Item 15 2023-00174 Pass for Publication The Grace Rezone and Mixed-Use 21-032 — Sacramento City Council, June 20, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
(Pass for Publication) The Grace Rezone & Mixed-Use (P21-032) File ID: 2023-00174
Location: 620 and 628 15 th Street; APNs 002-0165-025 and -015, District 4, Represented by Councilmember Valenzuela
Recommendation: 1) Review: a) a Resolution determining the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21155.4; b) an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code to rezone 620 15 th Street (APN 002-0165
-025), a ±0.15 acre lot, from the Multi-Unit Residential (R-3A-SPD) zone to the General Commercial (C-2-SPD) zone within the Central City Special Planning District (SPD); and c) a Resolution adopting Site Plan and Design Review for the construction of a three-story, 25,925+/- square foot, mixed-use building with 40 multi-unit dwellings and one ±1,786 square foot commercial space, with a deviation to exceed building height standards in the Central City SPD and historic district on ±0.22 acres within the C-2-SPD zone, Central City SPD, and Old Washington School Historic District; and 2) Pass of Publication the ordinance titles per City Charter section 32 (c) to be considered June 27, 2023.

Contact: Sierra Peterson, Associate Planner, [email protected], (916) 808-7181; Karlo Felix, Senior Planner, [email protected], (916) 808-7183, Community Development Department
Presenter: Sierra Peterson, Associate Planner, Community Development Department Applicant: Urban Capital LLC*, 1017 L Street #738, Sacramento, CA 95814, John Vignocchi, [email protected], (415) 735-6228 (*Managing Members: John Vignocchi and Chris Garner) Property Owner: UC 15G LLC**, 1017 L Street #738, Sacramento, CA 95814 (**Members:

Vignocchi QOF LLC and Urban Capital Qualified Opportunity Fund 1 LLC) Attachments:
01-Description/Analysis
02-Background
03-Resolution - CEQA

Page 1 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
04-Exhibit A - SACOG MTP-SCS Consistency Letter
05-Exhibit B - Resolution 2018-00129 Certifying the CCSP EIR & MMP 06-Ordinance - Rezone
07-Exhibit A - Rezone Exhibit
08-Resolution - Entitlements
09-Exhibit A - Project Plans
10-Secretary of Interior Standards Analysis
11-Draft SHRA Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement
12-Significant Community Benefit Proposal
13-Public Comments
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The applicant is requesting entitlements for the development of a mixed-use building on an approximately 0.22-acre site at the northwestern corner of 15 th and G Streets. The proposal
includes a three-story mixed-use building with 40 multi-unit dwellings and 1,786 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The project scope includes eight income-restricted dwelling units.

Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments: Notice of the project was sent to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the project and the hearing notice was posted onsite 10 days prior to the hearing. Staff also sent notice of the project to Preservation Sacramento, Midtown Association (PBID), Washington Park Neighborhood Association, Boulevard Park Neighborhood Association, Sierra Vista Neighborhood Watch, Marshall-New Era Neighborhood Association, and Alkali and Mansion Flats Historic Neighborhood Association.

Staff has received letters of support for the project from Alkali & Mansion Flats Historic Neighborhood Association, Civic Thread, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, and a community member which are included in Attachment 13.

Additionally, staff received seven letters stating concerns regarding transforming the neighborhood with new development, no on-site parking, the project respecting the historic district context, and adequacy of existing utilities. The staff report addresses how the project fits into the historic district and neighborhood context with regard to scale, massing, height and design. The project is located within 0.25 miles of a light rail station and no parking is required for any project within this distance. In addition, the project is subject to AB 2097, which prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project (as defined by AB 2097) located within 0.5 miles of public transit. The project’s utility needs have been evaluated by the Department of Utilities and standard conditions of approval have been provided and incorporated into Attachment 8, Resolution - Entitlements. The conditions of approval are standard requirements that require the utility capacities and services are tested and the findings

Page 2 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
provided to the City. The findings will determine how the utility services will be designed to meet the demand of the project. It is standard practice that the utilities are tested and designed in the building review phase of the project.

Policy Considerations:

The project has been evaluated pursuant to the General Plan, Central City Community Plan, and the Central City Specific Plan. The three documents provide policies to maintain existing neighborhoods, advance equity, and inclusion, increase accessible housing, and promote neighborhoods with a mix of uses and hosing types.

General Plan
The subject site is designated Traditional Neighborhood Medium Density (TNMD) on the 2035 General Plan’s Land Use and Urban Form Diagram. The TNMD designation provides for higher- intensity medium-density housing and neighborhood-support uses, including small-lot single-family attached and detached dwellings, multi-unit dwellings (e.g., apartments and condominiums), and limited neighborhood-serving commercial. The City expects to retain this diversity. Changes in these traditional neighborhoods are anticipated to focus on preserving and restoring the quality of such areas by protecting and enhancing features such as scale and quality of housing, neighborhood character, and housing choice.

The proposed project is consistent with the TNMD designation as it proposes dwelling units and commercial space within an existing neighborhood that adds to the diversity of housing choices and provides space for neighborhood serving commercial. The proposed design is compatible with the neighborhood, which includes a mix of historic and contemporary structures. The project would contribute to the street frontage by providing a ground floor commercial space along the frontage, further activating the pedestrian realm while also providing additional neighborhood-serving commercial uses within a half-mile of transit. The streetscape and frontage are designed with pedestrian and bicycle amenities that support an urban walkable district.

In addition to the project’s consistency with the TNMD designation, the project supports the goals and polices of the 2035 General Plan as explained below.

Goal LU 1.1 Growth and Change. Support sustainable growth and change through orderly and well- planned development that provides for the needs of existing and future residents and businesses, ensure the effective and equitable provision of public services, and makes efficient use of land and infrastructure.

Policy LU 1.1.4 Leading Infill Growth . The City shall facilitate infill development through active leadership and the strategic provision of infrastructure and services and supporting land uses.

Page 3 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.

Policy LU 1.1.5 Infill Development. The City shall provide incentives (e.g., focused infill planning, zoning/rezoning, revised regulations, provision of infrastructure) for infill development, reuse, and growth in existing urbanized areas to enhance community character, optimize City investments in infrastructure and community facilities, support increased transit use, promote pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods, increase housing diversity, ensure integrity of historic districts, and enhance retail viability.

The project is an infill project on two vacant lots within the Central City. The proposed project is a mixed-use development which allows the development to be reviewed pursuant to the floor area ratio (FAR) standard rather than the strict density limits. The result is a higher density project that is located within 0.5 miles of a light rail station and located in an area that is conducive to walking and biking to other central city area amenities.

The project also increases the housing diversity by providing smaller market-rate units as well as restricted affordable units at the low-income level.

Goal HCR2.1 Identification and Preservation. Identification and Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. Identify and preserve the city’s historic and cultural resources to enrich our sense of place and our understanding of the city’s prehistory and history.

Policy HCR 2.1.11 Compatibility with Historic Context. The City shall review proposed new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with the surrounding historic context. The City shall pay special attention to the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new development to surrounding historic resources.

Policy HCR 2.1.17 Preservation Project Review. The City shall review and evaluate proposed development projects to minimize impacts on identified historic and cultural resources, including projects on Landmark parcels and parcels within Historic Districts, based on applicable adopted criteria and standards.

The project is located within the Old Washington School Historic District and was reviewed within the context of the adjacent buildings and within the larger historic district context. The applicant worked with staff to refine the design of the building to be compatible with the landmark structure to the west of the site on G Street. A full analysis of how the new construction is compatible within the historic district is in Attachment 2 (Background) and Attachment 9 (Secretary of the Interior Standards Analysis) provides a detailed discussion of how the project meets the Standards.

Goal H-1 Increasing Overall Housing Production. Facilitate the construction of 45,580 new housing units by 2029.

Page 4 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.

Policy H-4.3 Facilitate Infill Housing Development. The City shall facilitate infill housing along commercial corridors, near employment centers, near high-frequency transit areas, and in all zones that allow residential development as a way to revitalize commercial corridors, promote walkability and increased transit ridership, and provide increased housing options.

This project facilitates the creation of additional housing opportunities near existing employment centers and public transit in the Central City and contributes to a variety of land uses within the area.

General Plan - Floor Area Ratio
Floor area ratio (FAR) is the ratio of gross building area on a site, excluding structured parking, to the net developable area of the site. The net developable area is the total area of a site excluding portions that cannot be developed (e.g., right-of-way, public parks, etc.). The TNMD designation establishes a FAR maximum of 1.5 for this property. The project proposes a FAR of 2.68; 1.18 or approximately 11,426 square feet above the standard for this designation.

The General Plan has a policy that allows an increase in FAR above that which is permitted for the land use designation if a significant community benefit is provided by the project. The policy is stated below:

Policy LU 1.1.10 Exceeding Floor-Area-Ratio. The City may allow new development to exceed the maximum allowed FAR or density if it is determined that the project provides a significant community benefit.

The policy allows that there may be a circumstance where the City determines that the benefit the community would derive from the project outweighs strict adherence to the General Plan’s maximum FAR. A “significant community benefit” is not defined in the General Plan. Instead, the significant benefit is evaluated during the entitlement review of the project. The evaluation considers the unique offerings of a development, the context of that development, and the cumulative value of the benefit.

In consideration of the special nature of this project and pursuant General Plan Land Use Policy

1.1.10, staff is recommending that project be approved at the proposed FAR based on the proposed significant community benefits provided by the project, including eight income-restricted units. The applicant has proposed eight income-restricted units at the low-income level (up to 80% AMI), which is 20% of the total number of units (40). The building is a three-story walkup building, with eight affordable units located on the first floor. This provides an opportunity not only for a mixed-income building, but universal design that allows for a more diverse population that can access the units.

