30, which is the inactive period of the GGS. April Final Environmental Impact Report

54 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance More danger is posed to snakes during their inactive period, because they are occupying underground burrows or crevices and are more susceptible to direct effects, especially during excavation. A no grading period from October 1 to April 30 will apply to portions of the project site located within 1,000 feet of ditches, canals, ponds, wetlands or other such areas and shall be identified on improvement plans. This mitigation measure does not apply to land areas where surveys within the active period of the snake have been conducted and which failed to identify snakes. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permits, or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first, and during construction activity. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. MM d Dewatering of ponds, ditches, canals and other such areas may begin any time after November 1, but no later than April 1 of the following year only after the absence of the species is determined. All water must be removed by April 15, or as soon thereafter as weather permits, and the habitat must remain dry without any standing water for 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filling the dewatered habitat. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

55 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Timing/Implementation: Prior to and during construction activity. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. MM e Construction personnel shall participate in a USFWS-approved worker environmental awareness program. Under this program, workers shall be informed about the presence of GGSs and habitat associated with the species and that unlawful take of the animal or destruction of its habitat is a violation of the Act. Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist approved by the USFWS shall instruct all construction personnel about: (1) the life history of the GGS; (2) the importance of irrigation canals, marshes/wetlands, and seasonally flooded areas, such as rice fields, to the GGS; and (3) the terms and conditions of the biological opinion. Proof of this instruction shall be submitted to the City and the Sacramento U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office. Timing/Implementation: Prior to project grading and construction. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning Impact Construction activities would result in the loss of habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetles on the project site. PS MM The project applicant shall revise the site plan of the project to avoid impacts to potential habitat for VELB, if LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

56 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance feasible, prior to approval of the tentative map. If project development is required in areas that may impact elderberry shrubs containing stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level (development within 100 feet of shrub dripline), the project applicant shall perform one of the following measures prior to issuance of grading permits or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first: 1) Fence and flag all areas to be avoided during construction activities. In areas where encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by the USFWS, provide a minimum setback of at least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry plant. 2) Brief contractors on the need to avoid damaging the elderberry plants and the possible penalties for not complying with these requirements. 3) Erect signs every 50 feet along the edge of the avoidance area with the following information: This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines and imprisonment. The signs should be clearly readable from S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

57 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance a distance of 20 feet and must be maintained for the duration of construction. 4) Instruct work crews about the status of the beetle and the need to protect its elderberry host plant. Restoration and Maintenance 1) Restore any damage done to the buffer area (area within 100 feet of elderberry plants) during construction. Provide erosion control and re-vegetate with appropriate native plants. 2) Buffer areas must continue to be protected after construction from adverse effects of the project. Measures such as fencing, signs, weeding and trash removal are usually appropriate. 3) No insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers or other chemicals that might harm the beetle or its host plant should be used in the buffer areas, or within 100 feet of any elderberry plant with one or more stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level. 4) The applicant must provide a written description of how the buffer areas are to be restored, protected and maintained after construction is completed. 5) Mowing of grasses/ground cover may S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

58 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance occur from July through April to reduce fire hazard. No mowing should occur within five feet of elderberry plant stems. Mowing must be done in a manner that avoids damaging plants (e.g., striping away bark through careless use of mowing/trimming equipment). If the shrub cannot be avoided, then a mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with USFWS consistent with the conservation guidelines for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (which likely includes one or more of the following), shall be implemented: Obtain credits at an approved mitigation bank; or Implement an onsite mitigation and monitoring plan that includes transplantation of the shrub and planting of elderberry seedlings. The mitigation plan shall be approved by the USFWS prior to acceptance by the City. Any required onsite mitigation shall be incorporated into subsequent improvement and construction plans. Timing/Implementation: Prior to tentative map approval, if feasible to avoid, or prior to issuance of grading permits or approval of improvement plans, S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

59 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance whichever occurs first. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and USFWS. Impact The project site contains acre of drainage and seasonal wetland features that are jurisdictional waters of the US and acres of non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands are considered potentially significant. PS MM a The applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no-net-loss of waters of the US. The project applicant shall provide mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization and compensatory mitigation for any impacts to the acres of waters of the US. Compensatory mitigation shall require purchase of credits in an Army Corps of Engineers approved mitigation bank at a ratio no less than one acre purchased for each are impacted. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to project grading permit or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and ACOE. MM b The applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of non-jurisdictional wetlands and seasonal waters. The project applicant shall mitigate for loss or disturbance of these features, including the acres of non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands present on the site, through impact avoidance, impact minimization and compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation shall require purchase of credits at a City approved mitigation bank at a ratio of no less than one S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

60 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact Impact The development of this project would contribute cumulatively to the loss of biological resources in the region and the ongoing urbanization in southern Sacramento County. The proposed project is not located in an area known to contain historical, archeological, paleontological, or other cultural resources. Impact The project could destroy or disturb currently unknown cultural resources that lie buried on the project site. Level of Significance Without Mitigation Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: Mitigation Measure acre purchased for each acre impacted. Prior to project grading permit or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first. Development Services, Planning. CS Implement MM , a, b, c, , a, b, c, d, e, , and N None required PS MM a If any prehistoric or historic artifacts or other indications of archaeological or paleontological resources are found once the project construction is underway, all work in the immediate vicinity must stop and the City shall be immediately notified. An archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, shall be retained to evaluate the finds and recommend appropriate mitigation measures. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during Resulting Level of Significance SU LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

61 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance construction activities. This measure shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. MM b If human remains are discovered, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the find and the County Coroner must be notified, according to Section of California's Health and Safety Code. If the remains are Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which in turn shall inform a most likely descendant. The descendant shall then recommend to the landowner appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods. Timing/Implementation: As a condition of project approval, and implemented during construction activities. This measure shall be included as a note on all project construction plans Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

62 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Impact Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to disturbed any known prehistoric or cultural resources on the project site. LS None Required Impact Emergency crews responding to a call for service at the construction site may not arrive within the minimum response time of five minutes considered acceptable by the Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department. PS MM As a condition of development entitlements, all development on the project site shall meet the minimum necessary fire flow and other standard fire protection and life safety requirements identified in the Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Building Code, and other applicable state regulations. Construction sites shall ensure adequate on-site water supply and all-weather access for fire-fighting equipment and emergency vehicles before framing can occur. The applicant shall also pay the Fire Protection Development Fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance. LS Timing/Implementation: During construction activities and prior to improvement plan approval. This measure shall be included as a note on all project construction plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services and Cosumnes Community Services District. Impact The proposed project will require provision of adequate fire flows. PS MM a Prior to approval of improvement plans, the project applicant shall demonstrate that all required water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flow requirements necessary to serve the project are provided prior to the existence or LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

63 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance storage of any combustible construction material on the project site, and that the installation of on-site or off-site fire protection equipment, including fire hydrants and water mains, meets the standards of the Cosumnes Community Services District and the water purveyor. Timing/Implementation: Prior to improvement plan approval. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services and Cosumnes Community Services District. MM B Prior to approval of improvement plans, the water supply system plans for the subdivisions shall be reviewed by the City to ensure adequate fire flows for the project as specified by the Cosumnes Community Services District. Timing/Implementation: Prior to improvement plan approval. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services and Cosumnes Community Services District. Impact The proposed project will be conditioned to provide adequate emergency access to the site. LS None Required Impact Project operation may significantly impact fire department response times if the proposed project is constructed prior to the PS MM a The project developer shall contribute their fair share for improvements and facilities, included in the Laguna South Public Facilities LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

64 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance opening of a new station within the neighboring Laguna Ridge Specific Plan. Fee Program (PFFP). The project s fair share of funding for fire services and facilities shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Cosumnes Community Services District (CSD). Fair-share funding for fire facilities and services improvements shall be determined concurrent with modification of the Laguna South PFFP. The PFFP will be updated to include the neighboring Laguna Ridge Specific Plan Area into the Fee Program. Project public facility financing plans and/or programs shall establish the timing of these improvements to ensure they are in place to the satisfaction of the Cosumnes CSD Fire Department. Establishment of the fire facilities and services improvements financing plans and/or programs shall occur prior to recordation of the Final Map. Construction activities may occur prior to approval of the project s financing plans and/or programs only if the project applicant constructs the Cosumnes CSD s Fire Department s required improvements and purchases associated facilities concurrent with the development of their specific project. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of the Project Financing Program and/or Plan. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services and CCSD. MM b All signalized intersections installed by the S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

65 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact The proposed project would increase demand for fire protection services and/or require new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impact The proposed project, in combination with other approved and future development in the City, would incrementally increase demand for fire protection. Impact The proposed project would increase demand for police services in association with new residential and commercial development. Impact The proposed project circulation system presents safety issues and lack of visibility. Level of Significance Without Mitigation LS LS LS Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: None Required None Required None Required Mitigation Measure project developer shall be equipped with traffic pre-emption devices at the time of installation. Prior to approval of improvement plans. Development Services and Cosumnes CSD. PS MM Prior to recordation of the Final Map and improvement plans for the site, the project developer shall either lengthen I Drive between A Drive and J Drive; or extend L Way through to A Drive. The revised plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Timing/Implementation: Prior to the recordation of the final map and improvement plans. Resulting Level of Significance LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

66 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Enforcement/Monitoring: Public Works Department and Police Department. Impact Implementation of the proposed project could require additional law enforcement related services and facilities in combination with planned and proposed development. LS None Required Impact Development of the proposed project would increase demand for school services. LS None Required Impact Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other planned development would result in the generation of additional students. Each project is required to pay development fees on a project-by-project basis. LS None Required Impact The proposed project would result in annual demand of 916 AFY of water. SCWA has indicated that it has sufficient water available to serve the proposed project. LS None Required Impact No water facilities are located in the vicinity of the project. New infrastructure must be installed to serve the proposed project PS MM a SCWA shall review and approve the water system alternative to be implemented and the two well sites prior to improvement plan or final map approval by the. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans or final map, whichever occurs first. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

67 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Enforcement/Monitoring: SCWA and Public Works Department. MM b Project proponents, future successors or interests shall reserve a minimum 4 Acre net water treatment plant and on site well located on lot numbers 779, 780, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, & 819 and necessary easements to the satisfaction of the SCWA. Acceptance and approval of the site shall be subject to meeting Department of Health Services (DHS) setback requirements and obtaining acceptable results from hydrogeologic evaluations (exploratory drilling). If these conditions cannot be satisfied, then an alternative site on the Subdivision shall be selected and similarly evaluated. Prior to Final Map approval, the project proponent shall grant right-of-entry to SCWA to conduct hydrogeologic evaluations. In addition, prior to Final Map recordation, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with SCWA consistent with Chapter of the Sacramento County Code ( Code) and Government Code Title 7, Division 2, Article 4. Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: Prior to approval Final Map. Public Works Department and SCWA. MM c Project proponents, future successors or interests shall reserve a minimum 100ft x April Final Environmental Impact Report

68 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance 100ft water well site located at lot numbers 843 & 844 and a minimum 100ft x 100ft water well site located at lot numbers 865 & 866 and necessary easements to the satisfaction of the SCWA. Acceptance and approval of the site shall be subject to meeting DHS setback requirements and obtaining acceptable results from hydrogeologic evaluations (exploratory drilling). If these conditions cannot be satisfied, then an alternate site on the Subdivision shall be selected and similarly evaluated. Prior to Final Map approval, the project proponent shall grant right-of-way entry to SCWA to conduct hydrogeologic evaluations. In addition, prior to final map recordation, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with SCWA consistent with Chapter of the Sacramento County Code ( Code) and Government Code Title 7, Division 2, Article 4. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval Final Map. Enforcement/Monitoring: Public Works Department and SCWA. MM d Require water intensive commercial and industrial building permit applicants to conduct a water use efficiency review and submit the findings in required environmental documentation for the project. S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

69 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permit. Impact Impact The proposed project would require fire flows of 1,750 gpm. The project water system will be designed to provide required fire flow pressure and supply. The project, when considered with other development projects in the area, would result in a cumulative demand for water supply. Impact The proposed project would generate 0.72 mgd of wastewater. CSD-1 has indicated that it has adequate treatment capacity available to accommodate the project. Impact Implementation of the proposed project would require construction of wastewater conveyance infrastructure. This infrastructure would be installed within Enforcement/Monitoring: Public Works Department and SCWA. MM e Require efficient cooling systems, recirculation pumps for fountains and ponds, and water recycling systems for vehicle washing as a condition of service. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Public Works Department and SCWA. LS None Required LS LS LS LS None Required None Required None Required S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

70 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact right-of-ways on and off-site. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other proposed and approved projects, would increase demand for wastewater service. All new development is required to pay connection fees and construct necessary improvements consistent with all SRCSD Master Plans. Implementation of the proposed project would increase solid waste generation. Sufficient capacity is available at the Kiefer Landfill and curbside pick-up is negotiated through a contract with BFI Waste Systems. Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other proposed and approved development, would increase solid waste generation. Sufficient capacity is available at the Kiefer Landfill and curbside pick-up is contracted on a projectby-project basis. Implementation of the proposed project would create 799 single-family dwellings, 174 live/work and/or flex units and an estimated 206 multi-family dwellings that would require additional parkland. The project includes gross acres of park land. Impact Development of the proposed project would be inconsistent with Elk Grove General Plan Policies PTO-7, PTO-10, PTO- Level of Significance Without Mitigation LS LS LS LS None Required None Required None Required None Required Mitigation Measure S MM Prior to approval of grading or improvement plans, the applicant shall resubmit plans, which incorporate a trail system consistent Resulting Level of Significance LS S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

