13.1 affected environment/environmental setting

South Sacramento HCP EIS/EIR 7727

February 2018 13-1

CHAPTER 13 – TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION

This chapter presents the environmental effects of each Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) alternative on traffic and circulation within the Planning

Area. The analysis focuses on impacts to transportation systems that support the movement of

goods and people. These systems include roads and freeways that support motorized vehicles;

railways; public transit; and nonmotorized travel, including bicycles and pedestrians.

Environmental effects on airports are addressed in Chapter 4, Land Use. Environmental effects

on recreation trails are discussed in Chapter 12, Public Services and Facilities, as a component

of the recreation facilities available in the Planning Area.

13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

This section describes the regulatory and physical environmental setting for traffic and

circulation within the Planning Area.

13.1.1 Regulatory Framework

Several federal, state, and local agency requirements apply to traffic and circulation within the

Planning Area. This section summarizes the statutes, regulations, policies, and agency planning

documents that are relevant to the approval, issuance of permits, or implementation of the

alternatives analyzed in this EIS/EIR. This section also identifies any relevant federal permits or

other entitlements that must be obtained prior to implementing the chosen alternative. To the

extent possible, the analyses or studies required by these regulations and policies are

integrated into the environmental effects analyses presented in Section 13.2 (40 CFR 1502.25).

13.1.1.1 Federal and State

California Department of Transportation

In California, the Federal Highway Administration has delegated some authority for the federal

highway system to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Therefore, Caltrans

is responsible for the planning of, operating, and maintaining the federal and state highway

systems within the Planning Area (e.g., Interstate [I] 5 and State Route [SR] 99). The role of

Caltrans has also evolved to oversee funding and technical assistance for passenger rail and

public transit throughout the state. Any potential encroachment by development or

infrastructure projects onto the land or the rights-of-way of Caltrans must be reviewed and

approved by Caltrans. Planned development or infrastructure projects, such as some SSHCP

transportation Covered Activities, must be reviewed by Caltrans to assess potential effects on

the operation and safety of the federal or state highway system, as well as to local roads,

railroads, public transit, and aeronautics facilities under Caltrans’ authority.

13 – TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION


February 2018 13-2

The Caltrans SR-99 and I-5 Corridor System Management Plan (Caltrans 2009) and the SR-99

Transportation Corridor Concept Report (Caltrans 2010) provide long-range planning for SR-99

and I-5 within Sacramento, Sutter, and Butte Counties over the next 20 years.

California Public Utilities Commission

In addition to the role the California Public Utilities Commission plays in overseeing energy

facilities in California (see Chapter 12), it also oversees the safety of railroads, rail crossings,

and light-rail transit systems, including highway rail crossings, and has permit authority over

all new rail crossings.

13.1.1.2 Regional

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is an association that includes the

Counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba, as well as 22 cities, including

the proposed Plan Permittees of Galt and Rancho Cordova. As a metropolitan transportation

organization, SACOG is required to prepare a long-range transportation plan for all modes of

transportation—including public transit, automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians—every 4 years

for the six-county area. Refer to Section 3.4.4 for a description of the Metropolitan

Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) 2035 (SACOG 2016a) and its

associated EIR (SACOG 2016b).

Sacramento Regional Transit District

The Sacramento Regional Transit District oversees bus and light-rail transit within the region,

covering a 418-square-mile service area that includes Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights,

Rancho Cordova, and Folsom, as well as unincorporated Sacramento County. The existing

passenger light-rail transit system consists of the Blue Line, Green Line, and Gold Line. The Gold

Line and Blue Line link the northern, eastern, and southern areas in Sacramento County to

downtown Sacramento. The Green Line serves downtown Sacramento. A small portion of the

Gold Line is within the Planning Area (running roughly parallel to U.S. Highway 50 within the

Urban Services Boundary [USB]) (see Figure 13-1, Transportation System).

In addition, the Sacramento Regional Transit District provides bus service between Sacramento

and Rancho Cordova, and recently opened the Blue Line extension from the Meadowview

Station south to Cosumnes River College in Sacramento (Sacramento County Regional Transit

2015). See Section 13.1.2 for more detail regarding the existing bus and light-rail transit system

within the Planning Area.



February 2018 13-3

Figure 13-1 Transportation System



February 2018 13-4

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



February 2018 13-5

13.1.1.3 Local

Sacramento County

The Sacramento County Department of Transportation is responsible for the planning,

construction, maintenance, and operation of streets, roads, and bike trails in the

unincorporated areas of Sacramento County.

Sacramento County provides Improvement Standards (Sacramento County 2006) that regulate

and guide the design and construction of streets, highways, alleys, and roadway drainage

systems. Design parameters include specifications for turning movements, intersections,

lighting, sidewalks, landscaping, emergency vehicle access, and clearance. The Improvement

Standards provide detailed design specifications to ensure that all Sacramento County

roadways meet safety and functionality requirements by roadway type.

Sacramento County’s Standard Construction Specifications (Sacramento County 2008) provides

specific guidance to ensure safe vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle access is provided for

development projects that affect roadways and public safety. The Standard Construction

Specifications also addresses traffic control for construction work that affects roadway access,

and requires project proponents to prepare a traffic control plan consistent with the current

California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Sacramento County 2030 General Plan Circulation Element. The Sacramento County General

Plan Circulation Element (Sacramento County 2011a) outlines a transportation system that will

move people and goods in a safe, efficient way that minimizes environmental effects, supports

urban land uses, and serves rural needs. The Circulation Element contains goals, policies, and

implementation programs that apply to Sacramento County’s transportation system.