Including the affordable units in a market-rate apartment building is consistent with the promotion of a diversity of housing options in an area. Building amenities and uses in the surrounding area are available to a wider range of housing units and help economically integrate the community. The

Page 5 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
income-restricted units will be monitored by the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Authority (SHRA) for a period of 55 years. A condition of approval has been added to the project requiring that the agreement with SHRA be recorded against the property prior to issuance of building permits.

General Plan Policy LU 1.1.10 was specifically intended to allow the City to take advantage of unique opportunities, including ones such as The Grace where income-restricted dwelling units are being provided in an amount greater than possible through existing density bonus regulations. This mixed- use project has strong design and sustainability features that are consistent with a number City goals and policies and the project site is an appropriate location for the additional height and FAR, which results in an additional significant community benefit.

Based upon the proposal for 20% of the dwelling units to be income-restricted at the low-income level, staff has concluded that the proposed FAR of the project is appropriate and is consistent with the General Plan.

In addition to the eight affordable units, the applicant has proposed three additional community benefits: undergrounding electrical infrastructure, shared -rideables (like bikes and scooters), and incorporating local art into the interior of the building. Staff has not conditioned the project to provide the additional three benefits, as the critical significant community benefit is the eight affordable units through a binding agreement with SHRA.

1. Underground electrical infrastructure
The applicant proposes to underground existing and new overhead utility lines in two locations adjacent to the project site. The first set of utility lines are parallel to the north property line and Fat Alley and continue east across 15
th Street. There will be a total of 160 feet of utility lines placed underground between the two existing poles. The second set of utility lines run from the existing utility pole on the northwest corner of the project site south to the existing multi- unit residential building located at 1425 G Street. The utility lines cross over the project site, and it is a benefit to underground the lines because buried utilities are more reliable, improve community safety and create a better aesthetic than exposed overhead electrical and communications infrastructure.

2. Shared -Rideables
The project will include six bike or scooter parking spaces within the public right-of-way and rideables that are managed by The Grace property manager for use by the residents and public in addition to the six short-term bike parking spaces required by City Code. The shared rideable equipment will be located within the public right -of-way but will be managed and maintained by development’s property manager. The shared -rideables will provide more multimodal choices of transportation and will support the General Plan Mobility policies and

Page 6 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.

Central City Specific Plan policies of creating multiple transportation modes in the city to achieve a more balanced transportation system (General Plan Policy M.1.2.1).

3. Local Art
On the interior of the building, the developer will seek out art from local artists. While the General Plan and Central City Specific Plan emphasize the need for public art, the General Plan also provides a policy that the City should encourage artists to live and work in Sacramento (General Plan Policy ERC 4.1.12) . By purchasing local art, the money will stay within the Sacramento artist community and support the General Plan policies of retaining artists in the city. Using only local art will promote a further sense of self-identity for the neighborhood and the greater Sacramento community.

Central City Specific Plan
The project site is located within the Central City Specific Plan area. The intent of the Specific Plan is to reinforce the preeminent role of the Central City as the core of the region, providing opportunities for thoughtful growth and revitalization, while preserving and enhancing the plan’s multifaceted and distinct character and assets. Overall, the project is consistent with the Specific Plan and supports the following highlighted goals and implementing policies.

Goal LU.8 Central City Neighborhoods. Reinforce the Central City’s neighborhoods as desirable places to live.

Policy LU.8.1 Diverse and Distinct Neighborhoods - Maintain the Central City’s diverse and distinct neighborhoods to meet the community’s needs for complete, sustainable, and high ‐
quality
living environments.

The project is a high-density residential project that provides an alternative housing type based on the size of the units, which is smaller than the existing single-family or larger multi-family units in converted houses. The project also helps complete the street scene along G Street and 15 th Street
to create a complete neighborhood with a variety of housing options for residents.

Goal H.2 Housing Affordability. Encourage a housing stock that is affordable to all incomes and where at least 25% of area housing is affordable to lower income households (making 80% or less of area median income).

Policy H.2.1 Range of Housing Options. Provide for a range of housing options at varying affordability levels to accommodate the City’s diverse residents and workforce.

Policy H.2.2 Affordable Housing Integration. Encourage the integration of affordable and mixed-

Page 7 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
income housing with market
‐
rate housing.

Policy H.2.3 Affordable Housing Quality. Ensure that affordable housing is built in a manner that maintains a high quality of design and construction.

The project is a mixed-income project with 32 market-rate units and eight below-market rate units, offered at the low-income level. The affordable units are located on the ground floor of the building.

Four of the below-market rate units on the west side of the building have private ground floor patios. All the units are integrated into the design of the building and will not be perceived as a below-market rate unit based on materials and architectural design.

Goal HR.1 Historic Resources. Support the preservation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of historic resources.

Policy HR.1.1 Preserve Historic Context. Ensure that new development is compatible with the context of existing historic resources and historic districts, through early and close collaboration between project applicants and the City Preservation Director, as well as compliance with applicable standards, guidelines and regulations.

The project is located within the Old Washington School Historic District and is identified as a noncontributor to the historic district. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Old Washington School Historic District Plan which establishes standards and criteria based on U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

Entitlements
The proposed project requires two entitlements-a rezone and site plan and design review. Pursuant to Sacramento City Code (SCC) section 17.808.130, the Preservation Commission considers and makes a recommendation to the Planning and Design Commission on site plan and design review.

The Planning and Design Commission considers and makes a recommendation to the City Council on the entirety of the project, including the rezone. The recommendations of the Preservation Commission and the Planning and Design Commission are forwarded to the City Council for final action.

The rezone and site plan and design review are discussed in the Background section of the report included as Attachment 2.

No Net Loss Finding
This project is located on a site listed in the 2021-2029 RHNA Housing Element Sites Inventory. This project proposes eight units of low-income housing. The site assumes six units of moderate-income

Page 8 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
housing. Thus, the project exceeds the assumed capacity in the Housing Element sites inventory. 200-Year Flood Protection
State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code chapter 17.810 require that the City must make specific findings prior to approving certain entitlements for projects within a flood hazard zone.

The purpose is to ensure that new development will have protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by SAFCA’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project. Even though the project site is within a flood hazard zone, the local flood management agency, SAFCA, has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will ensure protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. This is based on the SAFCA Urban level of flood protection plan, adequate progress baseline report, and adequate progress toward an urban level of flood protection engineer’s report that were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2016- 0226 on June 21, 2016 and the SAFCA 2022 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-0313 on October 11, 2022.

Environmental Considerations:

The proposed development is a “project” as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City, as lead agency, is required to proceed in accordance with CEQA requirements prior to considering any approval.

Staff has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21155.4 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182(b). PRC section 21155.4 was added to the PRC by SB 743. The legislature included the following that applies to section 21155.4:
“With the adoption of… the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, the Legislature signaled its commitment to encouraging land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce vehicle miles traveled and contribute to the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions required in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006…Similarly, the California Complete Streets Act of 2008…requires local governments to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads and highways for safe and convenient travel.”
Section 21155.4 is thus part of a comprehensive legislative approach to reducing VMT and supporting the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Section 21155.4 provides as follows:

Page 9 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a residential, employment center, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21099, or mixed-use development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning, change that meets all of the following criteria is exempt from the requirements of this division:
(1) The project is proposed within a transit priority area, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 21099.
(2) The project is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified.
(3) The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
(b) Further environmental review shall be conducted only if any of the events specified in Section 21166 have occurred.

The requirements of the section are set forth below, followed by text that identifies the manner in which the proposed project complies in italics.

A. The project must be a residential, employment center or mixed-use development project.

The project proposes development of a 25,925 square foot building consisting of 40 multi- unit dwellings and 1,786 square feet of ground floor commercial space on 0.22 acres within the Central City Specific Plan area. “Mixed-use development combines two or more types of land use into a building or set of buildings that are physically and functionally integrated and mutually supporting. This can be some combination of residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses.” (San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Planners Toolkit, online access 9/24/2018)
The proposed project qualifies as a mixed-use development project.

B. The project must be located in a transit priority area, as defined in subdivision (a) of

Page 10 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.

Section 21099.

Section 20199 defines “transit priority area” as including an area within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop. Pursuant to PRC section 21064.3, a major transit stop is “a site containing an existing rail transit station or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Pursuant to PRC section 21155(b), a high-quality transit corridor is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.

The City prepared an EIR for the Central City Specific Plan (CWHICH, which was certified on April 19, 2018 (Resolution No. 2018-0129). Figure 4.12-13 in the CCSP EIR showed the portion of the CCSP area that would meet the criteria for proximity to transit in the legislation. The map identified areas one-half mile from RT’s existing light rail stations (Blue Line along 12
th Street) and one-half mile from a high quality transit corridor with service intervals of 15 minutes or less (routes with stops at F & 16 th Streets) (CCSP EIR Figure

4.12-13).

The proposed project is located in a transit priority area.

C. The project is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report has been certified.

The proposed project’s land use is consistent with the CCSP. The City prepared and certified an EIR for the CCSP, which can be accessed at https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-
The proposed project is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was certified.

D. The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in a sustainable communities strategy for which the State Air Resources Board (ARB) has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities CEQA review strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

The proposed project is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The ARB has accepted SACOG’s determination that the plan would achieve GHG reduction targets. The written concurrence from SACOG regarding the

Page 11 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.

City’s determination of consistency with the MTP/SCS is included as Attachment 4 of this report.

The proposed project is consistent with the MTP/SCS.

E. Further environmental review shall be conducted only if any of the events specified in PRC Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred.