71 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance 12, and PTO-13 regarding provision of trails. with Elk Grove General Plan policies and to the satisfaction of the. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of grading and/or improvement plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning and Cosumnes CSD. Impact The proposed project, in combination with other proposed and approved development, would result in increased demand for parks and recreation facilities. Individual development projects are required to dedicate park land and/or pay development fees. LS None Required Impact The proposed project has an estimated electrical demand of 5.6 MVA. This will contribute to the need for new electrical substations and power lines in the area. PS MM No building permits shall be issued for more than 100 single family homes or any mixture of uses demanding 500 KW or more, as determined by SMUD, until the Lent Ranch Substation has been constructed, or other system improvements are made, as determined by SMUD, to accommodate the proposed project. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permit for the 101st single family home, or for any mixture of uses demanding 500 KW or more of electricity, as determined by SMUD. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

72 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Impact The proposed project would increase demand for natural gas. Impact The proposed project would require extension of telephone services to serve the site. Impact Impact The proposed project, in combination with other proposed and approved projects, would incrementally increase demand for electric, natural gas and telephone services. Provision of service occurs on a project-by-project basis. As viewed from Kammerer Road and the surrounding area, development of the proposed project would substantially alter the existing landscape characteristics from fallow agricultural land to developed urban uses. Level of Significance Without Mitigation LS LS LS None Required None Required None Required Mitigation Measure Services and SMUD. S MM a Where solid fences and walls are used, the color and material used shall blend with the features of the surrounding area. Continuous fences and walls shall be softened with landscaping. Solid fence and wall designs shall be included in all landscaping plans. Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: MM b Prior to approval of improvement plans and landscape plans. Development Services Department, Planning. Taller-growing trees and/or shrubs shall be planted along the borders of the project site where the project will interface with planned development in the Lent Ranch Marketplace project and existing agricultural uses. The use of this material shall screen the project from these uses and minimize the potential for light Resulting Level of Significance SU S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

73 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance and glare impacts. Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of improvement plans or landscape plans. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning. Impact Implementation of the proposed project would result in the introduction of new nighttime light and glare sources associated with project roadways and residential uses that could adversely affect adjacent areas. PS MM a Street light fixtures shall use low-pressure sodium lamps or other similar lighting fixture and shall be installed and shielded in such a manner that no light rays are emitted from the fixture at angles above the horizontal plane. High-intensity discharge lamps shall be prohibited. Offsite illumination shall not exceed two-foot candles. Street lighting plans shall be submitted with project improvement plans for City review and approval. LS Timing/Implementation: Prior to approval of facility improvement plans for project roadways. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services Department, Planning. MM b Exterior building materials on nonresidential structures shall be composed of at least 50 percent low-reflectance non-polished surfaces. All bare metallic surfaces shall be painted with flat finishes to reduce reflected glare. Timing/Implementation: Prior to design review and issuance of building permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS-Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact April Final Environmental Impact Report

74 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact Level of Significance Without Mitigation Mitigation Measure Resulting Level of Significance Services Department, Planning. Impact Implementation of the project in combination with other projects would result in the further conversion of the area s rural landscape to residential, commercial, and other land uses. This would contribute to the alteration of the visual resources in the region. CS Implement MM a and b, as well as City of Elk Grove General Plan Policies CAQ-8 and LU-35 SU S - Significant LS Less Than Significant SU Significant and Unavoidable PS - Potentially Significant CS Cumulative Significant LCC Less than Cumulatively Considerable N No Impact Final Environmental Impact Report April

75 3.0 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS

76

77 3.0 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS This section describes minor modifications to the project since release of the DEIR based on additional information received from the applicant and also clarifies project features analyzed in the Development Project DEIR. As noted below, none of these modifications warrant recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The project applicant has requested modifications to the originally proposed project that was presented in the DEIR. At this time, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Development Agreement. An illustrative site plan for the project showing the modifications is included as Figure (all figures are located at the end of this section). Realigned roadways, relocated park facilities, the inclusion of a detention basin and the elimination of commercial uses are depicted in this figure and quantitatively summarized in Table The project now proposes 984 single, 200 multi-family residential units and 18.5 acres of parks, an increase of approximately 5 residential units. The proposed project has been modified to include uses such as a fire station and a lift station lot and no longer includes 4 acres of commercial uses. TABLE LAND USE COMPARISON Land Use DEIR Numbers Current Numbers Units Net Acres Units Net Acres Unit Change Single Family Single-Family (Live/Work and or Flex) Multi-Family Commercial Park Sites Fire Station Landscape Corridor/Paseos Drainage Detention Road Right-of-Way Total 1, , Source: MacKay & Somps, 2004 and A map depicting the existing land use and land uses proposed for the site as part of the General Plan Amendment are shown in Figure (this replaces Figure in the DEIR). As shown the site is currently designated for urban development but the proposed project will designate the site for specific uses including Low, Medium and High Density Residential, and Public Parks. Figure (which replaces Figures and of the DEIR) shows the existing AG-80 zoning and the prposed zoning for the site. As shown, the site would be rezoned to have six different designations (O, RD-5, RD-6, RD-7, RD-15, and RD-20). The reconfigured parcels within the project site are depicted in Figure 3.0-4, Large Lot Tentative Map (this replaces Figure of the DEIR). The reconfigured lot pattern and density for each parcel are shown in the revised Tentative Map, Figure (this replaces Figure in the DEIR). April Final Environmental Impact Report

78 3.0 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Figures through (which replace Figures 3.0-9, and in the DEIR) show the proposed widths of all right-of-ways and private drive/alleys identified on the Tentative Map. Revisions include the addition of private drive/alleys and an overall shift to narrower right-of-way widths throughout the project site. Land Use Land uses resulting from project modifications are generally consistent with the land uses presented in the DEIR. Proposed land uses include single-family residential, multi-family residential, cluster lots, park sites, landscape corridors, a lift station site, and a fire station. Changes from the land uses presented in the DEIR include the loss of the 4-acre commercial site, and the addition of cluster lots to the mix of land uses. The revised land uses would be consistent with applicable land use policies of the City s General Plan, and no changes to land use impacts identified in the DEIR are anticipated; therefore, no further analysis is necessary. Agricultural Resources, Hazardous Materials/Risk of Upset, Hydrology/Water Quality, Geology/Soils, Biological and Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, and Visual Resources/Light and Glare Project modifications have not resulted in a change to the project boundaries and or the total area of disturbance that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Furthermore, there have been no significant changes to the proposed uses on the site that would adversely affect visual resources in a more severe way than presented in the DEIR. As a result, impacts to agricultural resources, hazardous materials/risk of upset, hydrology/water quality, geology/soils, biological and natural resources, cultural resources, and visual resources/light and glare would have the same level of significance as identified in the DEIR. Population, Housing, and Employment Although project revisions have resulted in a minor increase in residential units, the housing units proposed by the project account for housing unit growth in the City, would not result in exceeding SACOG projections, and are consistent with the level of growth anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, no changes to the DEIR are necessary. Transportation/Circulation The minor increase in residential units resulting from project modifications would increase the amount of vehicle trips compared to the analysis contained in the DEIR. However, the removal of the commercial development from the project will reduce vehicle trips from what was analyzed in the DEIR, resulting in equal or less traffic and circulation impacts than presented in the DEIR. The minor project modifications would not result in an increased severity of traffic impacts than what was analyzed in the DEIR. Level of Service (LOS) at study intersections would not be impacted more severely than what was analyzed in the DEIR and mitigation measures would be applicable to traffic impacts resulting from project modifications. No further analysis is necessary. Noise and Air Quality As described above under Transportation and Circulation, there would be equal or less traffic impacts as a result of project modifications resulting in equal or less noise and air quality impacts. Since noise and air quality impacts would not increase over that which was presented in the DEIR, no further analysis is necessary. Final Environmental Impact Report April

79 3.0 MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Public Services and Utilities The minor increase is single-family residential units would not adversely affect public services and utilities beyond what was analyzed in the DEIR mainly due to the removal of the commercial development from the proposed project. In relation to fire protection services, the proposed project now includes a fire station site that would lower the severity of this impact. In November of 2006, a merger between the Elk Grove Community Services District (CSD) and the Galt Fire Protection District resulted in the creation of the Cosumnes Community Services District (CSD). Thus service will be provided by the Cosumnes Community Services District (formerly the Elk Grove Community Services District.) The severity of all public services and utility impacts would be relatively the same as presented in the DEIR. No further analysis is necessary. April Final Environmental Impact Report

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

100

101 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 4.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains comment letters and written responses to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b) requires that responses be made to only those comments that are specific to the DEIR. Beyond the requirements set by CEQA and relevant court cases, every attempt has been made to respond to comments that address the project in general, in an effort to provide the most complete information possible. This section also includes a brief discussion of the proposed project s consistency with the General Plan in regards to CEQA. No new significant environmental impacts, beyond those already covered in the DEIR were raised during the comment period and the acting as lead agency directed that a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be prepared. Responses to comments received during the comment period do not involve any new significant impacts or significant new information that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d) states The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. Analysis of the project s consistency with the General Plan is provided in each of the technical sections of the DEIR (Sections 4.1 through 4.13.) Under the Regulatory Framework subsection of each technical section in the DEIR, a table is provided that discusses the project s consistency with applicable General Plan policies. Where inconsistency with a General Plan policy may result in an environmental impact, the inconsistency is identified as well as whether mitigation measures included in the EIR would bring the project into consistency with that policy. Section 4.1, Land Use, analyzes the project s consistency with the General Plan, including the Land Use Map of the General Plan, under Impact As discussed under Impact 4.1.1, the project proposes land uses that are consistent with the land uses described in Policy LU-33 and shown on the land use map. The project includes a multifamily site that is consistent with the requirements described in the General Plan, which state that the project shall designate at least 4 percent of the total land uses as high-density residential development. The project also includes a commercial parcel and single family units with a Business Professional component, that would provide a mix of land uses as described under Policy LU-33. While the project does designate uses that are consistent with the language of the General Plan, the multifamily site is proposed as an interim detention facility for drainage from the project site and the adjacent Lent Ranch Marketplace site. This use would constrain the availability of the multifamily site for an unspecified period of time. While this lack of availability of the multifamily site does not result in an environmental impact as discussed in the DEIR, it may be incompatible with the expectation of the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the use of the multifamily site. The site could be relocated within the project to a more appropriate area that would allow for development of the site with multifamily uses concurrently with the start of development of the rest of the project. A redesign of the project site that would allow for earlier availability of the multifamily site is not anticipated to result in new environmental impacts. The DEIR examined environmental impacts associated with all of the proposed uses of the project. Impacts specific to the multifamily site, as well as other uses, are analyzed and include mitigation measures that are specific to that use. These mitigation measures would be applied to the specific use at the currently proposed location, or at an alternate location within the project. An example of this would be operational noise April Final Environmental Impact Report

102 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR impacts discussed under Impact Noise impacts and mitigation measures (MM 4.6.2b) specific to the multifamily use are identified. The mitigation measure would be applicable to the multifamily use were it to be located elsewhere within the project. Similarly, were the project to be redesigned, internal circulation issues would be addressed through application of mitigation measure MM which requires that the need for traffic signals at intersections be evaluated with submittal of improvement plans for the project, or with each phase of the project if it is developed in phases. However, the Planning Commission and City Council of Elk Grove will ultimately determine whether the project is consistent with the intent of policies included in the General Plan, including those that describe land uses for the project site. 4.3 COMMENTS ON THE DEIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Table 4-1 lists those persons, organizations, and public agencies that provided written comments on the DEIR. The assigned comment letter number, letter date, letter author and affiliation with a particular organization, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency is also listed. An Elk Grove City Council meeting was held on June 19, 2005 to receive public comments on the DEIR. No comments on the adequacy of the DEIR were received at the meeting. TABLE 4-1 PUBLIC AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS COMMENTING ON THE DEIR Letter Date Individual or Signatory Affiliation A May 12, 2005 Christine Palisoc B May 13, 2005 Kevin Boles C May 18, 2005 Bridget Binning California Regional Water Quality Control Board State of California, Public Utilities Commission State of California, Department of Health Services D May 24, 2005 Wendy Haggard County Sanitation District 1 E May 25, 2005 Charlene McGhee Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District F June 9, 2005 Katherine Eastham Department of Transportation G June 9, 2005 Terry Roberts H June 10, 2005 Ron Bess State of California, Governor s Office of Planning and Research City of Sacramento, Development Services Department I June 16, 2005* Daniel Jones Sacramento County Water Agency J June 23, 2005* Kim Williams Elk Grove Unified School District K July 21, 2005* Will Ness U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L March 7, 2007* Bruce de Terra State of California, Department of Transportation 1 May 18, 2005 John A. Lambeth Law Offices of John A. Lambeth * Denotes comment letter received after close of comment period. Final Environmental Impact Report April