Pedestrian Master Plan. The Sacramento County Pedestrian Master Plan (SACDOT 2007)

identifies methods to improve pedestrian connectivity and pedestrian safety within the public

right-of-way within unincorporated Sacramento County.

Bicycle Master Plan. The Sacramento County Bicycle Master Plan (Sacramento County 2011b)

identifies existing and planned bicycle routes throughout Sacramento County. The Bicycle

Master Plan was developed to serve the recreational and transportation needs of the public,

and to reduce the amount of vehicle emissions and therefore improve air quality (Sacramento

County 2011b). Class II bikeways are present along some roadways within the Planning Area.

The Bicycle Master Plan anticipates that future bikeways would be developed concurrently with

planned urban development within the Sacramento County USB.



February 2018 13-6

Galt

Galt follows the guidance of the Sacramento County Improvement Standards and Standard

Construction Specifications, as discussed earlier (Galt 2012). However, in some cases, Galt

modified these standards to better fit its needs. Galt’s Improvement Standards ensure that

roadway safety and access for all modes of transportation occur during the design phase and

once an improvement project is underway (Galt 2007).

2030 Galt General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element in the Galt General Plan

(Galt 2009a) includes goals, policies, and actions designed to guide and implement Galt’s future

circulation system as it grows. Goals and policies address the roadway network, transit facilities

and services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including lands within the Planning Area.

Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan. The Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan encourages

development of Galt’s future bikeway network, consistent with the Galt General Plan (Galt

2009a). The Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan (Galt 2011) includes planned Class II bike lanes

within Galt’s sphere of influence and the Planning Area to connect to existing bicycle facilities.

Rancho Cordova

Similar to Galt, Rancho Cordova follows the Sacramento County Improvement Standards and

Standard Construction Specifications discussed earlier (Rancho Cordova 2015). In addition,

Rancho Cordova has prepared general guidance on the design, width, and geometry of

different roadway types, intersections, overpasses, pedestrian and bikeway facilities, and

street signs (Rancho Cordova 2015). Chapter 22.110 of the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code

also includes design and improvement standards for all types of roadways within Rancho

Cordova to ensure that all roads are designed to be functional and to allow the safe passage

of all modes of transportation.

Rancho Cordova General Plan Circulation Element. The Rancho Cordova General Plan

Circulation Element (Rancho Cordova 2006a) establishes goals, policies, and actions that will

guide Rancho Cordova’s future circulation system, including the roadway network, transit

facilities and services, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the USB.

Transit Master Plan. The purpose of the Transit Master Plan (Rancho Cordova 2006b) is to

provide a multimodal approach to support mobility as presented in the General Plan. The

Transit Master Plan outlines a system of city, neighborhood, and regional services.

Bicycle Master Plan. The Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan (Rancho Cordova 2011) maps a

system of bike paths and bike lanes that encourages bicycle commuting and recreational

activities. This Bicycle Master Plan focuses on expanding the existing bicycle network (see



February 2018 13-7

Section 13.1.2) in developed areas and outside of existing developed areas within the USB to

provide bicycle access to existing and future activity centers, light-rail, and the existing

American River Parkway. The Bicycle Master Plan describes and maps future bike routes and

regional bicycle trails along Upper Laguna Creek and in the eastern and southern portions of

Rancho Cordova, east of Sunrise Boulevard, in coordination with future development plans.

13.1.2 Existing Traffic and Circulation

This section describes the existing roadway network, transit system, and bikeway system that

serve the Planning Area. Figure 13-1 shows the major roadways, light-rail transit, and heavy-rail

transportation network in and around the Planning Area. (Due to the scale of the map, it does

not include local roadways or bikeway facilities in the Planning Area.)

13.1.2.1 Existing Roadway Network in the Planning Area

Major Roadways

Major roadways carry large volumes of vehicle traffic in the Planning Area and typically connect

cities and communities. I-5 and SR-99 are the two major highways running north–south in the

Planning Area. U.S. Highway 50, serving east–west traffic, is located on the northern edge of

the Planning Area. SR-16 (Jackson Road) and SR-104 (Twin Cities Road) cross the Planning Area

and also provide east–west connectivity (see Figure 13-2, Existing Roadways within

Unincorporated Sacramento County).

Other major roadways within the Planning Area are four-lane thoroughfares or heavily used two-

lane arterial roads, including Folsom Boulevard, White Rock Road, Gerber Road, Kiefer Boulevard,

Scott Road, Ione Road, Excelsior Road, Bradshaw Road, Vineyard Road, Elk Grove-Florin Road,

South Watt Avenue, French Road, Power Inn Road, Stockton Boulevard, Florin Road, Jackson

Highway, Grant Line Road, Calvine Road, Wilton Road, Dillard Road, Clay Station Road, Hood-

Franklin Road, Bruceville Road, Franklin Boulevard, and Twin Cities Road (see Figure 13-2).

Within Galt, existing major roadways include Twin Cities Road (SR-104), Walnut Avenue, Elm

Avenue, Simmerhorn Road, Boessow Road (C Street), A Street, New Hope Road, Lincoln Way,

and Carillion Boulevard (see Figure 13-3, Existing Roadways within Galt).

Within the portion of Rancho Cordova located within the Planning Area, existing major

streets include Sunrise Boulevard, White Rock Road, International Drive/Mather Field Road,

Douglas Road, Grant Line Road, Zinfandel Drive, Rancho Cordova Parkway/Jaeger Road,

Folsom Boulevard, Nike Road, and Bradshaw Road (see Figure 13-4, Existing Roadways

within Rancho Cordova).