This requirement confirms that the requirement of consistency with a specific plan for which an EIR was prepared would be sufficient unless substantial changes have been proposed in the specific plan that would require major changes in the EIR, changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the EIR was prepared, or new information of substantial importance has become available. The CCSP EIR was certified, and the CCSP adopted, on April 19, 2018. There have been no substantial changes in the CCSP or in the circumstances in the specific plan area that would affect the EIR analysis and conclusions.

None of the events identified in PRC 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred.

PRC section 21155.4 provides that a project that meets the section requirements is exempt from CEQA review, unless one or more of the events identified in subsection (b) have occurred, or as in CEQA Guidelines section 15182(b), none of the events of section 15162 have occurred. As noted, none of those circumstances have occurred. The proposed project is, therefore, exempt from CEQA review.

Commission/Committee Action:

The Preservation Commission considered the project on May 17, 2023, and after some back and forth concerning the height of the project and a missing public comment letter, the Commission voted to recommend the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the project.

Regarding the missing public comment letter, two individuals testified during public comment - one in favor of the project and one opposed. The speaker opposed to the project - Mark Ryser - noted that he had previously submitted an opposition letter (dated April 11, 2022) that was not included in the agenda packet (although his other letter, dated October 14, 2021, was included in the packet). This omission was inadvertent. Staff has since located Mr. Ryser’s 2022 letter and it is attached to this report. As an aside, staff and the applicant met with Mr. Ryser multiple times during the project review process. During the Preservation Commission hearing, one commissioner expressed concern over the omission of Mr. Ryser’s letter and wanted an opportunity to review the letter. This commissioner also questioned the height of the project and whether it was appropriate for the district. After further deliberations, however, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project.

Page 12 of 13 ends

File ID: 2023-00174 6/20/2023 Consent Item 15.

On May 25, 2023, the Planning and Design Commission considered the project and passed a unanimous motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.

Rationale for Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested entitlements based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval listed in the attachments. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of the 2035 General Plan and provides a mix of residential housing options while also encouraging walking and biking near public transit. Staff finds the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the 2035 General Plan, Central City Specific Plan, Central City SPD, and Old Washington School Historic District Plan related to the development of infill sites, preservation of the historic district, and is consistent with the vision of the city to develop the land in the in a manner which compliments and enhances the surrounding area.

Page 13 of 13 ends

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Figure 2: Zoning Map

Entitlement Review

The proposed project requests two entitlements —a rezone and site plan and design review. Pursuant to Sacramento City Code (SCC) section 17.808.130, the Preservation Commission considers and makes a recommendation to the Planning and Design Commission on site plan and design review. The Planning and Desi gn Commission considers and makes a recommendation to the City Council on the entirety of the project, including the rezone . The recommendations of the Preservation Commission and the Planning and Design Commission will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.

Rezone

The two properties are located within two different zones , the north property is located within the R-3A-SPD zone and the south property is located within the C-2-SPD zone (both within the Central City SPD ). The C -2-SPD zone allows for the proposed uses, including multi-unit residential.

The R-3A-SPD zone is a residential zone with limited community -serving uses, such as assembly uses, childcare, libraries, and schools. The R -3A-SPD zone establishes a maximum density of 36 dwelling units per net acre and defers to the General Plan designation for FAR standards. The purpose of the C -2-SPD zone is to provide for the sale of goods; the performance of services, including repair facilities; office uses; dwellings; small wholesale stores or distributors; and limited processing and packaging (see SCC section 17.216.700). The C-2-SPD zone defers to the General Plan designation for density and floor area ratio (FAR) standards.

The Central City SPD includes goals to: (1) maintain and improve the character, quality, and vitality of the neighborhoods within the Central City SPD; (2) create cohesive mixed- use neighborhoods that contain a variety of housing types; (3) provide an opportunity for a balanced mix of uses in neighborhoods adjacent to transit facilities and transportation corridors; and (4) facilitate infill redevelopment by allowing a broad mix of uses and flexible development standards (see SCC section 17.444.010).

The applicant is requesting a rezo ne of the R -3A-SPD zoned property to the C -2-SPD zone which allows for commercial uses on the ground floor within a mixed -use development.

The C -2-SPD zone allows a mixed -use development to be evaluated based on consistency with the General Plan FAR ra nge (rather than density established by the General Plan). Unlike the R-3A-SPD zone, the C-2-SPD zone does not establish a density standard, and defers to the General Plan designation, in this case the TNMD designation.

Additionally, because the C-2-SPD zone defers to the General Plan for FAR and density requirements, the project can request to use the General Plan Policy LU 1.1.10 to exceed the maximum FAR established by the General Plan, by providing a Significant Community Benefit.

The TNMD land use designation establishes a maximum density of 36 du/acre and a maximum FAR of 1.5. Mixed-use developments are only subject to the FAR requirements and density limits do not apply. The ±25,925-square-foot development on the ±9,666 square foot project site results in a FAR of 2.68, exceeding the maximum FAR of 1.50.

As described under the Policy Considerations section of this report, the proposed project is providing a significant community benefit (pursuant to General Plan Policy LU 1.1.10) and is therefore determined to be consistent with the General Plan.

SCC section 17.808.230.C.1.D requires the following findings be met to approve a rezone:

1. The rezoning is consistent with the applicable general plan designation, use, and development standards; the goals, policies, or other provisions of the general plan; and any applicable specific plan; and

The rezone meets these findings as the proposed infill development will provide a variety of housing options with affordable units and smaller loft units in one development, new commercial space in the Central City, and furthers the city’s goal of sustainability with a high -density development in the central area. In addition, t he General Plan ac knowledges that the “Traditional Neighborhoods contain a wide diversity of development and thus some houses and buildings fall outside the allowed development standards. The city expects to retain this diversity. It is also anticipated that future new deve lopment areas will be planned with attributes that emulate the traditional neighborhood form and character and include adequate neighborhood -serving uses from vacant nonresidential uses to a higher density residential use and further activates the area by allowing a flexibility of permitted uses that are complimentary to the surrounding neighborhood” (General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design page 2 -48). The proposed development proposes a high-density, mixed-use building on a vacant site that will further activate the central city area.

2. The amendment promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the City.

The rezone promotes the public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the City by allowing diverse housing types in an established residential and commercial neighborhood.

Figure 3: Site Plan

Site Plan and Design Review

To approve a project located in a historic district, but not involving the demolition or relocation of a landmark or contributing resource, the decision maker must make one of three findings set forth in section 17.808.180.A.1. of the City Code. Relevant here is that the decision maker must find that the project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior standards and the goals and policies of chapter 17.808 of the City Code. In addition to the applicable development standards established in SCC Title 17, the project site is subject to the Central City Design Guidelines and the Old Washington School Historic District Plan (HDP). As explained in this report, the project is consistent with both the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the Old Washington School HDP.

Figure 4: South Elevation – G Street

Figure 5: East Elevation – 15th Street

Figure 6: Old Washington School Historic District Resources by Parcel

*Project site is highlighted in yellow

Site and Building Design

The development occupies a ±0.22-acre site on the west side of 15 th Street, between G Street and Fat Alley. The existing vacant corner lot is designated as a non -contributing resource in the Old Washington School Historic District (Historic District), which is listed on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register).

The property has a temporary re staurant use on the commercially zoned property; however, there are no permanent structures, and the use will voluntarily discontinue if the subject application is approved. The temporary use is currently nonoperational. The

Historic District is characterized as a residential area. There are multiple contributing resources and landmarks within the immediate vicinity of the property as shown above.

While the architectural styles vary for these surrounding historic properties, there are consistent architectural characteristics with delta -style high basements, entry stairs, visible front entrances, prominent full width porches and balconies, railings, horizontal plank wood siding or shingles, and pitched and gabled roofs.

The proposed 25,925+/- square foot building is a contemporary style, mixed-use building that includes 40 dwelling units and 1,786+/- square feet of commercial space. There are eight studio units on the ground-floor that are all designated as below-market rate housing at the low-income level. The second and third stories will each have 16, market-rate, one- bedroom loft style apartments. The building is designed as a three-story walk-up building accessed by two stairwells in the center of the building.

There are three entrances to the east side of the building: one commercial entrance on the southern end of the building, the main residential entrance mid -building, and a secondary residential entrance on the northern end of the building. The secondary entrance provides direct access to the long -term bicycle parking room at the rear of the building. The long-term bicycle room, mechanical rooms and trash room also have direct access to the alley. The project does not offer any vehicular parking on -site; therefore, there is no vehicular access to the site.

The facade of the building provides a cohesive design on all sides of the building with an emphasis on the street facing elevations. The G Street elevation is narrow and is compatible with the existing lot widths on G Street at approximately 40 feet wide. The massing is further narrowed with a protruding vertical element in plaster with wall recessed to the rear clad in horizontal metal siding to provide a material that is consistent, but not the same as the narrow wood siding on the landmark residential structure to the west. The G Street façade incorporates brick, horizontal metal siding, a metal canopy and balconies that are compatible with the contributing historic resource to the west. The materials are not a replica of the historic materials on the contributing resources but are compatible in scale and appearance.

The 15th Street elevation is a long building facade that has a rhythmic pattern of massing, fenestration, and architectural details. The mas sing is broken up with reduced height elements on the north and south corners of the building, varying materials on vertical architectural elements, plane changes to create shadows and a strong brick building base on the first story. The widths between the plan changes and of the architectural elements was inspired by the 40 -foot lot widths that are consistent in the historic district. The balconies and the flush mounted safety railing in front of the sliding glass doors emulate the consistent full width balconies on the contributing resources in the district and provide additional texture and materiality on a more contemporary style building. The proposed fenestrations are larger than the fenestrations on the contributing resources; however, the shape is co mpatible with the narrow vertical windows. The proposed fenestration s appear larger than the window s and doors on the historic buildings in the neighborhood context because the second- and third-story lofts units have standard sliding doors with large transom windows above. The large windows provide natural light in the units.