103 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

104 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

105 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

106 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER A Response A-1: CHRISTINE PALISOC, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD The commenter states that a NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required for the project because the project would disturb more than one acre. Pursuant to this requirement, the project applicant and/or contractor must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Sterling Meadows DEIR identified Impact and associated Mitigation Measure MM (page and ) which addressed construction water quality impacts. Mitigation Measure MM requires that the applicant prepare a SWPPP prior to receiving a grading permit. The SWPPP shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address sediment, erosion and water quality control. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. Response A-2: The commenter addresses the project s need to incorporate postconstruction storm water management. The proposed project includes a 9.7- acre interim basin with 112+ acre feet of storage capacity. The basin is sized to reduce peak runoff flows to a rate no greater than pre-development discharge. In addition, the project is subject to the City s NPDES Stormwater Permit No. CA which requires that control measures be incorporated into the design of new development to reduce pollution discharges in site runoff over the life of the project. Long-term BMPs are identified in Sterling Meadows DEIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.8.2a, MM 4.8.2b, MM 4.8.2c and MM 4.8.2d on pages and and Mitigation Measure MM on page to address water quality, drainage patterns, surface runoff and localized flooding. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. Response A-3: Response A-4: The commenter addresses the project s potential requirements of a 401 Water Quality Certification in association with alteration of wetlands or stream crossings. See Response K-1 for an updated wetlands discussion and incorporated mitigation measures. The project site contains acres of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and of non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands. The comment is noted; as it is advisory and does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is necessary. The commenter states that the project proponent may be required to file a Dewatering Permit with the Central Valley RWQCB. If dewatering is necessary, the project applicant would be required to comply with the provisions of Order No (NPDES CAG995001) as specified in the comment. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is necessary. Response A-5: The commenter describes an NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. The proposed project includes residential, commercial, and open space components. No uses are proposed which would require an NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is necessary. Final Environmental Impact Report April

107 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

108 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER B Response B-1: KEVIN BOLES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The comment states that rail safety should be considered when planning areas for development. The nearest railroad line in relation to the project area is the Southern Pacific Railroad line, which lies east of Highway 99, a considerable distance east of the project area. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline is located east of Franklin Boulevard, a considerable distance to the west of the project area. Traffic impacts related to the project are identified in Section 4.5, Traffic and Circulation. No impacts to rail crossings are anticipated. Impact discusses impacts to public transit and identifies Mitigation Measure MM to reduce impacts associated with light rail service. MM would ensure adequate rights-of-way and station sites and requires consultation with the Development Services Department, Transportation Division and Sacramento Regional Transit prior to the approval of the tentative map for the project. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. Final Environmental Impact Report April

109 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

110 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

111 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER C Response C-1: BRIDGET BINNING, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES The commenter states that if the project includes development of a new water supply well(s) or modifications to the existing domestic water treatment system, that an application to amend the water system permit must be reviewed and approved by the California Department of Health and Human Services. The project proposes two options for provision of water service, which are described in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities. These options include: 1) connect to the proposed Laguna Ridge water system (Alternative A); or 2) develop its own water system (Alternative B). If Alternative B is implemented to provide water service, the construction of two emergency wells are proposed. As stated in the DEIR, the water from these emergency wells must meet California Department of Health Services Primary Drinking Water Standards. Additionally, MM b explains that the acceptance and approval of the well site(s) shall be subject to meeting Department of Health Services (DHS) requirements prior to the approval of the final map for the project. The comment is noted. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. April Final Environmental Impact Report

112 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

113 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER D WENDY HAGGARD, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1 Response D-1: The commenter states that if established policies, ordinances, fees, and conditions of approval are met then CSD-1 anticipates mitigation measures in the DEIR would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Wastewater service impacts are identified as less than significant under Impacts , , and in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities, of the DEIR. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. April Final Environmental Impact Report

114 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

115 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

116 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

117 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER E Response E-1: CHARLENE MCGHEE, SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT The commenter notes that the air quality modeling contained in the DEIR was based on an outdated version of the URBEMIS model. The air quality modeling has been run using URBEMIS 2002 v8.5, as recommended. See Appendix A for the modeling data. Construction emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS-2002 defaults for construction schedule and phasing based on a 24-month total construction period. For the grading phase, one-fourth of the 200-acre site (50) was assumed to be disturbed at any one time. Grading was assumed to require one grader, one water truck and one bulldozer per 10 acres of area disturbed. The Building Construction Sub-Phase of construction in the URBEMIS-2002 program assumed three pieces of equipment for each 10 acres of active construction where the active construction area is assumed to be 25% of the total acreage. One-quarter of the site is 50 acres, which would require 15 pieces of equipment. The Asphalt Sub-Phase of construction was assumed to require one paver and one roller per 10 acres of active construction where the active construction area is assumed to be 25% of the total acreage. Based on the updated URBEMIS-2002 modeling, maximum construction NOx emissions are estimated to be lbs per day. Mitigation measures 4.7.1a through 4.7.1f on pages through of the DEIR would reduce this emission by 20% to lbs per day. However, these mitigation measures alone are not adequate to reduce mitigation measures to a less than significant level. Therefore, an air quality mitigation fee is necessary to reduce NOx emissions to a less-than-significant level. SMAQMD has developed a mitigation program that assists in providing cleaner emissions technology for the region. A fee paid to this program would offset the emissions over the significance threshold generated by the proposed project. The fee is calculated based on the amount of the mitigated construction emissions produced by the project less the District Threshold, multiplied by the number of days of construction multiplied by the standard district fee of $13,600/ton of NOx. Through compliance with this mitigation fee, it is anticipated that the short-term impacts from NOx can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The DEIR is revised to include the updated construction emissions, as well as to incorporate a new mitigation measure to reduce potential NOx emissions. The following edits are made to page of the DEIR based on the URBEMIS-2002 modeling for the proposed project: Impact Construction activities associated with the development of the proposed project may emit pollutants equal or greater than five percent of the CAAQS and would exceed the threshold for could contribute to NOx and PM10 emissions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed soils would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that April Final Environmental Impact Report

118 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR would affect local air quality at various times during project construction. This is variable depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and nature of dust control efforts. The dry climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation. Emissions from equipment used to grade and improve the site during project construction would result in ROG and NOx emissions. Daily emissions from each phase have been estimated using SMAQMD methodology and are shown in Table These emissions are based on the worst-case assumption that construction would occur simultaneously for the residential and commercial components of the project. Emissions would not exceed the SMAQMD significance criterion of 85 pounds per day of NOx. However, and construction activities are considered to have a potential to create a local nuisance and exceed the standard for PM10. TABLE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) ACTIVITY ROG NOx PM10 Grading Equipment Construction Worker Trips Stationary Equipment Mobile Equipment Asphalt Off-gassing Total Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Threshold N.A 85 N.A. Source: Donald Ballanti, 2002; SMAQMD Thresholds, 2005 TABLE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY) Activity ROG NOx PM10 Fugitive Dust Construction Worker Trips Mobile Equipment Total Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD Threshold N.A 85 N.A. Source: Donald Ballanti, 2005; SMAQMD Thresholds, Assumes 80% control from dust mitigation measures. Final Environmental Impact Report April

119 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR The following edit is made to page of the DEIR to add mitigation measure MM 4.7.1i and revise the text following the mitigation measure: MM 4.7.1i The project applicant shall be required to pay SMAQMD fees to mitigate NOx emissions. Fees shall be paid in accordance with SMAQMD calculations. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of grading permit. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, SMAQMD. The text on page following MM 4.7.1h has been revised as follows: As indicated in Table 4.2-4, the project is projected to emit approximately pounds/day of NOx during construction activities; therefore, it would not exceed SMAQMD s established threshold of 85 pounds/day for NOx and create a nuisance from dust emissions. Implementation of the above mitigation measures MM 4.7.1a through 4.7.1hi would reduce the project s air quality construction impacts for nuisance conditions and NOx to less than significant levels. Operational emissions were modeled using URBEMIS-2002 for the year 2007 and reflected summer conditions. Default parameters were utilized reflecting a Lower Sacramento Valley Air Basin location. The updated modeling resulted in increased emissions; however, implementation of mitigation measures 4.72a and 4.72b identified in the DEIR would reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures identified to reduce region emissions would remain as unchanged. Page of the DEIR is revised as follows based on the updated URBEMIS-2002 modeling for the proposed project: Impact Project emissions from mobile and area sources during the operational phase exceed SMAQMD s significance threshold. This would result in a potentially significant impact. The URBEMIS-2002 computer program was used to calculate emissions from mobile and area sources. Mobile sources were based on traffic trips obtained from the Traffic Impact Study for South Pointe (aka ) in Elk Grove prepared by Fehr & Peers (2002). Total emissions of criteria pollutants associated with the project are shown in Table for the two ozone precursors (reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides) and PM10. The project s project emissions of ROG and NOx exceed the SMAQMD s significance threshold of 65 pounds per day. Based on this criterion, the project would have a significant impact on regional air quality. TABLE PROJECT REGIONAL EMISSIONS IN POUNDS PER DAY Activity ROG NOx Vehicles Area Sources TOTAL April Final Environmental Impact Report

120 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Activity ROG NOx SMAQMD Thresholds Source: Donald Ballanti, 2005 The following edit is made to page of the DEIR, following mitigation measure MM 4.7.2b: Implementation of General Plan Policy CAQ-30 would reduce project impacts by 15 percent. This would reduce estimated project regional emissions in Table to pounds per day for ROG and pounds per day for NOx. This would not reduce impacts below the SMAQMD thresholds of significance for ozone precursors. Payment of off-site in-lieu fees as required under MM 4.7.2b would provide for off-site pollution reductions that would off-set the project s operational air quality emissions that exceed the SMAQMD thresholds. Therefore, project regional air quality impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Response E-2: As identified by the commenter, the Air Quality Plan appears as Appendix C rather than Appendix D in the DEIR. The following revisions are made to page ii, Table of Contents, of the DEIR: APPENDICES Appendix A - Notice of Preparation/Initial Study and Responses to Notice of Preparation Appendix B - Noise Data Appendix C - URBEMIS 2001 Output AQ-15 Plan Appendix D - AQ-15 Plan URBEMIS 2002 Output Appendix E - Drainage and Water Quality for Appendix F - Water Service for Appendix G - Wastewater for The following revisions are made to page 4.7-5, Table 4.7-3, second row, of the DEIR : TABLE PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN AIR QUALITY OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Policy CAQ-27: General Plan Policies The City shall promote energy conservation measures in new development to reduce on-site emissions and power plant emissions. The City shall seek to reduce the energy impacts from new residential and commercial projects through investigation and implementation of energy efficiency measures during all phases of design Consistency With General Plan Yes Analysis The project would be required to incorporate energy conservation measures into all phases of design and development. Compliance with the City s energy conservation requirements would result in consistency with this policy. Final Environmental Impact Report April

121 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR and development. Policy CAQ-30: General Plan Policies All new development projects, which have the potential to result in substantial air quality impacts, shall incorporate design, construction, and/or operational features to result in a reduction in emissions equal to 15 percent compared to an unmitigated baseline project. An unmitigated baseline project is a development project, which is built and/or operated without the implementation of trip-reduction, energy conservation, or similar features, including any such features, which may be required by the Zoning Code or other applicable codes. Consistency With General Plan Yes Analysis An AQ-15 Plan has been prepared for the project and identifies design, construction and operational features to reduce the project s emissions by 15 percent over Existing Base conditions. The project would be required to implement Emission Reduction Measures as required by mitigation measures in this section to reduce air related impacts; thereby, making it consistent with this General Plan policy. The AQ-15 Plan is included in Appendix D C. Page of the DEIR, last sentence of the second paragraph under Construction and Operational Emissions has been revised as follows: The URBEMIS output is included in Appendix CD. The commenter also states that the Air Quality Plan included in the DEIR is not reflective of the current project, air quality measures or transit services currently available and requests that it be redone to address these issues. The Air Quality Plan for the project was prepared based on the 2001 project application. Since that time the project map has been revised to include a slightly different mix of uses and a modified roadway system. It is appropriate to update the Air Quality Plan to reflect the project as proposed. These revisions would not result in changes to anticipated air quality impacts, as the revised Air Quality Plan would be required to result in a 15 percent reduction in air quality emissions which is consistent with Policy CAQ-30 and is also consistent with the anticipated reductions associated with the Air Quality Plan discussed in the DEIR. MM 4.7.2a will be revised to ensure that the applicant prepares a revised Air Quality Plan to include an updated project description, currently available transit services and any revisions to SMAQMD Land Use Emissions Reductions measures. The following edit is made to Mitigation Measure MM 4.7.2a on page of the DEIR: MM 4.7.2a The project applicant shall implement Emission Reduction Measures update its Air Quality Plan to reflect the current project map. The Plan shall reflect current transit services and any revisions to the SMAQMD Land Use Emissions Reduction measures, such as those identified in its AQ-15 Plan, and to ensure the project s compliance with the General Plan policy CAQ-30. The Emission Reduction April Final Environmental Impact Report

122 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Measures shall be evaluated and approved by the SMAQMD. The updated plan shall be submitted to the SMAQMD and the for approval. Timing/Implementation: Prior to recordation of final map or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first Tentative Map approval. All measures shall be implemented during all phases of the project as required in the plan. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and SMAQMD. Response E-3: Response E-4: As noted by the commenter, the northeast corner of the project site is approximately 500 feet west of SR 99. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective approved by California Air Resources Board (ARB) makes the recommendation to Avoid siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles/day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles/day. The section of the project site nearest to SR 99 (the northeast corner) is approximately 500 feet. The site is also on the up-wind side of SR 99. The wind rose for Sacramento Executive Airport (Figure 3-1 of this FEIR) shows that winds in the vicinity of the project site that could carry pollutants directly from SR 99 to the project site (northeasterly) are almost non-existent. This means that transport of pollutants from SR 99 to the project site is not anticipated to regularly occur. In this situation, the ARB s recommendation of a 500-foot setback is not necessary to avoid potential exposure. No new impacts to air quality are anticipated and no revision to the DEIR is necessary. The commenter states that the project is subject to all applicable SMAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. The Sterling Meadows DEIR identified Mitigation Measures MM 4.7.1a through MM 4.7.1h on pages through to reduce construction-related air quality impacts and Mitigation Measures MM 4.7.2a and 4.7.2b to reduce potential operational air quality impacts. The proposed applicant would be required to comply with all applicable SMAQMD rules and regulations at the time of construction, including obtaining necessary permits consistent with Rule 201. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is necessary. Final Environmental Impact Report April