February 2018 13-8

Local Roadways

Local roadways include smaller collector streets, residential streets, and unimproved

agricultural roads. Examples of local roadways in the eastern portion of the Planning Area

within and outside of the USB include Eagles Nest Road, Latrobe Road, and numerous

agricultural roads. Examples of local roadways in Galt include McFarland Street, Pringle Avenue,

and F Street. Examples of local roads in Rancho Cordova include Jaeger Road, Nike Road, and

Fitzgerald Road.

13.1.2.2 Public Transit in the Planning Area

The Sacramento Regional Transit District operates a bus and light-rail transit system in the

Sacramento County area. A short segment of the light-rail system enters and exits the north end

of the Planning Area in Rancho Cordova around where Sunrise Avenue crosses U.S. Highway 50.

No adopted plans identify additional future light-rail routes within the Planning Area.

Galt and Rancho Cordova both provide bus service that consists of intercity service; connections

to light-rail transit system stations; and service to Lodi, Elk Grove, and Sacramento.

13.1.2.3 Bicycle Network in the Planning Area

Existing bicycle facilities within the Planning Area consist of Class I, Class II, and Class III

facilities. Class I Bikeways provide a separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and

pedestrians, with crossflow by motorists minimized. Class II Bikeways (Bike Lanes) provide a

striped lane for bicycles on a street or highway. Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes) provide for

shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic.

13.1.2.4 Railroads in the Planning Area

In addition to the existing light-rail transit system operated by the Sacramento Regional Transit

District, rail service in the Planning Area is operated by Union Pacific, which provides freight

service, and Amtrak, which provides passenger service. Existing major rail lines are shown in

Figure 13-1. There are approximately 154 railroad crossings at existing roadways within the

Planning Area (CPUC 2012). Of these, more than 100 are at-grade crossings, meaning that the

roadway and railroad tracks are not separated by an overcrossing.



February 2018 13-9

Figure 13-2 Existing Roadways within Unincorporated Sacramento County



February 2018 13-10




February 2018 13-11

Figure 13-3 Existing Roadways within Galt



February 2018 13-12




February 2018 13-13

Figure 13-4 Existing Roadways within Rancho Cordova


February 2018 13-14




February 2018 13-15

13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

13.2.1 Methodology for Assessing Effects of Each Alternative on Traffic and Circulation

As described in Section 3.6, the Environmental Consequences/Environmental Impacts section

describes the potential impacts of the actions and projects associated with each EIS/EIR

alternative on transportation and circulation in the Planning Area. As described in Section 3.6,

impacts of the No Action/No Project Alternative are described and analyzed relative to the

existing conditions (see Section 13.1.2, above). The impacts of the two action alternatives were

described and analyzed relative to the expected No Action/No Project Alternative future

conditions (see Section 3.6.1).

Potential ways that an EIS/EIR alternative could affect the transportation system would be by

increasing overall usage of the system, encouraging growth in areas where the transportation

system is not designed to accommodate that growth, impeding development of planned

transportation infrastructure, or damaging existing or planned transportation infrastructure.

The locations of vernal pools and other aquatic resources could require adjustments to the

routes of planned roadways within the Mather Core Recovery Area (MCRA) under some

alternatives. To identify areas where these adjustments might be required, the lead agencies

used GIS methodology, described in Section 3.6.5. Potential impacts to existing transportation

plans from establishing new preserves (see Sections 2.2.2, 2.3.1, and 2.4.1) were also

determined for each alternative using the GIS methods described in Section 3.6.5.

The level of additional vehicle trips assumed for preserve activities under each alternative was

estimated, including expected re-establishment/establishment of vernal pools and other

aquatic landcovers, and preserve maintenance activities. The lead agencies then qualitatively

determined if the transportation infrastructure could accommodate this temporary traffic

increase and determined if substantial congestion or safety issues could occur.

Because traffic patterns and transportation facilities are interconnected over a large region, the

lead agencies determined that the study area for determining the cumulative effects of each

EIS/EIR alternative on traffic and transportation resources should extend beyond the EIS/EIR

Planning Area boundary (see discussion in Section 3.6.2). The lead agencies determined that

the SACOG six-county region (Sacramento, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Placer, and El Dorado Counties) is

the appropriate study area for evaluating cumulative effects to traffic and transportation

resources. The effects on traffic and circulation of future urban development within the six-

county region, including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, were



February 2018 13-16

evaluated in the analysis of the EIRs mentioned in Section 3.4 (Connector JPA 2012; Galt 2009b;

Rancho Cordova 2006c; SACOG 2016b; Sacramento County 2010). The traffic impact analyses

included in each of these EIRs used SACOG traffic models, and thus reflected regional traffic

impacts. Due to the interconnected nature of the transportation system within the six-county

region, planning-level transportation impact analyses take into account vehicle trip generation

from land uses within the larger region and, therefore, reflect the cumulative condition. For this

reason, the description of existing and future traffic conditions in each alternative is the

cumulative condition. Therefore, a separate cumulative effects discussion is not included for

any alternative in this chapter.