The proposed design of the structure provides balconies and a consistent window pattern that has strong horizontal datums at each story that is compatible with the historic resources defined by balconies, roof lines, and fenestrations. The materials include brick, plaster siding, horizontal metal panel siding, metal railing, metal window systems, metal canopy, and a honed block wall at the interior property boundary.

The building pro vides a lot of interaction with the street and public right -of-way with multiple building entrances, large ground floor windows adjacent to the street frontage, a covered patio at the corner of G Street and 15 th Street and sliding doors on second and third story units.

Historic District Plan and the Old Washington School Historic District Plan

Historic District Plans: Standards & Criteria Common to Sacramento’s Historic District

The Sacramento Historic District Plans (HDP) include Standards and Criteria that are applicable to all historic districts and are based on, and written to be consistent with, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Propertie s and the associated Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. A full analysis of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is included in Attachment 10.

Following is a discussion of relevant principles and guidelines for new (infill) construction to non-contributing resources established in the HDP Standards and Criteria Common to Sacramento’s Historic Districts.

Design Principle – Setbacks, Setting, Location, & Site Layout. Alterations to existing buildings and new construction must support the historic setbacks, setting, location, and site layout of the historic district in which it is located. This can be accomplished by siting buildings on their lots to reflect historic development and streetscape patterns.

Design Guideline 3.1. Refrain from visually impairing the primary front façade of a contributing resource.

The proposed building along G Street is setback from the street and in line with the landmark building to the west at 1425 G Street. Th e proposed building respects the historic setback pattern of the block and does not visually impair the primary front façade of a contributing resource.

Design Guideline 3.2. Mitigate views from new construction into adjacent residential structures.

 Strategically place windows, balconies, and roof decks to protect the private realm of adjacent properties.

The balconies and roof top deck are required to provide the required open space for the building. The roof top deck is at the front of the building and overlooks G Street and 15th Street. The balconies on the west side of the building are located at the rear of the structure and overlook parking lot on the property to the west at 1421 G Street.

There are no balconies or windows on the west facing wall adjacent to the building at 1425 G Street.

Design Guideline 3.3. Orient the primary facades and entries of new construction to primary street(s) or alleys in residential and commercial districts in the Central City.

 Corner parcels should follow the ex isting development pattern of adjacent or nearby contributing properties.

The subject lot is a corner lot and the primary facades are adjacent to G Street and 15th Street. The G Street façade includes a large window system and covered patio for outdoor se ating. The 15 th Street façade includes the primary entrances for the residences and commercial space. This orientation is compatible with the existing residences and business primary entrances that front on 15th Street.

Design Guideline 3.4. Set back new buildings to be consistent with the setback pattern of adjacent contributing properties in order to maintain a continuous street wall and delineation of public spaces.

 Where the setbacks of neighboring contributing resources vary, the setback of new construction should fall within the established range of setbacks of contributing resources in the historic district.

The proposed building along G Street is setback from the street and in line with the landmark building to the west at 1425 G Street. The pro posed building respects the historic setback pattern of the block.

Design Guideline 3.5. Provide side setbacks that are consistent with the historic pattern of spacing between adjacent contributing buildings on the same block.

The structures in the Old Washington School Historic District have minimal side setbacks as this was developed as a working - and middle -class residential neighborhood with smaller lots and denser development. The Old Washington School Historic District has a high concentration of c ontributing resources, and the historic development pattern is intact. The existing contributing resource structures , one of which is a landmark (1425 G Street), on the two adjacent properties to the west have minimal building setbacks. The structure at 1421 G Street has a western side setback of approximately 1.4 feet and an eastern side setback of approximately 2.25 feet. The structure at 1425 G Street has a western side setback of approximately three feet and an eastern side setback of approximately thre e feet. Both structures also have bay windows that extend to within one foot of the side property lines.

The western side yard setback for the proposed project is approximately 3.4 feet for the first 12.8 feet of the building where the building provides a deeper setback. Beyond the first 12.8 feet the building, the building has a setback of approximately 2.3 feet.

The setback between the two buildings is approximately five feet, which is consistent with the minimal side yard setback pattern that has been established by the existing development pattern. The structure at 1425 G Street will be impacted by the new development the most, as it has benefited from light and air as a result of a vacant lot at 620 and 628 15 th Street; however, the setbacks are consi stent with the setback pattern of the immediate neighborhood context.

In addition, the zoning designations provide for higher-density residential districts and general commercial districts that have minimal setbacks and allow for structures close to the property line. The proposed project is zoned C -2-SPD and R -3A-SPD where there is no minimum interior side-yard setback for either district. The project includes a rezone of the northern property to the C-2-SPD zone.

Design Guideline 3.6. Provide adequate space between new infill buildings and existing buildings to preserve historic development patterns and prevent overcrowding.

 When adding a new building to a lot, respect and consider the prevailing pattern, location, and ratio of build ing-to-open-space lot coverage that is characteristic of contributing parcels in the district.

The structures in the Old Washington School Historic District have minimal setbacks and buildings that cover a majority of the lots with small linear rear yard s on city lots.

The landmark structure at 1425 G Street has an existing rear yard area that is approximately 9.5 feet in depth. The proposed project will provide outdoor yard space adjacent to the existing rear yard with a depth of approximately 12.5 feet. There are also yard spaces that are adjacent to the western property line with a depth of approximately 10 feet. The main building wall is setback of 17.75 feet from the front property line which is two feet behind the front wall of the adjacent building to the west.

The setback pattern is consistent adjacent to G Street. The building maximizes the development area and extends to the eastern side property line and extends to within four feet of the rear property line of Fat Alley. The siting of the buildin g is consistent with the development pattern of the Old Washington School Historic district by providing a larger front setback, linear rear yard areas, and a setback from the alley.

 Siting of new infill building should also carefully consider the impact on buildings on adjacent parcels and avoid blocking existing wall openings in adjacent buildings.

The proposed building is consistent with the development pattern of the Old Washington School Historic District with the proposed setback pattern and provi des building setbacks where none are required by City Code. The building setbacks are a result of adherence to the HDP by respecting the existing development pattern. The structure at 1425 G Street will be the property that is most affected by the new development; however, the subject site has been vacant for many years, and any new development will “impact” the existing building because no development currently exists on the project site. New construction in a historic district should respect the development pattern and in this case the development pattern includes smaller city lots, buildings that have a high building to open space lot coverage ratio, and minimal side setbacks. The project has considered the existing development pattern and design a building that respects the adjacent building openings by providing a new wall with no window openings facing the eastern wall of the adjacent building and balconies that are oriented toward the parking lot on western side of the building. The proposed building i s also consistent with the compact development pattern that has been established.

Design Guideline 3.7. Allowable encroachments into the setback zone include fences, sidewalks, porches and stoops, so long as existing street wall is maintained by the front façade.

The project provides a metal canopy along the G Street frontage that extends in front of the main building wall. The main building wall is setback 17.75 feet from the front property line and is two feet behind the adjacent structure to the west . The metal canopy provides coverage for outdoor seating in a climate that allows for outdoor seating through most of the year, coverage from the sun and rain, and also activates the public realm at the street level. This outdoor seating area is compatible within the historic context because the structures include large full width porches and balconies that invite activity at the front of the properties.

Design Guideline 3.8. Maintain a street grid or circulation system that ties into the surrounding pattern of streets and pathways at infill construction that conjoins more than one parcel and allows for pedestrian or vehicular circulation through the conjoined site.

The proposed project maintains the existing street grid and alley way.

Design Guideline 3.9. In predominantly residential areas, include a landscaped front yard that is compatible in size to the front yards of neighboring contributing resources.

The Old Washington School Historic District is located in the Central City on smaller city lots with landscape strips and small planting areas adjacent to the public right of way. The proposed project provides landscaping that is compatible with the existing pattern with landscaping adjacent to the building at the back of sidewalk and adjacent to the alley. The existing tree wells and landscaping strips between the sidewalk and street will be maintained.

Design Guideline 3.10. When feasible, include a walkway from new buildings facing the street to maintain the traditional visual connection of buildings to the street.

The proposed project provides three entrances to the building adjacent to 15th Street.

The doors are located in alcoves with direct access to the sidewalk, which is compatible with the structures in the district that provide doors at the back of sidewalk or entry stairs with direst access to the sidewalk.

Design Principle – Building Massing, Scale, & Form. Design new infill construction so that its massing, scale, and form is compatible with the contributing buildings within the historic district. Pay special attention to the block face where the infill project is located.

Design Guideline 3.11. Design new buildings with an understanding of the historic context, character-defining features, and historic significance of the historic district.

 Refer to examples of historic resources that strongly contribute to the historic district, rather than non-contributors or inappropriately altered structures.

 Infill on non -contributing properties, including vacant lots, should take design inspiration from surrounding contributing properties.

The facade of the building provides a cohesive design on all sides of the building with an emphasis on the street facing elevations. The G Street elevation is narrow and is compatible with the existing lot widths on G Street at approximately 40 feet wide. The massing is further narrowed with a protruding vertical element in plaster with wall recessed to the rear clad in horizontal metal siding to provide a material that is consistent, but not the same as the narrow wood siding on the landmark residential structure to the west. The G Street façade incorporates brick, horizontal metal siding, a metal canopy and balconies that are compatible with the landmark building to the west. The materials are not a r eplica of the historic materials on the contributing resources but are compatible in scale and appearance.