123 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

124 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

125 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

126 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

127 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER F KATHERINE EASTHAM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Response F-1 The commenter has reviewed the DEIR. Since this comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further discussion is necessary. Response F-2 The commenter requests that a new traffic study be prepared for the proposed project because the commenter believes that the analysis contained in the DEIR does not accurately reflect current conditions. A new Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was completed for the project on November 27, 2007 by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants and is included herein as Appendix B of the Final EIR. A summary of the study, including methodology, analysis, as well as project impacts and mitigation measures, is provided below. The study area included the following 12 intersections, 8 roadway segments, and 18 freeway facilities: Intersections 1. Elk Grove Boulevard / Bruceville Road 2. Elk Grove Boulevard / Auto Center Drive 3. Elk Grove Boulevard / SR 99 SB Ramps 4. Elk Grove Boulevard / SR 99 NB Ramps 5. Grant Line Road / West Stockton Boulevard 6. Grant Line Road / East Stockton Boulevard 7. SR 99 NB Ramps / East Stockton Boulevard 8. SR 99 SB Ramps / West Stockton Boulevard 9. Kammerer Road / West Stockton Boulevard 10. Bilby Road / Bruceville Road 11. Hood Franklin Road / I-5 SB Ramps 12. Hood Franklin Road / I-5 NB Ramps Roadways 1. Kammerer Road West Stockton Boulevard to Bruceville Road 2. West Stockton Boulevard Grant Line Road to Auto Center Drive 3. Grant Line Road SR 99 to Waterman Road 4. Bruceville Road Elk Grove Boulevard to Poppy Ridge Road 5. Bruceville Road Poppy Ridge Road to Bilby Road 6. Bruceville Road Bilby Road to Kammerer Road 7. Bilby Road Bruceville Road to Franklin Boulevard 8. Hood Franklin Road I-5 to Franklin Boulevard Freeway Facilities 1. SB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard off-ramp diverge 2. SB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard on-ramp merge 3. NB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard on-ramp merge 4. NB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard off-ramp diverge April Final Environmental Impact Report

128 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 5. SB I-5 north of Hood-Franklin Road 6. NB I-5 north of Hood-Franklin Road 7. SB I-5 / Hood-Franklin Road off-ramp diverge 8. SB I-5 / Hood-Franklin Road on-ramp merge 9. NB I-5 / Hood-Franklin Road on-ramp merge 10. NB I-5 / Hood-Franklin Road off-ramp diverge 11. SB I-5 south of Hood-Franklin Road 12. NB I-5 south of Hood-Franklin Road 13. SB SR 99 between Elk Grove Blvd and Grant Line Road 14. NB SR 99 between Grant Line Road and Elk Grove Blvd 15. NB SR 99 / Grant Line Road on-ramp merge 16. NB SR 99 / Grant Line Road off-ramp diverge 17. SB SR 99 / Grant Line Road off-ramp diverge 18. SB SR 99 / Grant Line Road on-ramp merge Intersections and freeway facilities were analyzed for weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions, while roadways were analyzed for daily conditions. Fehr & Peers performed traffic counts at the study locations in September, 2005 and again in August, The September 2005 counts were greater at nearly all locations. Therefore, the 2005 counts were used as the basis for the existing conditions analysis. The study intersections were analyzed using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000). Roadway segments were analyzed by comparing average daily traffic volumes to capacity thresholds presented in the s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. Per Caltrans standards, the freeway mainline and on- and off-ramps were analyzed using procedures from the HCM Consistent with the City s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, the transportation analysis used the following thresholds to determine the significance of project impacts: Roadway System: An impact is considered significant on roadways, intersections, and freeway facilities if the project causes the facility to change from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. For facilities that are, or will be (in the cumulative condition), operating at unacceptable levels of service without the project, an impact is considered significant if the project: 1) increases the delay at study intersections by more than five seconds; or 2) increases the volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.05 or more on a roadway. Transit System: An impact is considered significant if implementation of the project will disrupt or interfere with existing or planned transit operations or transit facilities. Bicycle/Pedestrian System: An impact is considered significant if implementation of the project will disrupt or interfere with existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Final Environmental Impact Report April

129 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Citing several Caltrans documents that indicated varying LOS goals, the 2007 TIS analysis selected LOS D as the minimum standard for freeway mainline and on- and off-ramps operations. Existing/Baseline Conditions The 2007 TIS found that all study roadways currently operate at LOS B or better with the exception of Grantline Road, which operates at LOS F. The TIS also found that four of the 12 study intersections operated at LOS E or F during one or both peak hours. Each of those deficient intersections is situated adjacent to or at the SR 99/Grantline Road and SR 99/Elk Grove Boulevard interchanges. The TIS further indicated that all study freeway facilities currently operate at LOS C or better. Detailed results for existing traffic operations at each of the study intersections, and freeways can be found in Table 4-2 and 4-3 below. Existing Plus Project Conditions The TIS reanalyzed study roadways, intersections, and freeways under the 2005 existing conditions plus project conditions and identified significant impacts that would result from implementation of the project as well as mitigation measures to reduce the significance of each impact. The TIS found that the addition of project traffic would worsen operations from LOS B to C on the segment of Bruceville Road south of Elk Grove Boulevard. However, LOS C is still considered to be operating at an acceptable level of service and does not exceed the threshold for a significant impact. The TIS also found that the addition of project traffic would exacerbate existing LOS F operations on Grantline Road east of SR 99. All other study roadways would continue to operate at LOS A under existing plus project conditions. The TIS also identified that the addition of project traffic would exacerbate existing unacceptable operations on Grant Line Road east of SR 99.The exacerbation of the LOS F operation on Grantline Road would be considered a potentially significant impact. The project would add approximately 1,600 vehicles per day to the two-lane segment of Grantline Road east of SR 99 and the corresponding increase in the v/c ratio (0.09) is considered significant. The TIS indicated that this impact could be mitigated through the project s payment of fair share cost toward the widening of Grant Line Road and gradeseparation of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The widening of Grant Line Road, east of East Stockton Blvd /Survey Road to a six lane facility would result in a LOS A under existing plus project conditions. This widening of Grantline Road is identified in the Elk Grove General Plan and is included in the Citywide fee program. Given that the proposed project is required to contribute its fair share to the improvements through payment of the City-wide roadway fee program, the impact is considered less than significant. No new significant impact would occur and no further mitigation is required other than identified in the DEIR. The TIS indicated that the addition of project traffic to existing volumes would exacerbate (to a significant degree) already unacceptable operations or worsen operations to an unacceptable level at the Grant Line Road/West April Final Environmental Impact Report

130 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Stockton Boulevard, Grant Line Road/East Stockton Boulevard, East Stockton Boulevard/SR 99 NB Ramps, West Stockton Boulevard/SR 99 SB Ramps, and Kammerer Road/West Stockton Boulevard intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. All other study roadways would continue to operate at LOS A under existing plus project conditions. The unacceptable operations exacerbated by the proposed project would be a potentially significant impact. However, as indicated by the TIS, the SR 99/ Grantline Road interchange is currently being reconstructed to provide significantly more capacity. The reconstructed interchange and four new signalized intersections at or adjacent to the SR 99/Grantline Road interchange would operate at LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. Mitigation measure MM in the DEIR requires that improvements to the Grantline Road/SR 99 Interchange Reconstruction Project be constructed and operational prior to approval of improvement plans for the project. Therefore, impacts to Grant Line Road/West Stockton Boulevard, Grant Line Road/East Stockton Boulevard, East Stockton Boulevard/SR 99 NB Ramps, West Stockton Boulevard/SR 99 SB Ramps, and Kammerer Road/West Stockton Boulevard would be less than significant. No new significant impact would occur and no further mitigation is required other than identified in the DEIR. The TIS found that addition of project traffic would not change the LOS on any study freeway facilities. Each facility would continue to operate at LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. Detailed results for existing plus project conditions at project freeway facilities can be found in Table 4-3 below. TABLE 4-1: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Intersection 1. Elk Grove Boulevard / Bruceville Road 2. Elk Grove Boulevard / Wal-Mart Driveway 3. Elk Grove Boulevard / SR 99 SB Ramps 4. Elk Grove Boulevard / SR 99 NB Ramps 5. Grant Line Road / West Stockton Blvd. 6. Grant Line Road / East Stockton Blvd. 7. SR 99 NB Ramps / East Stockton Blvd. 8. SR 99 SB Ramps / West Stockton Blvd. 9. Kammerer Road / West Stockton Blvd. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic Control Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 Signal 39 D 37 D 41 D 38 D Signal 26 C 41 D 27 C 44 D Signal 29 C 73 E 28 C 76 E Signal 9 A 9 A 9 A 9 A Side-Street Stop >50 F >50 F >50 F >50 F Signal 52 D 54 D 94 F 103 F Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop >50 F >50 F >50 F >50 F 40 E 25 D >50 F >50 F 10 A 9 A 37 E 23 C Final Environmental Impact Report April

131 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 10. Bilby Road / Bruceville Road 11. Hood Franklin Road / I-5 SB Ramps 12. Hood Franklin Road / I-5 NB Ramps Signal 8 A 8 A 9 A 7 A Side-Street Stop Side-Street Stop 10 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 10 B 11 B 10 B Notes: 1 For signalized intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For sidestreet stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in seconds per vehicle. >50 is reported when Traffix is unable to calculate the average control delay due to oversaturated conditions. 2 Level of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Precise delays at Intersections 5, 7, & 8 not given because existing traffic flows exceed the limits of software program. Shaded boxes indicate significant project impacts based on the established significance criteria. Source: Fehr & Peers, TABLE 4-3: FREEWAY FACILITY DENSITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Facility Type Density 1 LOS 2 Density 1 LOS 2 Density 1 LOS 2 Density 1 LOS 2 1. SB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard off-ramp diverge 2. SB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard on-ramp merge 3. NB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard on-ramp merge 4. NB SR 99 / Elk Grove Boulevard off-ramp diverge 5. SB I-5 north of Hood-Franklin Road 6. NB I-5 north of Hood-Franklin Road 7. SB I-5 / Hood- Franklin Road offramp diverge 8. SB I-5 / Hood- Franklin Road onramp merge 9. NB I-5 / Hood- Franklin Road onramp merge 10. NB I-5 / Hood- Franklin Road offramp diverge 11. SB I-5 south of Hood-Franklin Road 12. NB I-5 south of Hood-Franklin Road Ramp 11.5 B 17.8 B 11.8 B 18.9 B Ramp 13.4 B 16.2 B 13.9 B 17.7 B Ramp 21.5 C 23.0 C 22.6 C 23.7 C Ramp 14.1 B 14.3 B 15.6 B 15.3 B Mainline 15.4 B 19.4 C 15.5 B 19.7 C Mainline 20.8 C 19.7 C 21.1 C 19.9 C Ramp 16.6 B 20.8 C 16.8 B 21.1 C Ramp 17.2 B 20.9 C 17.4 B 21.0 C Ramp 21.6 C 22.0 C 21.6 C 22.0 C Ramp 20.7 C 21.0 C 20.8 C 21.2 C Mainline 14.1 B 18.1 C 14.3 B 18.3 C Mainline 19.3 C 19.6 C 19.3 C 19.8 C April Final Environmental Impact Report

132 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 13. SB SR 99 from Elk Grove Blvd to Grant Line Road 14. NB SR 99 from Grant Line Road to Elk Grove Blvd 15. NB SR 99 / Grant Line Road onramp merge 16. NB SR 99 / Grant Line Road offramp diverge 17. SB SR 99 / Grant Line Road offramp diverge 18. SB SR 99 / Grant Line Road onramp merge Mainline 15.4 B 20.3 C 16.2 B 23.0 C Mainline 18.8 C 19.1 C 21.1 C 20.5 C Ramp 20.1 C 20.9 C 22.2 C 22.6 C Ramp 24.4 C 23.0 C 24.5 C 23.5 C Ramp 18.5 B 23.6 C 19.3 B 26.4 C Ramp 20.1 C 25.4 C 20.5 C 25.6 C Notes: 1 Density reported in passenger cars per mile per lane. 2 Level of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Shading indicates that the freeway facility operates unacceptably based on the significance criteria. Bold italic indicates project impact based on the significance criteria. Source: Fehr & Peers, Based on the current conditions identified in the 2007 TIS, existing plus project conditions would not result in new significant impacts in relation to transportation and circulation that were not identified in the DEIR. Cumulative Conditions The TIS also analyzed cumulative conditions with and without the proposed project. Cumulative (Year 2025) weekday and peak hour traffic volume forecasts for study roadways, intersections, and freeway facilities were developed using the latest version (v.01) of the SACMET regional travel demand model which contains the latest land uses for the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan, Southeast Policy Area, and Lent Ranch Mall retail parcels. No development was assumed south of Kammerer Road. Since distribution of the DEIR, roadway improvements associated with the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan have been constructed, including improvements to Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard and Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road. These roadways were forecast to operate at unacceptable conditions with project implementation in the DEIR; however, the constructed roadway improvements would result in acceptable operations under cumulative conditions as identified in the TIS. Results from the SACMET model confirmed that inclusion of the Sterling Meadows project would act to improve the jobs-housing balance in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the model shows significant increases in traffic in the immediate project vicinity. However, the increases diminish as the distance from the project site increases. On the more remote study facilities (e.g., Bruceville Road or Elk Grove Boulevard), the addition of the project causes a net reduction in traffic due to the Sterling Meadows project replacing longer distance imported trips to/from the non- Final Environmental Impact Report April