As discussed in Section 3.8.1, the criteria used to evaluate the significance of each alternative’s

effects on traffic and circulation are based on Appendix G of the California Environmental

Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, and on typical thresholds used to evaluate effects in recent EIRs

prepared by Sacramento County. Based on these sources, a significant adverse effect could

occur if the alternative would:

1. Result in a substantial increase in traffic compared to baseline traffic volumes and the

capacity of the road system;

2. Result in a substantial adverse impact to public safety on area roadways;

3. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation

(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks);

4. Result in a substantial adverse impact to access and/or circulation;

5. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of

effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system;

6. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program;

7. Substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses; and/or

8. Result in inadequate emergency access.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not provide suggested criteria for determining a

beneficial effect. The following criteria were developed by the lead agencies. A beneficial effect

could occur if the alternative would:

1. Result in a substantial decrease in traffic compared to the baseline traffic volumes and

the capacity of the road system;

2. Result in improved public safety on area roadways;

3. Reduce existing conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting

alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks);

4. Result in improved access and/or circulation;



February 2018 13-17

5. Reduce existing conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing

measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system;

6. Reduce an existing conflict with an applicable congestion management program;

7. Substantially reduce hazards due to design features or incompatible uses; and/or

8. Result in improved emergency access.

The impact analysis for the three EIS/EIR alternatives consider the context, intensity, and

severity of potential effects to each of the impact criteria above, and present a separate

determination of significance for each of these criteria.

13.2.2 No Action/No Project Alternative

The No Action/No Project Alternative is described in Section 2.2 of Chapter 2.

13.2.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternative

The effects on traffic and circulation of future urban development within the six-county region,

including the Planning Area, were evaluated in the analysis of the EIRs mentioned in Section 3.4. As

discussed above in Section 13.2.1, the relevant analyses from each of these EIRs are summarized

and incorporated by reference into the analysis of the No Action/No Project Alternative.

The impact analysis presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report: Sacramento County

General Plan Update1 (Sacramento County General Plan EIR) (Sacramento County 2010)

determined that within Sacramento County:

Increased traffic and resulting demand on the circulation network would result in

significant unavoidable impacts to roadway levels of service and transit, and

Urban development envisioned in the Sacramento County General Plan and associated

traffic would not adversely affect bicycle and pedestrian facilities or transportation-

related safety issues, resulting in less-than-significant impacts to public safety

(Sacramento County 2010, pp. 1-20 to 1-26, and pp. 9-1 to 9-93).

1 As described further in Section 3.4.1, the proposed project analyzed within the Sacramento County General

Plan EIR assumed development within a designated “Jackson Highway Corridor New Growth Area” that was not a part of the alternative ultimately selected by Sacramento County. However, Sacramento County is currently processing Master Plans in the Jackson Highway Corridor, so the referenced conclusions from the proposed project analysis are relevant to the No Action/No Project Alternative.



February 2018 13-18

The impact analysis presented in the City of Galt General Plan Update: 2030 Final EIR (Galt

General Plan EIR) (Galt 2009b), determined that within the Galt sphere of influence:

Urban development described in the Galt’s General Plan would result in significant

unavoidable impacts to the existing street system and traffic would exceed Galt’s level

of service standard through planning horizon year 2030, and

Urban development would not result in significant impacts to regional transportation

facilities through compliance with policies contained in the Land Use, Circulation,

and Conservation and Open Space Elements of the Galt General Plan (Galt 2008, pp.

5-17 to 5-25).

The Galt General Plan EIR did not address transportation-related safety issues (Galt 2009a).

The impact analysis presented in the City of Rancho Cordova General Plan Final EIR (Rancho

Cordova General Plan EIR) (Rancho Cordova 2006c), determined that within Rancho Cordova:

New urban development would increase demand on the existing circulation network as

well as generate an increase in traffic that would result in significant unavoidable

impacts to roadway levels of service through the planning horizon year of 2050, and

Less-than-significant impacts would occur to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle systems

through compliance with General Plan policies and actions. In addition, safety conflicts

would be less than significant with Rancho Cordova General Plan policies and actions

(Rancho Cordova 2006c, pp. 4.5-6 to 4.5-60).

The type and extent of effects to the existing transportation system of smaller developing

communities within the SACOG six-county region are described in the SACOG MTP/SCS EIR as

being similar to the impacts identified in the Sacramento County General Plan EIR, Galt General

Plan EIR, and Rancho Cordova General Plan EIR, and were also determined to be significant and

unavoidable (SACOG 2016b).

The impact analysis presented in the Capital SouthEast Connector Final Program EIR (Connector

JPA 2012) determined that the Capital Southeast Connector (shown in Figure 13-5, Proposed

Roadway Crossings through Expected Future Preserves) would do the following:

Result in significant unavoidable impacts to level of service and traffic volumes on

nearby roadway segments and intersections during operation.

Result in less-than-significant impacts on local freeways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities,

and transit due to increased traffic volumes, and therefore level of service.

Not result in transportation-system-related safety impacts (Connector JPA 2012, pp. 16-

1 to 16-66).



February 2018 13-19

Figure 13-5 Proposed Roadway Crossings through Expected Future Preserves



February 2018 13-20




February 2018 13-21

As discussed in Section 3.4 and above Section 13.1.1.3, the three General Plan EIRs used

different study periods: ending in 2030 (Galt 2009b; Rancho Cordova 2006c) and 2050

(Sacramento County 2010). The 50-year study period for this EIS/EIR ends in 2065 (Section

3.6.3). Additional urban development can be expected to occur within Galt, Rancho Cordova,

and Sacramento County in the years after their General Plan EIR study periods end, and until

this EIS/EIR’s study period ends in 2065. Therefore, the impact analyses and conclusions

incorporated from the three General Plan EIRs may not have considered all of the future urban

development that is included in the project description of each EIS/EIR alternative.