The 15 th Street elevation is a long building façade that has a rhythmic pattern of massing, fenestration, and architectural details. The massing is broken up with reduced height elements on the north and south corners of the building, varying materials on vertical architectural elements, plane changes to create shadows and a strong brick building base on the first story. The widths between the plan changes and of the architectural elements was inspired by the 40-foot lot widths that are consistent in the historic district. The balconies and the flush mounted safety railing in front of the sliding glass doors emulate the consistent full width balconies on the contributing resources in the district and provide additional texture and materiality on a more contemporary style building. The proposed fenestrations are larger than the fenestrations on the contributing resources; however, the shape is compatible with the narrow vertical windows. The proposed fenestration appear larger than the window and doors on the historic buildings in the neighborhood context because the second - and third -story lofts units have standard sliding doors with large transom windo ws above. The large windows provide a lot of natural light in the units.

Design Guideline 3.12. Develop the scale, proportions, and volumes of new buildings to be compatible with those of adjacent contributing properties.

 New buildings that are significantly larger than contributing buildings on the same block are discouraged.

Unlike the smaller -sized and rectangular lotting pattern found on properties to the west, the project site is larger in size and L -shaped. The structures in the Old Washington School Historic District have minimal side setbacks as this was developed as a working- and middle-class residential neighborhood with smaller lots and denser development. Efficient utilization of the property will require an L-shaped building with a high building to open space lot coverage ratio, and minimal side setbacks. The proposed b uilding is a contemporary style with vertical massing and a flat roof; however, the massing is broken up with architectural elements was inspired by the 40-foot lot widths that are consistent in the historic district.

Design Guideline 3.13. When designing new buildings, take into consideration the height range of existing contributing resources in the district (including roof plate and roof line).

 Pay special attention to the heights of contributing resources on the block face or where the infill project is located.

 Minimize the impact of a new building that is significantly taller than surrounding contributing resources by breaking up its mass into smaller components or modules that relate to the scale and massing of the surrounding contributing resources.

 Masses that are taller than contributing resources in the district should be stepped back from the primary street-facade(s).

The Old Washington School Historic District has a consistent development pattern of three stories height structures or two-story buildings with a delta -style basement. The proposed design is a three -story building that includes ground floor studio units, and second and third floor loft units with double height ceilings. There is a request to deviate from the heigh limits that are set forth in the Old Washington School Historic District Plan of 150% of adjacent contributing resources. There are two contribu ting residential resources on the properties west of the subject site , one of which is a landmark structure. The residential building at 1425 G Street is 26.5 feet in height and the residential building at 1421 G Street is 31.5 feet in height. The two buildings would provide a range of 39.75 to 47.25 feet in height to meet the 150% height limit of surrounding contributing resources. The application requests a height of 48 feet which is 8.25 feet above 1425 G Street and 0.75 feet above 1421 G Street plate heights.

The height of a building is measured to the plate height on gabled and hip roofs, and to the roof deck on flat roofs. The proposed project would have an overall height of 49 feet to the top of the parapet wall and 48 feet to the roof deck on the w estern portion of the proposed building. The eastern portion of the building is taller at approximately

52.75 feet to the top of the parapet wall and 48 feet to the roof deck. The three -story building is taller as a result of the contemporary design of the building and double height second and third stories. The lofted units on the second and third floor provide more units with more compact footprints and maximize the vertical space, which allow for a denser development that provides a mixed -income building within the Central City.

The evaluation of the project balances the need for more dense residential development in the central city with the neighborhood design context of the historic district. The additional height and massing allow for income-restricted units and livable compact market rate units.

Design Guideline 3.14. Draw broad inspiration for the design of new buildings from contributing buildings of the same type (single- or multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, civic) in the historic district.

 New construction should be reflective “of its time” and avoid mimicking historic styles.

The proposed project is a contemporary style building that relates that the contributing buildings by providing similar setbacks, plane breaks that are compatible with the existing lot width pattern, compatible materials that are visually similar but not the same.

Design Guideline 3.15. Step down the height of a taller new building when located adjacent to a shorter contributing building.

The design incorporates a step down in building height at the front and rear of the building to respect the lower building heights. The portions of the building that are stepped down also utilize different building materials to emphasize the change in height.

Design Guideline 3.16. Taller buildings may be appropriate at terminus, corner sites or important commercial corridors.

The proposed building is taller within the immediate neighborhood context and is located at the corner of G Street and 15th Street and adjacent to Fat Alley.

Design Guideline 3.17. Orient primary facades and entries of new construction in residential and commercial districts in the Central City to primary street(s).

The primary entries are located adjacent to 15 th Street with a large, covered seating area adjacent to G Street. The orientation of the building is consistent with the surrounding context with main building entrances on G Street and 15th Street.

Design Principle – Architectural Character. New architecture must enhance the visual compositional quality of a historic district by exploring new creative, artistic visions that respect and respond to the area’s established historic character, range of attributes, and context.

Design Guideline 3.18. Avoid imitating or replicating historic styles in new construction in a manner that could be falsely interpreted as historic.

The design of the building does not imitate or replicate historic styles. It is a contemporary style of architecture that is reflective of current architectural styles.

Design Guideline 3.19. Consider the incorporation or contemporary interpretation of design features of nearby or adjacent historic buildings into public facing facades to strengthen important relationships that e xist between properties. Use modern methods and materials to incorporate architectural characteristics of nearby or adjacent historic styles without mimicking.

The proposed design incorporates materials, strong datum lines and fenestrations that are a contemporary interpretation of materials, porches, balconies, and fenestrations found within the historic context.

Design Guideline 3.20. Consider incorporating traditional commercial storefront elements—such as a kickplate, display windows, recessed primary entrance, and door and storefront transom windows—in the design of new storefronts.

 Recess the primary entrance door back an adequate amount from the front facade to establish a distinct threshold for pedestrians.

The design incorporates storefront systems that are similar to large historic storefront windows at the back of sidewalk and recessed threshold for pedestrians that signify you are entering the property and leaving the public realm.

Design Guideline 3.21. Design building components and fe atures to be of a compatible scale and placement to those of surrounding contributing properties.

As previously discussed in the sections above, the building has been sited and designed to be compatible with the scale and of adjacent contributing resources.

Design Guideline 3.22. Design new buildings with passive cooling features found in historic districts.

 When not possible, utilize the average datum lines of contributing properties.

 Consider incorporating operable windows, covered porches, high ceilings, and perimeter foundations with ductwork run below the building.

The design incorporates a large, covered patio on the ground floor, operable windows and sliding doors to circulate the air through the building, and the second and third floors incorporate high ceilings.

Design Principle – Building Materials & Finishes. Choose building materials used in new construction that are appropriate to its architectural style and of a quality, scale, color and texture that is compatible with the character of the historic district.

Design Guideline 3.23. Use exterior materials similar to or compatible with those found on adjacent or nearby contributing properties within the district.

Design Guideline 3.24. Use high quality, environmentally friendly building materials that are consistent with the materials of adjacent or nearby contributing properties within the district.

Design Guideline 3.25. Avoid obviously synthetic materials that mimic traditional building materials.

The proposed materials are high quality and include brick, plaster siding, horizontal metal panel siding, metal railing, metal window systems, metal canopy, and a honed block wall at the interior property boundary.

Design Principle – Windows & Doors: Window and door openings shall reinforce the patterns of pedestrian circulation, visual connection, and solid -to-void ratios of adjacent or nearby contributing resources within the block.

Design Guideline 3.26. Incorporate window and door datum lines that are compatible with those of adjacent contributing resources.

The proposed building provides strong datum lines with materials and fenestrations that delineate the different floors. This is compatible with the strong datum lines of historic architectural styles that incorporate a consistent fenestration pattern, full width porches and balconies and horizontal roof lines.

Design Guideline 3.27. Consider location of doorways and circulation patterns along street with new proposed entryways.

The doors are located in alcoves at the back of sidewalk and are consistent with the development pattern and entrances at the street level.

Design Guideline 3.28. Use window and door materials that match or are sympathetic with the historic fabric of surrounding contributing resources.

The window and door materials are compatible with the contemporary style, which the shape and fenestration pattern is compatible with the design of older windows.

Design Guideline 3.29. Use proportions, depth, and mat eriality at window and door openings that are reflective of those found in nearby or adjacent contributing buildings within the historic district.

The window and door openings on contributing resources in the historic district are narrow and tall. The proposed project incorporates windows that look proportionally tall with door and transom window above. While the new windows are wider the transom helps to elongate the window making is compatible with older style windows.

The Old Washington School Historic District

The Old Washington School Historic District was designated for listing on the Sacramento Register by the Preservation Commission in 1985 (Ordinance No. 85 -076) as the Washington Historic District. The Historic District is one of Sacramento’s oldest residential neighborhoods that developed along the city’s first streetcar lines in the 1870s. It is a primarily residential area located within Sacramento’s original 1848 street grid and is roughly bounded to the east and west by commercial development along 12 th and 16th streets, to the north by industrial development along C Street, and to the south by mixed commercial and institutional development along G Street. Historically streetcar lines ran down G Street and 15 th Street, which was also part of the state highway system along with the neighborhood’s western boundary at 12 th Street. The HDP includes a list of District-Specific Standards and Criteria to “[p]reserve and maintain the contributing resources and features that define the district while encouraging new development tha t enhances its historic residential character and livability” (HDP page 301).

The scope of this project includes new construction of a mixed -use building. The HDP establishes design standards and criteria based on consistency with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Standards). Therefore, a finding that the project is consistent with the HDP, would typically result in a project that is consistent with the Standards as required by SCC section 17.808.180. A complete analysis of the Secretary of the Interior Standards is included as Attachment 10 to demonstrate consistency with the standards for the purposes of SCC section 17.808.180.

The HDP contains design principles that relates to new (infill) construction and site features related to streetscape and landscaping. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the Old Washington School Historic District section of the HDP, including the following criteria:

Goal 3. New (Infill) Construction & Alterations to Non-Contributing Resources

Policy 3.1. Design the scale, massing, and proportions of new construction to be compatible with those of contributing buildings on the same block.