133 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR residential uses in the area. Many of the study locations would experience either no increase or a decrease in traffic with the addition of the Sterling Meadows project under cumulative conditions. The facilities that were expected to experience an increase in traffic under with project conditions were studied under cumulative conditions. Most study freeway facilities would experience reductions in traffic; thus, the analysis of those facilities was limited to the SR 99/Grant Line Road NB loop on-ramp merge movement and SB diagonal off-ramp diverge movement, which were expected to experience moderate increases in traffic. Figure 4-1 identifies roadway operations with implementation of the proposed project under cumulative conditions. The TIS indicated that the addition of project traffic would cause the following roadway segments to worsen from LOS C to D under cumulative conditions: Lotz Parkway from Poppy Ridge Road to Whitelock Parkway and Bilby Road between the project site and Promenade Parkway. Although degraded by one service level, these facilities would continue to operate acceptably. The project would not cause the LOS to worsen at any other study roadway segments. Therefore, no new significant impacts to the study roadways were identified under cumulative conditions. The TIS also found that the project would not degrade the LOS at any of the study intersections under cumulative conditions. Although the project would cause slight increases in delays at the six intersections projected to operate at LOS F, each increase was less than the five-second threshold for identifying significant impacts. Detailed results from the cumulative analysis can be found in Table 4-4 below. Therefore, no new significant impacts to the study intersections were identified under cumulative conditions. The Grantline Road/SR 99 freeway facilities were analyzed under cumulative conditions and the analysis indicates that the project would not change the LOS at either freeway ramp under cumulative conditions. Each facility would continue to operate at LOS C or better with the addition of project traffic, as shown in Table 4-5 below. Therefore, no new significant impacts to the study freeway facilities were identified under cumulative conditions. April Final Environmental Impact Report

134 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR TABLE 4-4: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection 1. Elk Grove Boulevard / Bruceville Road 2. Elk Grove Boulevard / Wal-Mart Driveway 3. Elk Grove Boulevard / SR-99 SB Ramps 5. Kammerer Road / Promenade Parkway 6. Grant Line Road / SR-99 SB Ramps 7. Grant Line Road / SR-99 NB Ramps 10. Bilby Road / Bruceville Road 11. Hood-Franklin Road / I-5 SB Ramps 12. Hood-Franklin Road / I-5 NB Ramps 13. Bilby Road / Promenade Parkway 14. Lent Ranch Parkway / Promenade Parkway 15. Kammerer Road / Lotz Parkway 16. Bilby Road / Lotz Parkway 17. East-West Collector / Promenade Parkway 18. East-West Collector / Lotz Parkway 19. Promenade Parkway / Lotz Parkway Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay 1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Delay 1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Signal 127 F 89 F 126 F 92 F Signal 168 F 116 F 169 F 119 F Signal 288 F 269 F 283 F 258 F Signal 30 C 160 F 35 C 163 F Signal 26 C 108 F 28 C 112 F Signal 39 D 108 F 37 D 109 F Signal 26 C 25 C 23 C 28 C Signal 36 D 16 B 23 C 16 B Signal 43 D 9 A 51 D 10 A Signal 31 C 47 D 35 C 46 D Signal 17 B 38 D 17 B 40 D Signal 12 B 15 B 12 B 17 B Signal 34 C 23 C 31 C 23 C Signal 29 C 27 C 27 C 30 C Signal 21 C 20 C 22 C 23 C Signal 23 C 23 C 25 C 24 C Notes: 1 For signalized intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For sidestreet stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in seconds per vehicle. 2 Level of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Shading indicates that the intersection operates unacceptably based on the significance criteria. Source: Fehr & Peers, Final Environmental Impact Report April

135

136

137 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR TABLE 4-5: FREEWAY FACILITY DENSITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Facility NB SR 99 / Grant Line Road loop on-ramp SB SR 99 / Grant Line Road offramp Type Ramp Ramp Density 1 LOS2 Density1 LOS2 Density1 LOS2 Density1 LOS2 22 C 23 C 22 C 23 C 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A Notes: 1 Density reported in passenger cars per mile per lane. 2 Level of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Study facilities limited to locations that were expected to experience an increase in traffic under plus project conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, No edits to the existing plus project analysis in the DEIR are necessary, as the impact conclusions have not changed. However, the DEIR identifies mitigation measures that are no longer necessary for the proposed project under cumulative conditions. The following edits are made to pages through of the DEIR: Cumulative Traffic Impacts on Local Roadways and State Highways Impact Implementation of the proposed General Plan as well as potential development within the City and adjacent areas would have a less than cumulatively considerable contributione to significant impacts on local roadways and state highways under cumulative conditions. This is considered a cumulative significant impact. Under cumulative conditions, implementation of the proposed project would cause the following roadway segments to worsen from LOS C to D under cumulative conditions: Lotz Parkway from Poppy Ridge Road to Whitelock Parkway and Bilby Road between the project site and Promenade Parkway. These facilities would continue to operate acceptably under cumulative conditions. The project would not cause the LOS to worsen at any other study roadway segments. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts associated with roadway segment operations under cumulative conditions. no new significant impacts to the study roadways were identified under cumulative conditions. Development under the General Plan and regional growth expected by the year 2025 is expected to result in significant roadway impacts within the City and impacts to SR 99 as shown in Tables and Cumulative plus project daily traffic volumes are shown on Figure Figures and depict the AM and PM peak hour roadway segment operations projected with build out of the General Plan. Development of the site was anticipated to occur with the land uses identified for the South Pointe Policy Area, as identified April Final Environmental Impact Report

138 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR in the General Plan and General Plan land use map, and these land uses were evaluated in the General Plan EIR and General Plan Amendment Subsequent EIR. Additional development within the City, including the site, would further contribute to traffic impacts in the City. These projects would contribute to LOS impacts to Grant Line Road, Elk Grove Boulevard, and Interstate 5, as identified in the General Plan. The project would contribute to the unacceptable operations of the following freeway segments, based on Caltrans Concept LOS thresholds, under cumulative plus project conditions. I-5 Northbound north of Hood-Franklin Road, I-5 Southbound north of Hood-Franklin Road, I-5 Northbound south of Hood-Franklin Road, I-5 Southbound south of Hood-Franklin Road, I-5 Northbound north of Elk Grove Boulevard, and I-5 Southbound north of Elk Grove Boulevard. TABLE FREEWAY MAINLINE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DENSITY CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Freeway Mainline Cumulative Plus Project Conditions AM Peak PM Peak Density LOS Density LOS SR 99 Northbound (south of Elk Grove Blvd.) 28.1 D 24.0 C SR 99 Southbound (south of Elk Grove Blvd.) 18.7 C 29.2 D SR 99 Northbound (north of Elk Grove Blvd.) 20.9 C 18.2 C SR 99 Southbound (north of Elk Grove Blvd.) 13.6 B 22.0 C SR 99 Northbound (south of Grant Line Rd.) 32.5 E 29.7 D SR 99 Southbound (south of Grant Line Rd.) 21.8 C 27.7 D I-5 Northbound (south of Hood-Franklin Rd.) 22.5 C 35.8 E I-5 Southbound (south of Hood-Franklin Rd.) 29.0 D 35.1 E I-5 Northbound (north of Hood-Franklin Rd.) >45.0 F E I-5 Southbound (north of Hood-Franklin Rd.) 31.7 D >45.0 F 3 I-5 Northbound (north of Elk Grove Blvd.) 36.2 E D I-5 Southbound (north of Elk Grove Blvd.) 21.0 C 37.0 F Notes: 1 Density in passenger cars per mile per lane. 2 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000) 3 Unstable Flow. Source: Laguna Ridge Specific Plan Revised DEIR, 2003 TABLE ARTERIAL ROADWAY LEVEL OF SERVICE - CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Roadway Segment Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Lanes Vol V/C LOS Elk Grove Blvd. - I-5 to Franklin Blvd. 6 35, B Elk Grove Blvd. - Franklin Blvd. to Bruceville Rd. 6 42, C Elk Grove Blvd. Bruceville Rd. to Auto Center Drive 6 58, F Elk Grove Blvd. - E. Stockton Blvd. to Elk Grove-Florin Rd. 4 53, F Hood Franklin Rd. - I-5 to Franklin Blvd. 4 16, A Final Environmental Impact Report April

139 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Roadway Segment Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Lanes Vol V/C LOS Kammerer Rd. Bruceville Rd. to SR , C Grant Line Rd. SR 99 to Waterman Rd. 4 56, F Franklin Blvd. Hood Franklin Rd. to Bilby Rd. 2 8, A Bruceville Rd. - Bilby Rd. to Poppy Ridge Rd. 4 15, A Bruceville Rd. - Poppy Ridge Rd. to Elk Grove Blvd. 4 30, D Poppy Ridge Rd. Bruceville Rd. to W. Stockton Blvd. 4 15, A Notes: Bolded areas indicate project deficiency. Analysis is performed for the roadway one-way in each direction; the worst operation for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour is provided. Source: Fehr & Peers, 2003 Development of the project would contribute to the unacceptable operation of the following roadways under the cumulative condition: Elk Grove Boulevard from Bruceville Road to Auto Center Drive, Elk Grove Boulevard from East Stockton Boulevard to Elk Grove-Florin Road and, Grant Line Road from SR99 to Waterman Road. These cumulative impacts to City roadway segment operations were addressed in the Elk Grove General Plan EIR (SCH# ) certified in November 2003 and the General Plan Amendment Subsequent EIR (SCH# ) certified in January The City Council of the adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these significant cumulative impacts to roadway segments. Mitigation Measures No mitigation required. As part of the fees the project will contribute a traffic fee. The City s Roadway Facilities Fee is used to construct medians and internal lanes for all four and six lane facilities under the jurisdiction of the and would be used to reimburse the improvements required by this project and construct the roadways anticipated in the General Plan. The Roadway Facilities Fee does not include frontage or landscaping improvements. However, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, there are no feasible mitigation measures to offset the impacts to the affected Elk Grove Boulevard segments as it is not feasible to widen the affected roadways to the width necessary to accommodate cumulative plus project traffic volumes, due to extensive residential and commercial development immediately adjacent to the roads as well as other physical and jurisdictional limitations cited in the Elk Grove General Plan EIR and the Elk Grove General Plan Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Resolution ). Since Interstate 5 is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, it is outside the City s jurisdiction to implement improvement to Interstate 5 that would mitigate this impact. Thus, the project s contribution to cumulative impacts is significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Traffic Impacts on Study Intersections and Freeway Facilities Impact Implementation of the proposed project would not result in contribute to the significant degradation of study interchanges and freeway facilities under cumulative conditions. The project would have a less than cumulatively April Final Environmental Impact Report

140 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR considerable contribution to this impact. the Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard intersection operations, Elk Grove Boulevard/SR 99 Southbound Ramps, Elk Grove Boulevard/East Stockton Boulevard, Elk Grove Boulevard/Franklin Boulevard, Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road, Hood- Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps, Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps, and Grant Line Road/West Stockton Boulevard intersections to unacceptable LOS conditions, resulting in a cumulative significant impact. The proposed project would not degrade the LOS at any of the study intersections under cumulative conditions. Although the project would cause slight increases in delays at the six intersections projected to operate at LOS F, each increase was less than the five-second threshold for identifying significant impacts. Detailed results from the cumulative analysis are shown in Table Freeway facilities were analyzed under cumulative conditions and the analysis indicates that the project would not significantly change the LOS at freeway ramps under cumulative conditions (see Tables and ). Therefore, the proposed project would not have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative study intersection and freeway facility operations. TABLE 4-4: INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay Delay 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 1 LOS 2 Delay 1 LOS 2 1. Elk Grove Boulevard / Bruceville Road 2. Elk Grove Boulevard / Wal-Mart Driveway 3. Elk Grove Boulevard / SR-99 SB Ramps 5. Kammerer Road / Promenade Parkway 6. Grant Line Road / SR-99 SB Ramps 7. Grant Line Road / SR-99 NB Ramps 17. Bilby Road / Bruceville Road 18. Hood-Franklin Road / I-5 SB Ramps 19. Hood-Franklin Road / I-5 NB Ramps 20. Bilby Road / Promenade Parkway Signal 127 F 89 F 126 F 92 F Signal 168 F 116 F 169 F 119 F Signal 288 F 269 F 283 F 258 F Signal 30 C 160 F 35 C 163 F Signal 26 C 108 F 28 C 112 F Signal 39 D 108 F 37 D 109 F Signal 26 C 25 C 23 C 28 C Signal 36 D 16 B 23 C 16 B Signal 43 D 9 A 51 D 10 A Signal 31 C 47 D 35 C 46 D Final Environmental Impact Report April