Consequently, when determining the significance of each impact described in this EIS/EIR, the

lead agencies considered the impact analysis and the conclusions incorporated by reference

from the General Plan EIRs, along with the effects of all urban development activities and

projects included in the description of each EIS/EIR alternative.

The additional urban development that would occur after the study periods of the EIRs

described above end would result in additional impacts on local and regional circulation

systems because the projected increase in vehicle trips would exceed the capacity of the

existing and planned roadways.

As explained in Section 2.2, approximately 1,900 acres of planned urban development would be

shifted or displaced to locations outside the Urban Development Area (UDA)2 under the No

Action/No Project Alternative. This shifted or displaced development would be remote from

commercial and employment centers such as Sacramento and Rancho Cordova, and would

result in longer or increased vehicle trips, greater demand on transit to serve outlying areas,

and increased overall demand on the local and regional transportation system. Increased

vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled would contribute further to the already significant,

unavoidable effects to existing traffic, circulation, transportation facilities, and transit described

in the EIRs above (Connector JPA 2012; Galt 2009b; Rancho Cordova 2006c; SACOG 2016b;

Sacramento County 2010).

As explained in Section 2.2.2, under the No Action/No Project Alternative, mitigation for effects

to listed species or aquatic resources from new urban development would continue to require

avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation for effects that cannot be avoided. As

discussed in Section 2.2.2, project Clean Water Act 404 compensatory mitigation and/or federal

and California Endangered Species Act mitigation under the No Action/No Project Alternative

2 As discussed in Section 1.1.1, the term Urban Development Area (UDA) is used by the EIS/EIR to discuss all lands

where urban development Covered Activity projects or activities could occur under the action alternatives. Therefore, the term “UDA” means all lands within Sacramento County’s Urban Services Boundary that are also within the Planning Area (including lands within the Rancho Cordova city limits that are within the Planning Area), all lands within Galt’s city limits, and all lands within Galt’s sphere of influence (see Figure 1-1).



February 2018 13-22

could include purchase of credits at existing mitigation banks, payment of in-lieu fees, and/or

establishment of on-site or off-site preserves by the permittee. Under the No Action/No Project

Alternative, there would be no comprehensive plan in place to mitigate potential project

impacts to aquatic resources and special-status species associated with construction or

expansion of roadways in the Planning Area. Projects would be required to mitigate impacts on

a project-by-project basis, and mitigation for project impacts in the MCRA would require

greater levels of avoidance and preservation. If mitigation sites are not available in the MCRA,

some road projects in the MCRA may not be able to proceed. If segments of roadways are not

expanded or extended as envisioned by Sacramento County’s and Rancho Cordova’s General

Plan Circulation Elements, increased congestion on and reduced functionality of these regional

circulation systems may occur. This would be a significant adverse effect to existing

transportation and circulation plans.

Management of preserves established under the No Action/No Project Alternative would

include a variety of habitat management activities that would cause vehicle trips, such as

transporting livestock for grazing management, repairing fences, and visits by preserve

managers for maintenance and monitoring. Some habitat re-establishment or establishment

activities may also require heavy equipment and the associated crews to use local roadways.

These activities would result in localized, temporary effects to the local roadway and bikeway

systems. However, vehicle trips associated with preserves would be infrequent and

intermittent, would occur throughout the day, and would not be focused on peak traffic

periods (i.e., commute hours). In addition, these preserve operation and maintenance activities

would be similar in frequency, location, and intensity to the existing agricultural and ranching

activities that occur on the lands under existing conditions. The minimal increase in traffic from

preserve activity would not add appreciably to the significant and unavoidable effects identified

in the General Plan EIRs.

13.2.2.2 Cumulative Effects of the Alternative

As described in Section 13.2.1, the future traffic effects analyzed in this EIS/EIR are, by

definition, cumulative. Therefore, cumulative effects of the No Action/No Project Alternative on

existing and future traffic and circulation are identical to the direct and indirect effects

described in Section 13.2.2.1.

13.2.3 Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative

The Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative is described in Section 2.3.



February 2018 13-23


Covered Activities under the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative include the types of

urban development that are anticipated under the No Action/No Project Alternative. However,

the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would result in more development in the

MCRA than the No Action/No Project Alternative (refer to Section 2.2.2). This would allow

urban development Covered Activities within the MCRA and the rest of the UDA to be

implemented consistent with the approved general plans of Galt, Rancho Cordova, and

Sacramento County, with the only Covered Activity urban development beyond the UDA being

road and pipeline projects that would also occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative. As

a result, vehicle trips, demand on transit to serve outlying areas, and overall demand on the

local and regional transportation system would be lower under the Proposed Action/Proposed

Project Alternative than under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Urban development under

the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would have a Minor Beneficial effect on

traffic and circulation compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.

The Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative includes design requirements for future

roadways. Avoidance and Minimization Measure (AMM) ROAD-1 would require

transportation Covered Activities to adjust alignment of roadways to avoid aquatic resources

and Covered Species habitat to the maximum extent feasible. AMM ROAD-2 would require

construction of wildlife crossing structures when roadway projects occur in the vicinity of the

Preserve System. Implementation of these AMMs could influence roadway safety, function,

or operation. However, all roadway projects would be subject to the design standards of Galt,

Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento County (Section 13.1.1). These standards ensure that

roadway Covered Activities would be designed to maintain or provide roadway function and

operation, and meet all safety requirements for vehicle, transit, and bicycle movement. There

would be No Impact to traffic and circulation compared to the No Action/No Project

Alternative baseline condition.