 Where additional height is considered, the height of new buildings should be no more than 150% of the height of surrounding contributing buildings.

 Consider using step backs for taller buildings to maintain the existing street façade height of adjacent contributing buildings.

The project proposal includes a request to exceed the HDP height limit of 150% of contributing resources in the neighborhood context by 8.25 feet and 0.5 feet. Staff supports this height deviation because the new structure meet s the purpose and intent of new infill structures that are not substantially large or out of scale with the contributing resources in the historic district context. A full analysis of the height deviation request is provided in the “Deviation – Height” section of the Background section.

Policy 3.2. Preserve the historic pattern and articulation of long, narrow 40’ x 160’ parcels wherever possible.

 Consider breaking down the massing of large infill developments into smaller masses that reflect the historic lot pattern.

 Where shared courtyard approach is used for subdivision of properties into multi-family use, minimize width of courtyard entrance.

The applicant worked with staff to refine the design of the building to be compatible with the existing develo pment pattern and scale of existing buildings within the immediate context of the subject project. The G Street elevation is narrow and is compatible with the existing lot widths on G Street at approximately 40 feet wide.

The massing is further narrowed wi th a protruding vertical element in plaster with wall recessed to the rear clad in horizontal metal siding to provide a material that is consistent, but not the same as the narrow wood siding on the landmark residential structure to the west.

The 15th Street elevation is a long building that has a rhythmic pattern of massing, fenestrations, and architectural details. The massing is broken up with reduced height elements on the north and south corners of the building, varying materials on vertical architectural elements, plane changes to create shadows and a strong brick building base on the first story. The widths between the plan changes and of the architectural elements was inspired by the 40-foot lot widths that are consistent in the historic district.

on the southeast corner of the building with a wraparound balcony. The elevations of the east side of the building appear to have balconies; however, these are flush mounted safety railings for the sliding glass doors.

The project site is located within the Traditional parking district and is located within 0.25 miles of a planned light rail station. Pursuant to SCC section 17.608.020.G, there are no off-street vehicle parking requirements for any of the proposed uses because the building is within 0.25 miles of a light rail station. In addition, the project is subject to AB 2097, which prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project (as defined by AB 2097) located within 0.5 miles of public transit. The project does not provide any on - site or off-site vehicular parking.

Bicycle parking standards for commercial uses require one long -term bicycle parking space per 10,000 square feet or two spaces, whichever is greater, and one short-term bicycle parking space per 2,000 square feet or two spaces, whichever is greater. Bicycle parking standards for multi -unit dwellings without private garages or dedicated storage space require one long -term bicycle parking space for every two dwelling units, and a minimum of one short -term bicycle parking space per 10 dwel ling units. The project provides 22 long-term bike storage spaces and 10 short-term rack spaces will be located on the sidewalk fronting the building. As shown in Table 3, both the nonresidential and residential components of the project comply with the established standards.

The site is adjacent to the R -3A-SPD zone and is subject to the transitional height standards established in SCC section 17.444.090.D.3. The HDP also establishes a height standard of not more than 150% of the height of surrounding contributing resource structures. The building exceeds both of the established height standards and the applicant has requested deviations, which are discussed in a following subsection of this report.

Deviations – Height

The Central City SPD identifies height limitations based on location and establishes transitional height limitations (SCC section 17.444.090.D.3). The height limit for any building or portion of building within 39 feet of an R-1, R-1B, R-2, or R-3A zone is 45 feet.

The proposed building is adjacent to the R-3A-SPD zone on the west side of the building on the rear northern half of the lot and is across Fat Alley from the R-3A-SPD zone. The rear portion of the building adjacent to the western property line en croaches into the 45- foot height limit for 30 feet of the 39 -foot limit at a height of 48 feet, where 45 feet is allowed. The northern portion of the building adjacent to Fat Alley encroaches into the transitional height limit for a distance of 25 feet of the 39-foot limit at a height of 48 feet where 45 feet is allowed. The design of the building provides for 18 foot, second and third stories to provide for loft style apartments. The three-foot height deviation allows for a denser development and more interior living space with a compact footprint for each unit, utilizing vertical space rather than a larger footprint.

Staff supports the deviation from transitional height standards (established by the Central City SPD) as the dwellings will provide a larger interior living space for a dense residential development that is compatible with the policies of the General Plan as described under the Policy Considerations section of this report and the facades are designed to reduce the ap parent height and mas of the building, meeting the purpose and intent of the standard to reduce potentially negative impacts associated with excessively tall structures.

The second requested deviation is established by Old Washington School Historic District-specific standards and criteria and limits the height of infill development to 150% of “surrounding contributing buildings.” There are two contributing residential resources adjacent to the subject site on G Street , one of which is a landmark building (1425 G Street). The residential building at 1425 G Street (which is immediately adjacent to the project site) is 26.5 feet in plate height (150% of which is 39.75 feet) and the residential building at 1421 G Street is 31.5 feet (150% of which is 47.25 feet) . The application requests a height of 48 feet which is 0.75 feet above 1421 G Street and 8.25 feet above 1425 G Street plate heights.

The Old Washington School Historic District is a large district and includes buildings that are taller than the buildings referenced in the height analysis (1421 and 1425 G Street), therefore, when evaluating the height deviation of a maximum of 8.25 feet it would not result in a building that is out of scale of the larger historic district context. Staff supports the deviation from the Old Washington School HDP standard because the proposed height meets the purpose and intent of the 150% of contributing resources height limit because is the deviation request will not result in a building that would detract from or be detrimental to the integrity of the historic district character. Further, the project is consistent and compatible with and complements the surrounding historic district.

Income-Restricted Dwelling Units

There are eight studio units on the ground floor that are all designated as below -market rate housing at the low-income level that are provided pursuant to the General Plan Policy LU1.1.10, as discussed in the Policy Considerations section. To ensure the affordability of these units, a condition of approval has been imposed requiring that these units be monitored for a period of 55 years to maintain the benefit to the community for a meaningful amount of time. While these units are not density bonus units, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) has agreed to enter an agreement with the property owner to maintain these units for affordable housing tenants at the low -income level, or 80% of AMI. SHRA has provided a draft agreement to be executed by the property owner and will run with the land for a period of 55 years (see Attachment 11).

The agreement is in draft form until it is signed by all parties.

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Date Adopted

DETERMINING PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

FOR THE GRACE REZONE AND MIXED-USE PROJECT
(002-0165-025 AND -015) (P21-032)

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO:

BACKGROUND

A. On May 17, 2023, the Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code chapter 17.812, received and considered evidence concerning the Project, and forwarded to the Planning and Design Commission and City Council a recommendation to approve the Project.

B. On May 25 , 2023 , the Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code chapter

17.812, received and considered evidence concerning the Project, and forwarded to City Council a recommendation to approve the Project.

C. On , 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code chapter 17.812, and received and considered evidence concerning the Project.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the determination and recommendation of the City’s Environmental Planning Services Manager and the oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the project, the City Council finds that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21155.4 and CEQA Guidelines section 15182(b) as follows:

1. On April 19, 2018, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (P ublic Resources Code §21000 et seq. (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), and the City of Sacramento environmental guidelines, the City Council approved an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approved the Central City Specific Plan (CCSP).

2. The project is a mixed-use development project within the meaning of PRC section 21155.4(a).

3. The project is located in a transit priority area within the meaning of PRC section 21155.4(a)(1).

4. The project is consistent with the CCSP as required by PRC section 21155.4(a)(2).

5. The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area as set forth in the Sacramento Area Organization of Governments (SACOG) Metropolitan Transit Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which has been accepted by the California Air Resources Board as applicable achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

6. There have been no substantial changes proposed in the specific plan that would require major changes in the CCSP EIR, or changes in the circumstances under which the EIR was prepared or new information that has become available.

Section 2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(3).).

Section 3. Upon approval of the Project, the Planning Director shall file or cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption with the Sacramento County Clerk and, if the project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to section 21152(a) of the Public Resources Code and the State EIR Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.

Section 4. Pursuant to Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proc eedings upon which Staff has based its decision, including the previously -certified EIR, are located in and may be obtained from, the Community Development Department at 300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95811.

Section 5. Exhibits A and B are part of this resolution.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: SACOG MTP/SCS Consistency Letter
Exhibit B: Resolution 2018-00129 Certifying the CCSP EIR & MMP September 19, 2022

Ron Bess, Associate Planner
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd
Sacramento, CA 95811

Re: MTP/SCS Consistency for the Grace Project

Dear Mr. Bess:

You requested SACOG’s confirmation that the proposed Grace Project is consistent with the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) and is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA), pursuant to PRC § 21155.4.

SACOG provides a consistency determination at the request of the lead agency.

However, it is the responsibility of the lead agency to make the final determination on a project’s consistency with the MTP/SCS. This letter concurs with the City’s determination that the Grower’s District Project is consistent with the MTP/SCS and is located within a TPA. SACOG reviewed the project description and SCS consistency analysis compared to the MTP/SCS assumptions for the project area in order to make our determination.

The Grace Project is located at 620 15
th Street in the City of Sacramento. The Project
proposes a 3-story 25,929 square foot mixed use building with 32 residential units on 2 parcels totaling 0.22 acres. The project is located within a Transit Priority Area, pursuant to PRC § 21155.4. Transit Priority Areas are areas of the region within one-half mile of a major transit stop existing or planned (if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Regional Transportation Plan adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations). The Project site is within ½ mile from multiple light rail stations on Sacramento Regional Transit’s Blue Line, which qualify as major transit stops. The Project’s proximity to these stations demonstrate that the project site is within a TPA.