141 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 21. Lent Ranch Parkway / Promenade Parkway 22. Kammerer Road / Lotz Parkway 23. Bilby Road / Lotz Parkway 17. East-West Collector / Promenade Parkway 18. East-West Collector / Lotz Parkway 19. Promenade Parkway / Lotz Parkway Signal 17 B 38 D 17 B 40 D Signal 12 B 15 B 12 B 17 B Signal 34 C 23 C 31 C 23 C Signal 29 C 27 C 27 C 30 C Signal 21 C 20 C 22 C 23 C Signal 23 C 23 C 25 C 24 C Notes: 1 For signalized intersections, the overall average intersection control delay is reported in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop control, the average control delay for the worst movement is reported in seconds per vehicle. 2 Level of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Shading indicates that the intersection operates unacceptably based on the significance criteria. Source: Fehr & Peers, TABLE 4-5: FREEWAY FACILITY DENSITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Cumulative No Project Conditions Cumulative Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Freeway Facility NB SR 99 / Grant Line Road loop onramp SB SR 99 / Grant Line Road off-ramp Type Ramp Ramp Density 1 LOS 2 Density 1 LOS 2 Density 1 LOS 2 Density 1 LOS 2 22 C 23 C 22 C 23 C 6 A 6 A 6 A 6 A Notes: 1 Density reported in passenger cars per mile per lane. 2 Level of Service based on Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000). Study facilities limited to locations that were expected to experience an increase in traffic under plus project conditions. Source: Fehr & Peers, Mitigation Measures None required. Intersection LOS at each location is presented in Table and peak hour traffic volumes and lane configurations for cumulative plus project conditions are shown on Figure TABLE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS Intersection Control Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 1. Elk Grove Boulevard/I-5 Southbound Ramps Side-street Stop 0.0 (A) 0.0 (A) AM PM April Final Environmental Impact Report

142 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Intersection Control Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 2. Elk Grove Boulevard/I-5 Northbound Ramps Side-street Stop 12.1 (B) 27.5 (D) 3. Elk Grove Boulevard/Franklin Boulevard Signalized 76.8 (E) > 80.0 (F) 4. Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road Signalized > 80.0 (F) > 80.0(F) 5. Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard Signalized > 80.0 (F) > 80.0 (F) 6. Elk Grove Boulevard/SR 99 Southbound Ramps Signalized > 80.0 (F) > 80.0 (F) 7. Elk Grove Boulevard/SR 99 Northbound Ramps Signalized 32.3 (C) 8.2 (A) 8. Elk Grove Boulevard/East Stockton Boulevard Signalized > 80.0 (F) 45.4 (D) 9. Bilby Road/Franklin Boulevard Side-street Stop 25.2 (D) 19.4 (C) 10. Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps Side-street Stop 18.4 (C) > 50.0 (F) 11. Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps Side-street Stop 14.2 (B) > 50.0 (F) 12. Hood-Franklin Road/Franklin Boulevard Signalized 50.0 (D) 36.0 (D) 13. Kammerer Road/Bruceville Road Signalized 28.4 (C) 21.7 (C) 14. Kammerer Road/West Stockton Boulevard Signalized > 80.0 (F) > 80.0 (F) 15. Grant Line Road/East Stockton Boulevard Signalized 49.1 (D) 40.3 (D) Source: Laguna Ridge Specific Plan Revised DEIR, 2003 Notes: Bolded areas indicate project deficiency. The addition of project traffic would contribute to deficiencies at the following study intersections, as shown in Table based on the City s thresholds, AM PM Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard (LOS F in both a.m. and p.m. peak hours) Elk Grove Boulevard/SR 99 Southbound Ramps (LOS F in both a.m. and p.m. peak hours) Elk Grove Boulevard/East Stockton Boulevard (LOS F in a.m. peak hour) Elk Grove Boulevard/Franklin Boulevard (LOS E in a.m. peak hour and LOS F in the p.m. peak hour) Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road (LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour) Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps (LOS F in p.m. peak hour) Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps (LOS F in p.m. peak hour) Kammerer Road/West Stockton Boulevard (LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour) Final Environmental Impact Report April

143 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Mitigation Measures Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard MM 4.5.6a The project applicant shall pay their fair-share for the following lane configuration improvements at the Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard intersection. One right-turn lane, two through lanes, and two left-turn lanes on the northbound approach. One right-turn lane, two through lanes, and two left-turn lanes on the southbound approach. One right-turn lane, three through lanes, and two left-turn lanes on the eastbound approach. One right-turn lane, three through lanes, and two left-turn lanes on the westbound approach. Right-turn overlap phasing on all approaches to the intersection, which would require modification of the existing signal equipment and signal phasing. Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: Prior to issuance of building permits Development Services. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, operation of the Elk Grove Boulevard/Big Horn Boulevard intersection would be improved. However, LOS would be deficient under cumulative conditions and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road MM 4.5.6b The project applicant shall pay their fair-share for the following lane configuration improvements at the Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road intersection. One right-turn lane on the westbound approach. Timing/Implementation: Enforcement/Monitoring: Prior to issuance of building permits. Development Service With implementation of the above mitigation measures, operation of the Elk Grove Boulevard/Bruceville Road intersections would be improved. However, LOS would be deficient under cumulative conditions and the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. April Final Environmental Impact Report

144 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps and Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps MM 4.5.6c The project applicant shall pay their fair-share for the installation of a traffic signal and coordination of it with the Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps intersection. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Sacramento Count, and Caltrans MM 4.5.6d The project applicant shall pay their fair-share for installation of a traffic signal and coordination of it with the Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps intersection. Timing/Implementation: Prior to issuance of building permits. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Sacramento County, and Caltrans Implementation of these improvements would provide LOS B and LOS C operation during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, respectively. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to less than significant. However, this improvement is outside of the City s jurisdiction and, ultimately, timing and approval of this improvement would be the responsibility of Caltrans. Therefore, impacts to the Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps and Hood- Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps would be significant and unavoidable. Grant Line Road/West Stockton Boulevard This deficiency is due to limited capacity at the SR 99/Grant Line Road interchange. Implementation of mitigation measure MM requires that reconstruction of the SR 99/Grant Line Road interchange improvements be completed prior to issuance of building permits for the project. Implementation of this measure would reduce the proposed project s impact to less than significant. Response F-3 The commenter contends that 2004 is the baseline year for existing conditions based on the release of the project s NOP on November 23, 2004 and suggests that the 2003 LRSP EIR numbers are not acceptable to determine the baseline for existing conditions. As noted on page 3-2 of the Sterling Meadows DEIR, the project application for the proposed project was submitted to the City as a complete application on April 17, 2001 and the NOP was originally issued in The subsequent issuance of the NOP in 2004 was performed to solicit up-to-date comments from interested agencies. The project has not changed substantially since the application was submitted in 2001 in terms of its proposed mix of land uses and residential densities. As stated on page of the DEIR, The Laguna Ridge Specific Plan EIR assumed development of the project site with the uses identified in the General Plan as part of the cumulative setting. Therefore, the cumulative plus project analysis provided in the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan EIR was inclusive of the proposed project and represents impacts that would occur under the cumulative condition with development of the project. Final Environmental Impact Report April

145 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR However, as discussed in the Response F-2, a traffic impact analysis was completed in 2007 using 2005 traffic counts as the basis for the existing conditions analysis. The new TIS addresses the commenter s concerns that the baseline used for the existing conditions analysis was not accurate by providing an updated existing conditions description based on analysis from 2005 traffic counts. The TIS did not identify an increased severity in impacts addressed in the DEIR, nor did it identify any new significant impacts. Response F-4 The commenter states that feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate project impacts to I-5 and SR 99 as detailed in Caltrans December 21, 2004 NOP comment letter and as discussed with City staff. It is noted that during discussions with City staff, Caltrans staff mentioned general forms of mitigation, such as collection of fees or allocation of property taxes to Caltrans, but did not provide any specific mitigation measures. Section 15024(f) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates: Prior to the close of the public review period for an EIR or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible or trustee agency which has identified significant effects on the environment may submit to the lead agency proposed mitigation measures which would address those significant effects. Any such measures shall be limited to impacts affecting those resources which are subject to the statutory authority of that agency. If mitigation measures are submitted, the responsible or trustee agency shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for the mitigation measures, or shall refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents which meet the same purpose. Caltrans has not provided mitigation measures as required by Section 15024(f). As discussed in the DEIR on pages and , the City does not have jurisdiction over highway facilities owned and maintained by the state and thus cannot ensure necessary improvements to the highway facilities would be implemented (i.e., it is not technically feasible for the City to undertake improvements on I-5 or SR 99 or have assurance that such improvements will occur). The DEIR identifies Mitigation Measures MM 4.5.6c and MM 4.5.6d (page ) for improvements that are under the jurisdiction of Caltrans (e.g., installation of traffic signals at Hood- Franklin Road/I-5 Southbound Ramps and Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound Ramps). Mitigation Measures MM 4.5.6c and 4.5.6d require the project applicant to pay their fair-share for installation of a traffic signal and coordination of it with the Hood Franklin Road/I-5 Northbound and Southbound intersections. DEIR Mitigation Measure MM requires that reconstruction of the SR 99/Grantline Road interchange improvements be completed prior to issuance of building permits for the project. These mitigation measures have been applied to the project because the improvements required by the mitigation measures have been planned and approved by Caltrans. The City s Roadway Fee Program includes these improvements and will result in funding being April Final Environmental Impact Report

146 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR available for the improvements to be completed at the appropriate time. Thus, the timing and implementation of these mitigation measures appears to be feasible. CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2) specifically notes that the City as lead agency can determine that necessary mitigation for a significant impact is within the jurisdiction of another public agency and mitigation should be considered by that public agency (in this case, Caltrans). The City does not have the authority to enforce mitigation measures that would result in improvements to Caltrans right-of-way. Were the City to collect fees for the improvements, Caltrans has not identified the City's fair-share of needed right-of-way improvements, nor has Caltrans developed a plan that identifies how and when fees would be spent. Therefore, the City cannot enforce mitigation measures relative to the timing or capacity of Caltrans right-of-way improvements. Response F-5 The commenter notes that Mitigation Measure MM (page of the DEIR) is in agreement with a prior Caltrans comment that the project s timing be linked with construction of infrastructure interchange improvements such as the Grantline Road/SR 99 Interchange and the Hood- Franklin Road/I-5 Interchange. The DEIR acknowledges that prior to buildout of the surrounding roadways adequate circulation must be provided to allow traffic to and from the project to flow satisfactorily. Table on page of the DEIR identifies roadway improvements that must be installed prior to issuance of the first building permit for. These improvements can be completed by in cooperation with the via capitol improvement projects or other private development projects. The project s proximity to SR 99 necessitates completion of the Grantline Road/SR 99 interchange improvements prior to implementation of the Sterling Meadows project. However, the Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Interchange improvements are tied to the extension of Kammerer Road from SR 99 to I-5. Until Kammerer Road is extended, the Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 Interchange would not be impacted by the proposed project. It is anticipated that the project would begin occupancy prior to connecting SR 99 to I-5 via Kammerer Road. Additionally, the City of Elk Grove s Roadway Fee Program includes funds for improvements to the Hood- Franklin Road/I-5 interchange at the appropriate time. This comment is noted and the commenter is referred to Response F-4. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. Response F-6 The commenter notes that DEIR Mitigation Measures MM 4.5.6c and MM 4.5.6d are in agreement with a prior Caltrans comment that the project pay its fair share for improvements for installation of a traffic signal at the Hood-Franklin Road/I-5 north and southbound ramps intersection. This comment is noted and the commenter is referred to Response F-4. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. Final Environmental Impact Report April

147 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Response F-7 The commenter s concerns regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis contained in the DEIR have been addressed above. Refer to Response F-4 and F-5 regarding impacts to SR 99 and I-5. April Final Environmental Impact Report

148 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

149 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

150 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

151 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER G Response G-1: TERRY ROBERTS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH The commenter provides information regarding the State Clearinghouse process and indicates that comment. The review period for comments regarding the project (SCH# ) ended on June, All comment letters provided by the State Clearinghouse have been reviewed and a response to each key point within each comment letter has been provided accordingly. See Responses to Letters A, C, and F. As this comment is informative in nature and does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. April Final Environmental Impact Report

152 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

153 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

154 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER H Response H-1 Response H-2 RON BESS, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The commenter acknowledges review of the DEIR. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. The commenter notes that the Community Plan area identified for Map 29 on page is incorrect. On page of the DEIR, the following revisions are made in the Name of Project column of Table 4.0-1: Airport Meadowview/ South Sacramento Area Community Plan Update includes Sunnyside Meadows, Village Meadows, Delta Shores Village PUD, City Farms, Fruitridge Manor, Glen Elder, Elder Creek, Franklin Villa, Southgate, Valley Hi and Florin-Perkins industrial area bounded by Fruitridge to the north, Freeport Boulevard to the west, the City of Sacramento limits to the south and Sheldon Road to the south, and SR 99 to the east. Page 4.0-8, the following revisions have been made in the Location column of Table City of Sacramento: Joining of the Airport Meadowview Community Plan and South Sacramento Area Community Plan areas, north of the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The commenter also states that project impacts on South Area Community Plan should be evaluated in the DEIR. The South Area Community Plan is identified in Table (page of the DEIR) as part of the cumulative setting for the proposed project. As such, the South Area Community Plan is considered with regard to the project s impacts relative to cumulative setting, not with regard to the South Area Community Plan by itself. This is consistent CEQA Guidelines Section which requires that EIRs include an analysis of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project s effect is considered cumulatively considerable. No further analysis is necessary. Final Environmental Impact Report April