Under the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative, project proponents constructing or

expanding roadways in the MCRA would not be required to mitigate effects to aquatic

resources or Covered Species habitat within the MCRA, as would occur under the No

Action/No Project Alternative (see Sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.1). This difference would make it

more likely that road projects in the MCRA under the Proposed Action/Proposed Project

Alternative could be implemented consistent with Sacramento County and Rancho Cordova

General Plans compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative. This would be a Minor

Beneficial effect on conflicts with adopted transportation plans compared to the No

Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.



February 2018 13-24

As discussed in Section 2.3.5, the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would include

an interconnected and coordinated SSHCP Preserve System. The Preserve System would allow

for the passage of planned roadways. In some instances, the roadway would be allowed to

bisect an SSHCP Preserve. For example, the proposed Sun Creek Preserve (Linkage Preserve L7),

the Laguna Creek Wildlife Movement Corridor Preserve, and Core Preserve C2 would be

bisected by the extension of future roadways through each of these planned preserves (Figure

13-5). Therefore, future planned roadways, extensions of existing roadways, and roadway

widening and improvements that are planned in the Sacramento County, Galt, and Rancho

Cordova General Plan Circulation Elements would not be affected by the establishment of an

interconnected Preserve System. Further, by allowing transportation infrastructure to be

developed according to adopted plans, the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative

would not increase hazards by requiring changes in roadway design features or adversely affect

emergency access. As discussed above in Section 13.2.1 under the No Action/No Project

Alternative, planned roadways may need to be designed to avoid aquatic resources because

those projects could not receive permits or authorizations to fill or remove wetlands and other

waters. Therefore, the Proposed Action/No Project Alternative Preserve System would have a

Minor Beneficial effect on conflicts with adopted transportation plans compared to the No

Action/No Project Alternative.

Preserve management under the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would require

a variety of habitat management activities, including transporting sheep, goats, or cattle for

grazing management; repairing fences; wildlife or vegetation surveys; and other visits by

preserve managers for maintenance and monitoring, all of which would entail vehicle trips in or

around preserve areas. These trips would be few and intermittent, would occur throughout the

day, and would not be focused on peak traffic periods (i.e., commute hours). Preserve

management under the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would be more intensive

than under the No Action/No Project Alternative. Therefore, preserve management under the

Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would result in a greater increase in vehicle trips

compared to management of mitigation preserves expected under the No Action/No Project

Alternative. However, the relative increase in trips would be minimal compared to existing

traffic volumes, and the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative Preserve System would

have a Less Than Significant Adverse effect on traffic volumes, public safety, access, and

circulation compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.

Habitat re-establishment/establishment activities in the Preserve System would generate

vehicle trips, including heavy truck trips. Because the Proposed Action/Proposed Project

Alternative would include more re-establishment/establishment than the No Action/No Project

Alternative baseline condition, more vehicle trips would be generated. These activities could

result in localized, temporary impacts to the local roadway and bikeway systems by introducing

heavy equipment. However, these activities would be infrequent and short-term, and it is



February 2018 13-25

unlikely that construction-related vehicle trips would occur during peak hours. Re-

establishment or establishment of habitat would not result in a substantial increase in traffic;

affect public safety on area roads; increase hazards due to design features or incompatible

uses; or conflict with adopted plans, policies, or ordinances. Habitat re-establishment/

establishment under the Proposed Action/Proposed Project Alternative would be a Less Than

Significant Adverse effect on traffic and circulation compared to the No Action/No Project


13.2.3.2 Significance of Direct and Indirect Effects

Compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition, the Proposed

Action/Proposed Project Alternative would:

Reduce vehicle trips, demand on transit to serve outlying areas, and overall demand on

the local and regional transportation system by not resulting in displacement and

shifting of urban development outside the UDA;

Reduce potential conflicts with future planned roadways; extensions of existing

roadways; and roadway widening and improvements that are planned in the

Sacramento County, Galt, and Rancho Cordova General Plan Circulation Elements;

Result in a minimal amount of additional vehicle trips for Preserve System management

and monitoring; and

Result in a minimal amount of additional heavy vehicle trips for Preserve System habitat

re-establishment/establishment.

Therefore, after considering the significance of effects from the Proposed Action/Proposed

Alternative on all of the traffic and circulation criteria, the Proposed Action/Proposed Project

Alternative would result in a Minor Beneficial effect to traffic and circulation compared to the

effects that would occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.


As described in Section 13.2.1, future traffic effects analyzed in this EIS/EIR are, by definition,

cumulative. Therefore, cumulative impacts of the Proposed Project/Proposed Action

Alternative on existing and future traffic and circulation are identical to the direct and indirect

impacts described in Section 13.2.3.1.

13.2.4 Reduced Permit Term Alternative

The Reduced Permit Term Alternative is described in Section 2.4.



February 2018 13-26


As described in Section 2.4, the Reduced Permit Term Alternative would include similar types of

new urban development as the No Action/No Project Alternative (Section 13.2.2). Under the

Reduced Permit Term Alternative, all new urban development would occur inside the UDA, as

directed by the general plans of Sacramento County, Rancho Cordova, and Galt, and no new

urban development would “shift” or be displaced to areas outside the UDA. As a result, vehicle

trips, demand on transit to serve outlying areas, and overall demand on the local and regional

transportation system would be lower under the Reduced Permit Term Alternative than under

the No Action/No Project Alternative. Urban development under the Reduced Permit Term

Alternative would have a Minor Beneficial effect on traffic and circulation compared to the No

Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.