The Grace Project is an infill project within the Center/Corridor Community designation of the MTP/SCS for the City of Sacramento. Within the Center/Corridor Community, the MTP/SCS forecasts a range of low to high density residential, commercial, office, and industrial uses (MTP/SCS Appendix D). The project’s land uses fall within this range of general uses, densities, and building intensities. The MTP/SCS also relies heavily on consistency with the City’s General Plan. Infill projects that are consistent with the General Plan are generally considered consistent with the MTP/SCS. Therefore, development at the proposed densities is consistent with the build out assumptions for the area within this community type of the MTP/SCS.

With respect to consistency with the MTP/SCS policies, the applicable policies are embedded in the metrics and growth forecast assumptions of the MTP/SCS. For the

RESOLUTION NO. 2018-00129
Adopted by the
Sacramento City Council
April 19, 2018
Certify
ing the Environmental Impact Report and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Central City Specific Plan (LR16-006)

BACKGROUND
A. On March 8, 2018,
the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing on the Central City Specific Plan at which it reviewed and considered the Environmental Impact Report for the projects and passed a motion to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the project.

B. On April 19, 2018,
the City Council conducted a public hearing that was noticed in accordance with Sacramento City Code sections 17.812.010 and 17.812.030 at which it received and considered oral testimony and other evidence concerning the Central City Specific Plan.

BASED ON THE

FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. T he
City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report for the Central City Specific Plan (herein EIR), which consists of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (Response to Comments) (collectively the “EIR”) has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures.

Section 2. The
City Council certifies that the EIR was prepared, published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures.

Section 3. The
City Council certifies that the EIR has been presented to it, that the City Council has reviewed the EIR and has considered the information contained in the EIR prior to acting on the proposed project, and that the EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
1 of 83

Section 4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its approval of the projects, the City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of approval of the project as set forth in the attached Exhibit A of this Resolution.

Section 5. Pur
suant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and in support of its approval of the projects, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Plan to require all reasonably feasible mitigation measures be implemented by means of the projects’ conditions, agreements, or other measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) as set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution. In case of conflict between the MMP and the mitigation measures described in Exhibit A, the MMP shall control.

Section 6. Th
e City Council directs that, upon adoption of approvals for the projects, the City Manager shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of Sacramento County and with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Section 21152.

Section 7. Pur
suant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from the Office of the City Clerk at 915 I Street, Sacramento, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

Table of Contents
:

Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Central City Specific Plan
Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Central City Specific Plan Adopted by the Cit
y of Sacramento City Council on April 19, 2018, by the following vote:

Ayes: Members
Ashby, Carr, Guerra, Hansen, Harris, Jennings, Schenirer and Mayor Steinberg
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: Member W
arren
Attest:

The presence of an el
ectronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the Sacramento City Council.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
2 of 83
City Clerk
May 09, 2018
Exhibit A
CEQA Findi
ngs of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Sacramento Central City Specific Plan Description of the Project
The Sacramento Central City Specific Plan (CCSP) is designed to facilitate future development within the City of Sacramento’s central core to create a vibrant downtown where people can live, work, and play. The CCSP seeks to implement the vision articulated in the Sacramento 2035 General Plan, including the Central City Community Plan (CCCP), customizing the planning process and land use regulations to the unique characteristics of the Central City. Subsequent development projects, zoning regulations, public improvements, and related activities within the CCSP area would be required to be consistent with the CCSP.

The overall goal of the Central City Specific Plan (CCSP) is the orderly and systematic development and integration of housing within the CCSP area that is compatible with site characteristics and consistent with the City’s goals and policies.

The proposed CCSP includes the following aspects:
• The CCSP seeks to encourage future growth in the city within existing urbanized areas, and the central business district, to foster infill development, as well as encourage density of development and integration of housing with commercial, office, and entertainment uses to foster increased pedestrian and bicycling, and use of public transportation, to reduce automobile use.
• Accommodation of growth within the CCSP area that protects important environmental resources as well as ensures long-term economic sustainability and health, and equity or social wellbeing for the entire community.
• Develop varied and unique housing options that appeal to a wide range of residents and reflect the diversity of Sacramento.
• Facilitate creation of new places to live in Downtown consistent with the City’s Downtown Housing Initiative and general plan.

The proposed CCSP was developed in accordance with the Downtown Housing Initiative, which is intended to facilitate development of at least 10,000 new places to live in Downtown Sacramento over the next ten years. For the purposes of the Downtown Housing Initiative, Downtown includes the Railyards and River District Specific Plan areas. Although the proposed CCSP allows for increased opportunities for development, it is anticipated that the actual amount of development that would occur over the next 20 years would be generally Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
3 of 83

consistent wi
th what has been assumed to occur over that timeframe under the Sacramento 2035 General Plan. It is anticipated up to 13,401 new housing units, approximately 3.8 million square feet (sf) of new non-residential uses, and 750 hotel rooms would be built in the CCSP area. There would also be an additional

3.3 million sf of backfill non-residential development, which includes new uses that would occur within existing buildings and, in turn, allow for a total development potential of 7.1 million sf of non-residential uses when combined with the new growth. It is assumed that most of the new housing units projected in the CCSP area would be multifamily units.

Findings Requi
red Under CEQA

1. Procedural Findings
The City Council of the City of Sacramento finds as follows:

The Draft EIR for the City of Sacramento’s Central City Specific Plan (CCSP) (SCH # 2017022048) was prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of Sacramento environmental guidelines, as follows:
a. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was filed with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and each responsible and trustee agency and was circulated for public comments from February 15, 2017 through March 17, 2017.
b. A public scoping meeting was held on March 2, 2017, at Sacramento City Hall, 915 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, to request the public’s input on the scope and content of the environmental information that should be addressed in the Draft EIR.
c. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the OPR on September 22, 2017, and to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the plan, or which exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the plan, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies were sought.
d. An official 45-day public review and comment period for the Draft EIR was established by the OPR. The official OPR public comment period began on September 22, 2017 and ended on November 8, 2017.
e. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was mailed on September 22, 2017 to all interested groups, organizations, and individuals who had previously requested notice in writing. The NOA stated that the City of Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
4 of 83

Sacramento had comp
leted the Draft EIR and that copies were available at the City of Sacramento, Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor, Sacramento, California, 95811, and on the City’s website.

The letter also indicated that the official 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR would end on November 8, 2017.
f. A public notice was placed in the City’s official newspaper, the Daily Recorder, on September 22, 2017, which stated that the Draft EIR was available for public review and comment.
g. A public notice was posted in the office of the Sacramento County Clerk on September 22, 2017.
h. The NOA and Draft EIR were published on the City’s website at http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-
Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports.
i. An informational open house was held on October 9, 2017, at Sacramento City Hall, 915 I Street, Sacramento, California, 95814, to inform the public of key analyses and conclusions reached in the Draft EIR. j. Following closure of the public comment period, all comments received on the Draft EIR during the comment period, the City’s written responses to the significant environmental points raised in those comments, and additional information added by the City were added to the Draft EIR to produce the Final EIR.
k. The Final EIR was made available for public review and published on the City’s website at
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-
Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports.
l. Notices w ere mailed to all federal and state agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR. The notice sent to each agency included that agency’s comment letter and proposed response to the comment letter. m. In certifying the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the Final EIR does not add significant new information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA because the Final EIR contains no information revealing (1) any new significant environmental impact that would result from the proposed plan or from a new or revised mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, (2) any substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact, (3) any feasible project alternative or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the plan but that was rejected by the City, or (4) that the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Instead, the modifications are either environmentally benign or Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
5 of 83

environmentall
y neutral, and thus represent the kinds of changes that commonly occur as the environmental review process works towards its conclusion. The City Council hereby determines, based on the standards provided in section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required.

2. Record of Proceedings
The contents of the record of proceedings shall be as set forth in subdivision (e) of Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings:
a. The Draft and Final EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference therein;
b. The City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan adopted March 3, 2015, and all updates;
c. The Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan certified on March 3, 2015, and all updates; d. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Adoption of the Sacramento 2035 General Plan adopted March 3, 2015, and all updates;
e. Planning and Development Code of the City of Sacramento, as amended as of the date of this Resolution;
f. Blueprint Preferred Scenario for 2050, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), December 2004;
g. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG)
Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainability Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), February 2016;
h. The Central City Specific Plan, January 2018;
i. Central City Special Planning District, January 2018; and j. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the CCSP.
k. All records of decision, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits, letters, synopses of meetings, and other documents approved, reviewed, relied upon, or prepared by any City commissions, boards, officials, consultants, or staff relating to the Project; and
l. Any other materials required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, or other applicable law, to be included in the record of proceedings.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
6 of 83

3. Findings
CE
QA req
uires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Mitigation measures or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, sub. (a), (b).)
Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines section 15364 includes another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
The conc
ept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 (City of Del Mar).) “[F]easibility” under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715 (Sequoyah Hills); see also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [after weighing “‘economic, environmental, social, and technological factors’ ... ‘an agency may conclude that a mitigation measure or alternative is impracticable or undesirable from a policy standpoint and reject it as infeasible on that ground’”].) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are identified that are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, sub. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, sub. (b).)
In seeking to effectuate the substantive policy of CEQA to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent feasible, an agency, in adopting findings, need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed CCSP with significant impacts. Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an “acceptable” level solely by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative that could also Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
7 of 83

substantiall
y lessen or avoid that same impact — even if the alternative would render the impact less severe than would the proposed CCSP as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.

Regents of the University of California (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)
In these Findings, the City first addresses the extent to which each significant environmental effect can be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Only after determining that, even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, an effect is significant and unavoidable does the City address the extent to which alternatives described in the EIR are (i) environmentally superior with respect to that effect and (ii) “feasible” within the meaning of CEQA.