155 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

156 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

157 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER I DANIEL JONES, SACRAMENTO COUNTY WATER AGENCY Response I-1: The Sacramento County Water Agency acknowledges review Sterling Meadows DEIR. As the comment does not address the adequacy of the EIR, no further response is necessary. Water Supply Assessment It is noted that subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the Sacramento County Water Agency completed the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the project. The WSA did not result in findings that conflict with the determination in the Draft EIR. The WSA is included as Appendix C of this Final EIR and a summary of the WSA is provided below. The WSA for the project was adopted by the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA) Board on May 17, The WSA evaluated planned water supplies for the project in order to verify that SCWA s planned water supplies are sufficient to meet the project demands as well as existing and projected water supply obligations. Findings of the WSA confirmed that sufficient water supplies to serve the project have been identified. The following is a summary of the analysis and findings provided in the WSA. The project site lies entirely within the boundaries of SCWA s Zone 40 and water supply demands associated with the project were included and addressed in Zone 40 s conjunctive use program described in the Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan. The Zone 40 conjunctive use program is a sustainable water supply program that provides for 100 percent reliable water supplies while protecting environmental values and stabilizing the groundwater basin underlying Zone 40. Conjunctive use in Zone 40 is described further in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities, of the DEIR. While water demands from the project will ultimately be met by a combination of groundwater and surface water in accordance with the conjunctive use program, initial water demands for project development will be met entirely by groundwater. Two alternatives for the interim water supply are identified in the WSA; including extension of a 20 T-main from the Poppy Ridge Water Treatment Plant to the northwest corner of the project site or a water treatment plant located on the project site with an on-site well and two off-site wells. These alternatives are discussed in further detail in Section 4.12, Public Services and Utilities, of the DEIR and Section 5.0, Errata, of the FEIR. The eventual delivery of surface water per the conjunctive use program is anticipated to be supplied from four sources of surface water supplies totaling up to 78,000 af/yr. These supplies include: 15,000 af/yr of Fazio water, 15,000 af/yr of SMUD 1 water, 15,000 af/yr of SMUD 2 water, and up to 33,000 af/yr of intermittent excess flows on the American and Sacramento Rivers. Additionally, SCWA is pursuing surface water transfer agreements that would reduce reliance on intermittent surplus flows. The WSA projected that annual water demands for the project, including system losses, would be af/yr. That number is slightly lower than the 916 af/yr projected by the 2004 Water Service for study completed for the project. These demands were addressed, in part, by the SCWA s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP includes a projected population for the Laguna area, as well as associated water demands to serve that population. Additional water demands beyond those considered in the UWMP were addressed in the Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan for the Laguna service areas. Financing for the Zone 40 conjunctive uses program is provided by the Zone 40 Development Fee and User Fee Program, implemented through Ordinance 18 and Title 3 of the SCWA Code. April Final Environmental Impact Report

158 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR The program incorporates all future Zone 40 expenditures for major capital facilities, including surface water treatment plants, groundwater treatment plants, and major transmission mains. The Development Fee and User Fee Program would therefore provide financing for constructing facilities required for delivering groundwater and surface water to the project. It should be noted that financing of any redundant/emergency facilities will be funded by the developer. The WSA identifies potential conflicts arising from the exercise of water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts that have not previously been exercised. No conflicts were identified in association with the use of groundwater, as the SCWA has previously exercised its rights as a groundwater appropriator to serve the water demands of its customers and will continue to exercise those rights to serve the project. The surface water supplies fall into three categories: water supplies derived from the Central Valley Project (CVP, surplus supplies available on an intermittent basis, and water available through the City of Sacramento for use within the American River Place of Use (POU). The source of supply for Fazio water, as well as SMUD 1 and SMUD 2 water is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation CVP. Therefore, the parties most directly affected by the SCWA exercising water rights would be other CVP contractors. Other affected parties include: State Water Project contractors, water rights holders subject to Term 91 conditions, and riparian diverters downstream of SCWA s point of diversion. The source of supply for the portion of Zone 40 that lies within the POU is the City of Sacramento and delivery of this water has been included in the City s long range plan for their American River water rights. The DEIR identified less than significant impacts associated with project water demand and project water facilities, stating that adequate water supplies would be available to serve the proposed project. The WSA for the project confirms that adequate water supplies are available to serve project demands. The WSA also identifies alternatives for interim water supply that are consistent with alternatives identified in the DEIR. Funding and potential conflicts associated with the exercising of water rights is also discussed in the WSA. However, these discussions do not identify any adverse environmental impacts associated with the project. As adequate water supplies would be available to serve the project, no new significant impacts were identified by the WSA, and the findings of the WSA are generally consistent with the conclusions of the DEIR, recirculation of the DEIR is not required. Response I-2: The commenter requests that a statement describing the location of existing water infrastructure be deleted from the text. The following revision is made to page 3-5, Water Supply second paragraph, of the DEIR: Water service is not currently available to the project site. The closest available public water infrastructure is a 14-inch transmission main located within Grant Line Road approximately 3,000 feet east of the project site. Since the proposed project will not be immediately adjacent to the existing SCWA water system, it has two options available for provision of water service: 1) connect to the proposed Laguna Ridge water system (Alternative A); or 2) develop its own water system (Alternative B) (Figure ). Response I-3: The commenter requests that Figure , and and associated text on page 3-5 be revised. The figures have been revised and are included Final Environmental Impact Report April

159 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR in Section 5.0, Errata. Text revisions are also made to Sections 3.0, Project Description, and 4.12, Public Services and Utilities, to correspond with the information presented in the revised figures. The following edits are made to pages 3-5 and 3-6 of the DEIR: Water Supply Alternative A would provide water service through the facilities identified in the Water Master Plan from the approved Laguna Ridge Specific Plan. Alternative A would employ a conjunctive use program of: 1) treated surface water; and 2) ground water treated and stored at the proposed Laguna Ridge Water Treatment Plant. The project would have two options for receiving water service. The first option (A-1) would connect via a proposed 20-inch main in Lotz Parkway and utilize the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan system (which includes the Big Horn Water Treatment Plant and Laguna Ridge Water Treatment Plant) (Figure ). If the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan system is not constructed in time to serve the proposed project, the second option (A-2) for water supply would be constructing a 20-inch main in Poppy Ridge Road which would then extend south to the project in Lotz Parkway (Figure ). The pipeline would connect the proposed project s water system to the Poppy Ridge Water Treatment Plant. Water for the project would be supplied from the existing system until the Laguna Ridge and Big Horn Water Treatment Plants are constructed. If this scenario were to occur, both options maybe interconnected in the future. Both options require off-site construction along future Lotz Parkway from the northwest corner of the project site. If this off-site right-of-way cannot be acquired, an optional T-main alignment that extends out to West Stockton Boulevard and south to the project site is available within existing rights-of-way. If the proposed project is initially served from a single point of connection to the Laguna Ridge system, the water supply must include two emergency/redundant wells with an interim connection directly to the distribution system (Figure ). Both Alternatives A-1 and A-2 would require the project developer to identify and reserve, per the California Government Code, two well sites approved by SCWA prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map. Alternative B assumes that the proposed project s developer would choose to proceed in advance of the construction of the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan water facilities. Under Alternative B, water supply would be provided from wells and a groundwater treatment and storage facility constructed at Sterling Meadows via 1) a water system that would supply only the proposed project (Alternative B-1) (Figure ); or 2) a water system that would ultimately supply both and the approved Lent Ranch Marketplace (Alternative B-2) (Figures and ). Alternative B-1 would require construction of two wells, treatment for two wells, two 400,000 gallon storage tanks, and a pump station. Alternative B-2 involves development of a water supply project to serve both and Lent Ranch Marketplace. Alternative B-2 would require construction April Final Environmental Impact Report

160 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR of two wells, treatment of two wells, two 1 million gallon storage tanks, and a pump station. A third well supplying raw water to the treatment facility would be constructed on the Lent Ranch Marketplace site. Further discussion and details are provided in Section 4.12 (Public Services and Utilities). The following revision is made to page , second full paragraph, third sentence of the DEIR. The first option (Alt 1/Alt 1A/Alt 1B A-1 on Figure ) would connect via a proposed 20-inch main in Lotz Parkway and utilize the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan system (which includes the Big Horn Water Treatment Plant and Laguna Ridge Water Treatment Plant). The following sentence has been added at the end of the second full paragraph on page , of the DEIR. Both options require off-site construction along future Lotz Parkway from the northwest corner of the project site. If this off-site right-of-way cannot be acquired, an optional T-main alignment that extends out to West Stockton Boulevard and south to the project site is available within existing rights-of-way. The following revision is made to page , first full paragraph, third sentence of the DEIR. Two options are available under this alternative: a water system that would supply only the proposed project (Alternative B-1); or a water system that would ultimately supply both and the approved Lent Ranch Marketplace (Alternative B-2). The following revision is made to page , second full paragraph, first sentence of the DEIR. Alternative B-1 would require construction of two wells, treatment for two wells, two 400,000 gallon storage tanks, and a pump station. The following revision is made to page , third full paragraph, first sentence of the DEIR. Alternative B-2 involves development of a water supply project to serve both and Lent Ranch Marketplace. The following revision is made to page , forth full paragraph, first sentence of the DEIR. Under Alternative B-2, prior to the approval of any tentative subdivision map, the developer would identify and reserve, per the California Government Code, two well sites and a water treatment/storage site approximately 5 acres in size meeting the approval of SCWA. Final Environmental Impact Report April

161 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Response I-4: The commenter requests that a statement describing the location of existing water infrastructure be deleted from the text. The following revision is made to page , Project Site, first paragraph, of the DEIR: There is currently no public water service in the area of the project site. Water for agricultural activities on the project site is currently provided by private wells. The closest available public water transmission main is a 14- inch transmission main located within Grant Line Road approximately 3,000 feet east of the project site. For over 60 years, the site has been an ongoing agricultural operation. It is estimated that approximately 1,140 acre-feet per year (AFY) of groundwater is used to irrigate crops on the site. Historical irrigation for the project area has been established to the satisfaction of SCWA as indicated in a letter dated March 27, 1998 (MacKay & Somps, 2004). Response I-5: The commenter requests that a statement describing the adequacy of the East Elk Grove Water Treatment Plant be removed. Page , first paragraph following Impact , of the DEIR has been revised as follows: SCWA and City staff have noted the adequacy of the East Elk Grove Water Treatment Plant to provide interim and ultimate service to the project, should development of the project precede development of the Lent Ranch Marketplace. Response I-6: The commenter requests a modification of MM b on page to reflect a minimum 4 acre water treatment plant rather than a 2 acre minimum site. The text change has been made and details regarding the increased size of the site will be worked out as part of the project s technical review Page , MM b, of the DEIR has been revised as follows: MM b Project proponents, future successors or interests shall reserve a minimum 2 4 Acre net water treatment plant and on site well located on lot numbers 779, 780, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, & 819 and necessary easements to the satisfaction of the SCWA. Acceptance and approval of the site shall be subject to meeting Department of Health Services (DHS) setback requirements and obtaining acceptable results from hydrogeologic evaluations (exploratory drilling). If these conditions cannot be satisfied, then an alternative site on the Subdivision shall be selected and similarly evaluated. Prior to Final Map approval, the project proponent shall grant right-of-entry to SCWA to conduct hydrogeologic evaluations. In addition, prior to Final Map recordation, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with SCWA consistent with Chapter of the Sacramento County April Final Environmental Impact Report

162 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Code ( Code) and Government Code Title 7, Division 2, Article 4. Response I-7: As identified by the commenter, page incorrectly references Table instead of Table The text has been modified to correct this discrepancy. Page , first paragraph following Impact , of the DEIR has been revised as follows: Fire flows calculated for the project are based on the mix of land uses as shown on the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (refer to Figure 3.0-8). As shown in Table above, the project would require fire flows of 1,750 gpm. Final Environmental Impact Report April

163 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

164 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

165 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

166 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

167 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

168 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER J Response J-1: Response J-2: KIM WILLIAMS, ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The commenter has reviewed the DEIR. Since this comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further discussion is necessary. The commenter requests that an addition be made to page of the DEIR. As identified by the commenter, the following revision to the last paragraph on page of DEIR is made: The EGUSD boundaries encompass the entire City of Elk Grove, portions of the City of Sacramento, portions of the City of Rancho Cordova, and most of southern Sacramento County Response J-3: The commenter is requesting revisions to paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 6 on page of the DEIR that include various re-wordings, corrections, and other writing recommendations to Section 4.12, Public Service and Utilities. The following edits are made to page of the DEIR: Due to the area's rapid growth, many elementary schools have reached their capacity at some or all grade levels and do not have room for any new students. New students move into the District at a rate sufficient to fill a classroom every three to five days. To keep up with this growth the EGUSD will need to build approximately four schools every year. These schools are needed to accommodate growth and allow the district to lower the enrolments at its middle and high schools. As the district opens new schools, school boundaries will also change. Students who are unable to attend their home school because it is full are "off-loaded" (bussed) to another school district - until space is available at the child's home school. Students who are offloaded are placed on a waiting list to return to their home school based on the date and time of when the student was registered. The EGUSD adopted an amended Facilities Master Plan in February 2002, which identified major issues and detailed information on the EGUSD s future school needs, funding options, and cost estimates. The 2002 Master Plan updated and amended the Master Plan. Enough new students moved into the EGUSD in to fill a classroom every three to five days. To keep up with this growth, the EGUSD will need to average nearly four new schools a year (approximately twentythirty-one new schools) by 2010, even after opening five new schools for the school year. These schools are needed to accommodate growth and allow the EGUSD to lower the enrollments at its middle and high schools. As the EGUSD opens new schools, school boundaries will also change. Final Environmental Impact Report April