Covered Activity transportation infrastructure projects within the MCRA are all planned for

completion by the end of the 30-year permit term, but their actual completion may not occur

until beyond 30 years depending on a number of factors. Some planned Covered Activity

transportation infrastructure projects outside the MCRA are anticipated by Sacramento County

and other transportation planners after Year 30. However, transportation infrastructure projects

in the MCRA are expected to be permitted during the 30-year permit term, and would be able to

use the Reduced Permit Term Habitat Conservation Plan to mitigate impacts. Construction or

routing of transportation infrastructure projects would not be limited by the acreage of vernal

pools in the MCRA that are available for preservation. Expansion or extension of roadways as

envisioned by the Rancho Cordova and Sacramento County General Plan Circulation Elements

(Rancho Cordova 2006a; Sacramento County 2011a) would not be adversely affected by the

establishment of preserves under the Reduced Permit Term Alternative. This would be a Minor

Beneficial effect compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative.

Implementation of AMMs ROAD-1 and ROAD-2 during the 30-year permit term, requiring

adjustment of roadway alignments to avoid aquatic resources and construction of wildlife

crossing structures, could affect roadway safety, function, and/or operation. However, all

roadway projects would be subject to the design standards of Sacramento County, Galt, and

Rancho Cordova (Section 13.1.1). These standards would ensure that roadway Covered

Activities would be designed to maintain or provide roadway function and operation, and meet

all safety requirements for vehicle, transit, and bicycle movement. There would be No Impact

to traffic and circulation compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.

The preserves established during the 30-year permit term would be interconnected but would

be designed to allow the completion of planned roadways. Planned roadways in the Planning

Area should be mostly completed by the end of the 30-year permit term, so preserves

established as mitigation on a project-by-project basis in Years 31–50 of the EIS/EIR study



February 2018 13-27

period would not accommodate future roadways crossing preserves. The Reduced Permit Term

Alternative would allow transportation infrastructure to be developed according to adopted

plans, and it would not increase hazards due to roadway design features or incompatible uses,

or adversely affect emergency access. Therefore, the Reduced Permit Term Preserve System

would have No Impact on conflicts with adopted transportation plans compared to the No

Action/No Project Alternative.

Preserve management during the 30-year permit term of the Reduced Permit Term Alternative

would be more intensive than under the No Action/No Project Alternative, resulting in a small

increase in trips compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative. Management of preserves

established after the 30-year permit term would likely undergo less management and

monitoring than preserves established during the permit term and would generate fewer trips.

Regardless, traffic and circulation impacts from preserve management activities would be

minimal in the context of traffic from urban development. Preserve management under the

Reduced Permit Term Alternative would have a Less Than Significant Adverse effect on traffic

volumes, public safety, access, and circulation compared to the No Action/No Project


Habitat re-establishment/establishment activities in the Preserve System would generate

vehicle trips, including heavy truck trips. Because the Reduced Permit Term Alternative would

include more re-establishment/establishment than the No Action/No Project Alternative

baseline condition, more related vehicle trips would be generated. These activities could result

in localized, temporary impacts to the local roadway and bikeway systems by introducing heavy

equipment. However, these activities would be infrequent and short-term, and it is unlikely that

construction-related vehicle trips would occur during peak hours. Re-establishment or

establishment of habitat would not result in a substantial increase in traffic; affect public safety

on area roads; increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses; or conflict with

adopted plans, policies, or ordinances. Habitat re-establishment/establishment under the

Reduced Permit Term Alternative would be a Less Than Significant Adverse effect on traffic

volumes, public safety, access, and circulation compared to the No Action/No Project


13.2.4.2 Significance of Direct and Indirect Effects

In summary, when compared to the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition, the

Reduced Permit Term Alternative would do the following:

Reduce vehicle trips, demand on transit to serve outlying areas, and overall demand on

the local and regional transportation system by not resulting in displacement and

shifting of urban development outside the UDA;



February 2018 13-28

Reduce potential conflicts with future planned roadways, extensions of existing

roadways, and roadway widening and improvements that are planned in the

Sacramento County, Galt, and Rancho Cordova General Plan Circulation Elements;

Result in a minimal amount of additional vehicle trips for Preserve System management

and monitoring; and

Result in a minimal amount of additional heavy vehicle trips for Preserve System habitat

re-establishment/establishment.

Therefore, after considering the significance of effects from the Reduced Permit Term

Alternative on all of the traffic and circulation impact criteria, the Reduced Permit Term

Alternative would result in a Minor Beneficial effect to traffic and circulation compared to the

effects that would occur under the No Action/No Project Alternative baseline condition.


As described in Section 13.2.1, the future traffic effects analyzed in this EIS/EIR are, by

definition, cumulative. Therefore, cumulative effects of the Reduced Permit Term Alternative

on existing and future traffic and circulation are identical to the direct and indirect effects

described in Section 13.2.4.1.

13.3 REFERENCES CITED

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2009. State Route 99/Interstate 5 Corridor

Management Plan. Caltrans District 3, Corridor System Management Plan. May 2009.

Accessed June 30, 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobility/CSMPs/

d3_CSMPs/i-5_sr-99/I5_SR99_final_csmp_FINAL.pdf.

Caltrans. 2010. “State Route 99 Transportation Corridor Concept Report.” August 3, 2010.