169 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR The EGUSD operates 178 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 5 high schools, and one special education school in the City of Elk Grove. The entire EGUSD, including schools in Sacramento County, the City of Sacramento, and the City of Rancho Cordova, has a California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS) enrollment for of 31, elementary (grades K-6) school students; 9, middle (7-8) school students; and 17,1866,158 high school (grades 9-12) students, and 1,033 special needs students. This is a total enrollment of 58,670 (EGUSD, 20045). The proposed project is located in the attendance boundaries of Franklin Elementary School, Toby Johnson Middle School, and Franklin High School. Franklin Elementary School is located at 4011 Hood-Franklin Road in Hood-Franklin. Toby Johnson Middle School is located at Franklin High Road and the high school is located at 6400 Poppy Ridge Road. Both the middle school and high school are located along Poppy Ridge Road west of Bruceville Road. The number of students in the attendance area for each school and the current capacity/enrollment for each school serving the project site are is summarized in Table below: TABLE CURRENT ATTENDANCE AREA FOR SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT Source: Williams, Current School Attendance Area K School Franklin Johnson MS Franklin HS Number of Students Current capacity/enrollment for each school serving the project site is summarized in Table TABLE CURRENT ATTENDANCE AREA FOR SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROPOSED PROJECT K Franklin Johnson MS Franklin HS Current Office of Public School Construction Determined Capacity Current Year Enrollment (October, 04) with special education, without continuation high school Current Students Residing (10/04) in attendance area with special education and without continuation high school. Number of students residing in attendance area who are attending other schools 550 1,323 2, ,484 2, ,564 2, April Final Environmental Impact Report

170 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Source: Williams, Note: As a result of the deletion of Table , the remaining tables in Section will be renumbered. These minor edits are in Section 5.0 (Minor Edits to the FEIR.) Response J-4: The commenter indicates that the date of the Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase Act is incorrect. The following edit is made to page of the DEIR, under the State Funding heading: Development impact fees were also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase ProgramAct (described below), which required schools districts to contribute a matching share of project costs for construction, modernization, or reconstruction. Response J-5: The commenter is recommending various changes to the Elk Grove Unified School District Funding and Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) discussions on page of the DEIR. The following edits are made to page of the DEIR: The EGUSD operations are primarily funded through local property tax, personal income taxes and sales tax revenues that are is first accrued in a common statewide pool, and then allocated to each school district on the basis of average daily attendance. State law also permits the charging of development fees to assist the EGUSD in funding capital acquisition and improvements to programs for school facilities, based on documented justification that residential and non-residential development projects generate students. The EGUSD School Facilities Needs Analysis (December 1999 May 2005) provides this justification and allows the imposition of fees that can be adjusted periodically, consistent with SB 50. Adjusted school impact developer fees are currently $3.95 $4.32 per square foot of new residential space and $0.36 per square foot of commercial/industrial space, as adjusted by the Board of Education on June 21, school board on July 7, 2004 (Williams, 2005). The District also collects a special Mello-Roos tax, with the taxes applied at various stages during project review and development. The project site is presently charged the lowest rate, which is applied to agricultural land. When the land is rezoned for the proposed uses, it will be charged at the appropriate rate at the time City Council approval is given to a rezone PUBLIC SCHOOLS REGULATORY FRAMEWORK STATE Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of1998 (SB 50) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, also known as Senate Bill No. 50 (Stats. 1998, Ch.407), governs a school district s authority to levy school impact fees. Final Environmental Impact Report April

171 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Senate Bill (SB) 50 and Proposition 1A provide a comprehensive school facilities financing and reform program by primarily authorizing a $9.2 billion school facilities bond issue, school construction cost containment provisions, and an eight-year suspension of the Mira, Hart, and Murrieta court cases. Specifically, the bond funds are to provide $2.9 billion for new construction and $2.1 billion for reconstruction/modernization needs. The provisions of SB 50 prohibit local agencies from denying either legislative or adjudicative land use approvals on the basis that school facilities are inadequate and reinstate the school facility fee cap for legislative actions (e.g., general plan amendments, specific plan adoption, zoning plan amendments). According to Government Code Section 65996, the development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be full and complete school facilities mitigation. These provisions are in effect until 2006 and will remain in place as long as subsequent state bonds are approved and available. SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees: 1) Level One fees are the base statutory fees of $2.24 $2.05 per square foot of assessable space for residential development and $0.36 $0.31 per square foot of chargeable, covered and enclosed commercial/industrial development. These are the current statutory fees allowed under Education Code 17620, which provides the basic authority for school districts to levy a fee against residential and commercial construction for the purpose of funding school construction or reconstruction of facilities. These fees were increased in January 2004 and will be increased every two years thereafter in accordance with the statewide cost index for Class B construction as determined by the State Allocation Board. 2) Level Two fees, outlined in Government Code Section , allow the school district to impose developer fees above the statutory levels, up to 50 percent of certain costs under designated circumstances and if the school district has completed a Fee Justification Study. The State would match the 50 percent funding if funds are available. 3) Level Three fees, outlined in Government Code Section , apply if the State runs out of bond funds after 2006, and allowing the school district to impose 100 percent of the cost of the school facility or mitigation minus any local dedicated school monieys. This fee is equal to twice the amount of Level Two Fees. However, if a school district eventually receives State funding, this excess fee may be reimbursed to the developers or subtracted from the amount of State funding. Response J-6: The commenter provides updated information regarding current EGUSD School Facilities Fees. The following edits are made to Table (row 2, column 3) on page of the DEIR. The EGUSD School Facilities Needs Analysis (May 2005 December 1999) provides this justification and allows the imposition of fees that can be adjusted periodically, consistent with SB 50. EGUSD s developer fees are currently $4.32 $3.95 per square foot of new residential construction space and $0.36 per square foot of commercial/industrial space, as adjusted by the school board on June 21, 2005 July 7, April Final Environmental Impact Report

172 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Response J-7: The commenter provides updated information regarding student generation rates for Table , Anticipated Student Generation for the Sterling Meadows Project, of the DEIR. The following revisions are made to Table (renumbered Table ) on page of the DEIR: TABLE ANTICIPATED STUDENT GENERATION FOR THE STERLING MEADOWS PROJECT Generation Students Single Family Multi-Family Franklin Elementary School (K-6) Single Family Multi-Family Toby Johnson Middle School Single Family Multi-Family Franklin High School Total Students Generated Source: Williams, Elk Grove Unified School District, 2005 Notes: 1 Single Family calculation based on 799 dwelling units. 2 Multi-Family calculation based on 380 dwelling units. Response J-8: The commenter provides a correction to information contained in paragraph 4 (last sentence), under Impact , Capacity and Need for Additional Facilities (page ). The following revisions are made to page , paragraph 3, of the DEIR: For example, the approved Laguna Ridge Specific Plan includes three two elementary school sites, one high school site and one combined middle/high school site. Response J-9: The commenter is providing corrected information contained in paragraph 2 of Impact , Cumulative Impacts to Schools (page ). The following revisions to the EIR have been made: The adoption of all or some A combination of Mello-Roos taxes, school impact fees and SB 50 funding fully mitigates the potential cumulative impacts on schools and related facilities, according to California Government Code Section On March 2, 2004, voters in California passed Proposition 55, a statewide bond authorizing 12.3 billion dollars for new K-12 school constructions and 2.25 billion dollars for K-12 reconstruction/modernization needs. The remaining 2.3 billion were reserved for community college, California State University, and University Final Environmental Impact Report April

173 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR of California facilities. At this time state funding is still available from these bonds. Funding is currently available from statewide school bonds as a result of the passage of Proposition 1A on November 4, The current bond provides 9.2 billion dollars over the next four years to help fund public school facility needs. Specifically, the bond funds are to provide 2.9 million dollars for new construction and 2.1 million dollars for reconstruction/modernization needs. The existing funding mechanisms, bond measures within the school district and compliance with the General Plan policies would reduce the cumulative impacts on school facilities. Also, the presence of new schools provides additional capacity to accommodate existing and future enrollment. Therefore, cumulative impacts to schools are considered less than significant. April Final Environmental Impact Report

174 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

175 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

176 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER K Response K-1: WILLIAM NESS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO The commentor indicates that they are responding to the DEIR for Sterling Meadows (formerly South Pointe), provide an identification number for the project, and generally identify the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction within Elk Grove. Comment noted. The commentor refers to the July 11, 2005 letter which was addressed to the applicant s agent, James C. Gibson. This letter stated that the Army Corps of Engineers August 10, 1999 jurisdictional determination for this property did not include an expiration date. The commentor points out that according to the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letters and 05-02, jurisdictional determinations remain valid for five (5) years, unless new information warrants revision of the determination before the expiration date. Therefore, the Corps August determinations were rendered invalid as of August 10, Subsequent to receipt of the comment letter, the City was copied on additional correspondence between the applicant s agent and the USACE. This letter is dated September 19, 2006, ID # , (Appendix D of this Final EIR) and verifies the wetland delineation. It states that, according to the August 2006 South Pointe Property-Revised Jurisdictional Delineation approximately acre of waters of the United States, including wetlands, is present within the survey area. The waters identified as non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands total acre. These wetlands are intrastate, isolated waters with no apparent interstate or foreign commerce connection. The letter further states the verification is valid for five (5) years from the date of the letter. Pages and of the DEIR are modified as follows: Impact The project site contains acre of drainage and seasonal wetland features that are potential jurisdictional waters of the US and acres of non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands. Impacts to jurisdictional waters of the US and non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands are considered potentially significant. In 1999, the Army Corps of Engineers verified that there are no jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands on the project site. However, the Army Corps of Engineers verification of the wetland delineation expired in August Subsequently a new delineation was performed and the project applicant received additional correspondence from the USACE. In a letter dated September 19, 2006, the USACE verified the presence of acre of waters of the United States in the August 2006 South Pointe Property-Revised Jurisdictional Delineation. In addition, acres were identified as nonjurisdictional seasonal wetlands. the detention pond on the project site has been partially filled and the drainage ditches have been piped underground, water continues to collect in the vicinity of these site features providing the potential for wetland habitat and waters of the United States to be present on the project site. In addition, results of a survey conducted in 2005 indicate that there are several depressional wetland features on the project site. Final Environmental Impact Report April

177 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Mitigation Measure Development of the project site would impact these potential wetlands and waters of the United States; therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. MM a The applicant shall conduct a wetland delineation of the project site. The wetland delineation shall be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for verification. If the Army Corps of Engineers determines that the water features on the site are not jurisdictional, no additional mitigation is required. If the Army Corps of Engineers determines that there are jurisdictional waters on the project site, The applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no-net-loss of waters of the US. The project applicant shall provide by providing mitigation through impact avoidance, impact minimization and compensatory mitigation for the remaining impacts any impacts to the acres of waters of the US. Compensatory mitigation shall require purchase of credits in an Army Corps of Engineers approved mitigation bank at a ratio no less than one acre purchased for each are impacted. Timing/Implementation: Prior to project grading permit or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first. Mitigation Measure Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning and ACOE. MM b The applicant shall ensure that the project will result in no net loss of nonjurisdictional wetlands and seasonal waters. The project applicant shall mitigate for loss or disturbance of these features, including the acres of non-jurisdictional seasonal wetlands present on the site, through impact avoidance, impact minimization and compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation shall require purchase of credits at a City approved mitigation bank at a ratio of no less than one acre purchased for each acre impacted. Timing/Implementation: Prior to project grading permit or approval of improvement plans, whichever occurs first. Enforcement/Monitoring: Development Services, Planning. Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. to less than significant. Response K-2: The commentor identifies the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction with the study area is under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the Unites States. The comment is informational and does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, therefore no response is necessary. April Final Environmental Impact Report

178 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Response K-3: Response K-4: Response K-5: The commentor notes that activity which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation may require consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 9USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The applicant is directed to Section 4.10, Biological and Natural Resources of the DEIR. In addition, the commentor notes that activity which may affect historic properties listed or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places must satisfy the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act. The commentor is referred to Section 4.11, Cultural Resources, of the DEIR, for a discussion of potential impacts to cultural and historic resources. CEQA requires that the range of alternatives should feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the project but avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project (Section ). Though project impacts to waters of the United States are considered significant, (Impacts and ), they are not the only significant impacts considered in development of alternatives under CEQA and it was not feasible to entirely avoid waters of the U.S. A reasonable range of alternatives has been identified and analyzed in Section 6.0, Project Alternatives, of the DEIR consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section The commentor requests that the identification number be used in any correspondence regarding this project and provides contact information. Comment noted. Since this comment does not regard the adequacy of the DEIR, no further response is required. Final Environmental Impact Report April

179 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

180 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

181 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

182 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

183 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR April Final Environmental Impact Report

184 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April

185 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR LETTER L Response L-1: Response L-2: BRUCE DE TERRA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The commenter has reviewed the DEIR. Since this comment does not address the adequacy of the DEIR, no further discussion is necessary. The commenter notes changes to the project description including a change in total residential units, a change in the mix of land uses, and street reconfigurations. The commenter is referred to Section 3.0, Project Modifications, of the FEIR for a current description of the proposed project. The commenter states that the project will result in increased area-wide traffic and expresses concern with the adequacy of the traffic study as well as the significant and unavoidable findings made in the DEIR related to traffic. The commenter s concerns regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis and traffic mitigation have been addressed in this FEIR. The comment is noted and the commenter is referred to Responses to Comments F-2 through F-4 Response L-3: Response L-4: The commenter states that the project is responsible for mitigating project impacts to the State Highway System. The comment is noted and the commenter is referred to Response F-4. The commenter states that the City s Transportation Impact Fee Program should be expanded to include State Highway System and offers to meet with the City to provide assistance. The commenter s concern regarding mitigating project impacts to the State Highway System have been addressed in this FEIR. The comment is noted and the commenter is referred to Response F-4. April Final Environmental Impact Report

186 4.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR Final Environmental Impact Report April