Accessed June 30, 2016. http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/

tcr/tcr99.pdf.

Connector JPA (Capital Southeast Connector Joint Powers Authority). 2012. Capital SouthEast

Connector Project Program Environmental Impact Report. Final version. SCH No.

2010012066. February 2012. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.connectorjpa.net/

final-program-environmental-impact-report-now-available/.

CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2012. “List of Rail Crossings.” July 2012. Accessed

May 13, 2013. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/safety/Rail/Crossings/

crossinginventory.htm.



February 2018 13-29

Galt. 2007. “City of Galt Improvement Standards and Required Notes.” Version July 3, 2007. City

of Galt, California: City of Galt Public Works Department. Accessed June 30, 2016.

http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=85.

Galt. 2008. City of Galt General Plan Update: 2030 Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Prepared by Environmental Science Associates. Sacramento, California: Environmental

Science Associates. July 2008. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/

index.aspx?page=786.

Galt. 2009a. 2030 Galt General Plan: Policy Document. Final version. Prepared by Mintier

Harnish, in association with ESA and Omni Means. Sacramento, California: Mintier

Harnish. April 2009. Accessed September 16, 2015. http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/

ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9877.

Galt. 2009b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2030 Galt General Plan. SCH No.

2007082092. Prepared by Mintier Harnish, Environmental Science Associates, Applied

Development Economics, and Omni-Means. Accessed June 30, 2016.

http://www.saclafco.org/SphereofInfluenceInformation/Documents/galtsoi/

sac_024063.pdf.

Galt. 2011. City of Galt Bicycle Transportation Plan 2011. Adopted 2011. Prepared

by Omni-Means Engineers Planners. Roseville, California: Omni-Means

Engineers Planners. Accessed June 30, 2016. http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/

ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5368.

Galt. 2012. “City of Galt, California: Standards and Specifications.” Accessed September 11,

2015. http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/index.aspx?page=133.

Rancho Cordova. 2006a. Rancho Cordova General Plan. Rancho Cordova, California: City of

Rancho Cordova, Public Works Department. Adopted June 26, 2006. Accessed June 28,

2016. http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=11075.

Rancho Cordova. 2006b. Transit Master Plan. Prepared by HDR. Adopted August 2006.

Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/

showdocument?id=80.

Rancho Cordova. 2006c. General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2005022137.

March 2006. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/

showdocument?id=11097.



February 2018 13-30

Rancho Cordova. 2011. Bicycle Master Plan. Adopted March 2011. Accessed June 28, 2016.

http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/home/showdocument?id=11099.

Rancho Cordova. 2015. “Public Works Development Services & Permitting.” Accessed

September 21, 2015. http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/index.aspx?page=155.

SACDOT (County of Sacramento Department of Transportation). 2007. Sacramento County

Pedestrian Master Plan. Prepared by Dowling Associates Inc. and Moore Iacofano

Goltsman Inc., in association with All Traffic Data, Sprinkle Consulting Inc., and the Hoyt

Company. Sacramento, California: Dowling Associates Inc. and Moore Iacofano

Goltsman Inc. April 2007. Accessed February 18, 2016. http://www.sacdot.com/

Documents/A%20to%20Z%20Folder/Pedestrian%20Master%20Plan/SAC_PED_PLAN_

FINAL__042807_Small.pdf.

SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). 2016a. Metropolitan Transportation

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Sacramento, California: SACOG. February 18,

2016. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.sacog.org/general-information/

2016-mtpscs.

SACOG. 2016b. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. SCH No. 2014062060. Sacramento, California:

SACOG. January 2016. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.sacog.org/general-

information/final-2016-mtpscs-environmental-impact-report.

Sacramento County. 2006. County of Sacramento Municipal Services Agency Improvement

Standards. Sacramento, California: County of Sacramento, Municipal Services Agency.

October 1, 2006. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.engineering.saccounty.net/

Documents/Improvement%20Standards%202006.pdf.

Sacramento County. 2008. Standard Construction Specifications. Sacramento, California: County

of Sacramento, Municipal Services Agency. Revised January 2008. Accessed June 28,

2016. http://www.saccountyspecs.saccounty.net/Documents/

PDF%20Documents%202008/CompleteSpec/2008CompleteSpec.pdf.

Sacramento County. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report: Sacramento County General Plan

Update. Control Number 2002-GPB-0105, SCH No. 2007082086. Sacramento, California:

County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. April

2010. Accessed June 29, 2016. http://www.per.saccounty.net/

EnvironmentalDocuments/Pages/SearchDocuments.aspx.



February 2018 13-31

Sacramento County. 2011a. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030. Sacramento,

California: County of Sacramento, Community Planning and Development Department.

Amended November 9, 2011. Accessed June 28, 2016. http://www.per.saccounty.net/

LandUseRegulationDocuments/Documents/General-Plan-Update/Final%202030%20

General%20Plan_sm.pdf.

Sacramento County. 2011b. Sacramento County Bicycle Master Plan. Prepared by Fehr & Peers,

mt, and Alta Planning + Design. Sacramento, California: Fehr & Peers, mt, and Alta

Planning + Design. Adopted April 2011. Accessed June 28, 2016.

http://www.sacdot.com/Documents/A%20to%20Z%20Folder/Bikeways/

AdoptedSacCountyBMP_04.27.11.pdf.

Sacramento County Regional Transit. 2015. “Blue Line to Cosumnes River College.” Accessed

September 10, 2015. http://www.sacrt.com/BLNowOpen.stm.



February 2018 13-32