In the Statement of Overriding Considerations found at the end of these Findings, the City identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that, in its judgment, outweigh the significant environmental effects that the projects will cause.

The California Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (Goleta II) (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.)
In support of its approval of the plan, the City Council’s findings are set forth below for each of the potentially significant environmental effects and alternatives of the Projects identified in the EIR pursuant to Section 21080 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.

These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, a full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final EIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the determination regarding the impacts of the Projects and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

As set forth below, the City Council adopts and incorporates all the mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR and the attached MMP to substantially lessen Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
8 of 83

or avoid the poten
tially significant and significant impacts of the Projects. The City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures proposed in the Final EIR to reduce or eliminate significant impacts resulting from the Project.

Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final EIR has inadvertently been omitted in these findings or the MMP, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference.

In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in these findings or the MMP fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the policies and implementation measures, as set forth in the Final EIR shall control. The impact numbers and mitigation measure numbers used in these findings reflect the information contained in the Final EIR.

A. Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant and Thus Requiring No Mitigation.

Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding, the City Council finds that implementation of the projects will not result in any significant impacts in the following areas and that these impact areas, therefore, do not require mitigation.

Aesthetics, Light and Glare

4.1-1: The proposed CCSP could have a substantial adverse effect on an existing scenic resource or degrade the view of an important, existing scenic resource, as seen from a visually sensitive public location. (p. 4.1- 35)

4.1-2: The proposed CCSP could substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the CCSP area and its surroundings. (p. 4.1-40)

4.1-3: The proposed CCSP could create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. (p. 4.1-42)

4.1-4: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative impacts on scenic resources or degrade the views of an important, existing scenic resource, as seen from visually sensitive public locations. (p. 4.1-44) Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
9 of 83

4.1-5: Impleme
ntation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute substantial cumulative degradation of the existing visual character or quality in the vicinity. (p. 4.1- 46)

4.1-6: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative sources of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. (p. 4.1-46) Air Quality

4.2-1: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. (p. 4.2-19)

4.2-4: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could result in a significant increase in CO concentrations. (p. 4.2-28)

4.2-5 (Construction): Implementation of the proposed CCSP could result in short-term and long-term exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants. (p. 4.2-29) However, impacts associated to short term exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants would be less-than-significant, these impacts would be further reduced with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(b), which states:

4.2-2(b)
Prior to the issuance of a demolition or building permit for major development projects in the CCSP area, each project shall be screened for construction emissions based on the then-current screening criteria established by the SMAQMD. If the project emissions fall within the limit of the screening criteria no further action is required.

If the project exceeds the screening criteria the applicant shall model emissions for the project. If the emissions fall below the thresholds of significance for construction air emissions no further action is required.

If the air emissions model reflects emissions above the thresholds for construction emissions, the applicant shall mitigate such emissions consistent with applicable rules and procedures of the SMAQMD and City of Sacramento. This includes the following:

The applicant shall include on all grading or improvement plans the following SMAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices:

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
10 of 83

• Provide a com
prehensive 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 proposed CCSP to the City and the SMAQMD. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. The construction contractor shall provide the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. This information shall be submitted at least four business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the proposed CCSP, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs.
• Provide a plan in conjunction with the equipment inventory, approved by the SMAQMD, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (50 horsepower or more) 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. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after- treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. • Emissions from all off-road diesel-powered equipment used on the project site shall 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 the City and SMAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of non-compliant 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 measure shall supersede other SMAQMD or state rules or regulations.
• If at the time of granting of each building permit, the SMAQMD has adopted a regulation applicable to construction emissions, compliance with the regulation may completely or partially replace this mitigation. Consultation with the SMAQMD prior to construction will be necessary to make this determination.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
11 of 83

The applicant s
hall include the following SMAQMD Fugitive Dust Control Practices on all grading or improvement plans:
• Water exposed soil with adequate frequency for continued moist soil.
• Suspend excavation, grading, and/or demolition activity when wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Install wind breaks (e.g., plant trees, solid fencing) on windward side(s) of construction areas.
• Plant vegetative ground cover (fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible. Water appropriately until vegetation is established.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Treat site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6- to 12-inch layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel to reduce generation of road dust and road dust carryout onto public roads. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the District shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

The applicant shall estimate and quantify the construction emissions of NOx. The applicant shall pay into the SMAQMD’s construction mitigation fund to offset construction-generated emissions of NOx that exceed SMAQMD’s daily emission threshold of 85 ppd. The applicants shall keep track of actual equipment use and their NOx emissions so that mitigation fees can be adjusted accordingly for payment to the SMAQMD.

4.2-6: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could create objectionable odors. (p. 4.2-32)

4.2-9: The proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative increases in CO concentrations. (p. 4.2-35)
Biological Resources
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
12 of 83

4.3-1: Devel
opment pursuant to the proposed CCSP could result in the loss of potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. (p. 4.3-46)

4.3-3: Projects developed under the CCSP could result in impacts to special-status fish species and degradation of designated critical habitat. (p. 4.3-49)

4.3-5: Projects developed under the proposed CCSP could remove habitat for the western pond turtle. (p. 4.3-54)

4.3-7: Projects constructed under the proposed CCSP could result in impacts to special-status plant species. (p. 4.3-56)

4.3-9: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could result in interruption of contiguous habitat which would interfere substantially with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, migratory corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (p. 4.3-59)

4.3-12: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative impacts to special-status fish species and degradation of designated critical habitat. (p. 4.3-62)

4.3-16: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to the cumulative loss of locally protected trees. (p. 4.3-65)
Cultural Resources

4.4-3: The proposed CCSP could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5. (p. 4.4-34)

4.4-5: New construction in proposed CCSP area, in combination with other cumulative development within Sacramento County and the City downtown core, could contribute to the cumulative loss or alteration of historic built resources. (p. 4.4-36)
Energy Demand and Conservation
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
13 of 83

4.5-1: The proposed CCS
P would increase demand for energy, specifically
electricity and natural gas, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (p. 4.5-10)

4.5-2: The proposed CCSP could result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. (p. 4.5-11)

4.5-3: The proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for energy. (p. 4.5-14)
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

4.6-1: The proposed CCSP could introduce either geologic or seismic hazards by allowing the construction of the project on a site without protection against those hazards. (p. 4.6-20)

4.6-2: The proposed CCSP could expose people to risk associated with unstable soil conditions, including expansive soils and subsidence. (p. 4.6- 21)

4.6-3: The proposed CCSP would allow development that could result in substantial soil erosion. (p. 4.6-22)

4.6-4: The proposed CCSP could directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (p. 4.6-22)

4.6-5: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative increases in the number of people exposed to seismic and geologic risks. (p. 4.6-23)

4.6-6: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative increases in the number of people exposed to seismic and geologic risks. (p. 4.6-24) Global Climate Change
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
14 of 83

4.7-1: Impleme
ntation of the proposed CCSP could conflict with the City of Sacramento’s Climate Action Plan. (p. 4.7-18)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8-2: Development pursuant to the proposed CCSP could expose people to asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint, PCBs, or other hazardous building materials or situations during demolition or renovation activities. (p. 4.8-19)

4.8-3: Development pursuant to the proposed CCSP could expose people to contaminated groundwater during construction or dewatering activities. (p. 4.8-20)

4.8-4: The proposed CCSP could increase the risk of exposure of site occupants to inadvertent or accidental releases of hazardous substances transported on adjacent roadways or rail lines near the site. (p. 4.8-23)

4.8-5: Development pursuant to the proposed CCSP could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (p. 4.8-24)

4.8-6: Development pursuant to the proposed CCSP could interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (p. 4.8- 25)

4.8-8: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative impacts by exposing people to asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint, PCBs, or other hazardous materials or situations during demolition or renovation activities. (p. 4.8-26)

4.8-9: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could expose people to contaminated groundwater during construction or dewatering activities. (p. 4.8-27)

4.8-10: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could increase the risk of exposure of site Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
15 of 83

occupants to i
nadvertent or accidental releases of hazardous substances transported on adjacent roadways or rail lines near the site. (p. 4.8-28)

4.8-11: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (p. 4.8-29)

4.8-12: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (p. 4.8-29) Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9-1: The proposed CCSP could degrade water quality during construction. (p. 4.9-18)

4.9-2: Operation of the proposed CCSP could generate new sources of polluted runoff. (p. 4.9-20)

4.9-3: The proposed CCSP could expose people or property to an increased risk of flood hazards. (p. 4.9-21)

4.9-4: The proposed CCSP could adversely affect groundwater supplies, groundwater quality, and/or interfere with groundwater recharge. (p. 4.9-22)

4.9-5: The proposed CCSP could contribute to the cumulative degradation of water quality. (p. 4.9-23)

4.9-6: The proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative increases in the risk of flooding. (p. 4.9-23)

4.9-7: The proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative impact on groundwater supplies, quality, and recharge. (p. 4.9-24) Noise and Vibration
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
16 of 83

4.10-3: The opera
tion of development allowed under the proposed CCSP
could result in residential interior noise levels of 45 dBA Ldn or greater. (p.

4.10-26)

4.10-7: Implementation of the proposed CCSP would contribute to cumulative increases in residential interior noise levels of 45 dBA Ldn or greater. (p. 4.10-38)
Public Services

4.11-1: The proposed CCSP would increase demand for police protection services within the City of Sacramento. (p. 4.11-7)

4.11-2: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development in the City of Sacramento, would contribute to cumulative increase in the demand for police protection services. (p. 4.11- 8)

4.11-3: The proposed CCSP would increase the demand for fire protection services. (p. 4.11-16)

4.11-4: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development within the boundaries of the City of Sacramento, would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for fire protection services. (p. 4.11-18)

4.11-5: The proposed CCSP would generate additional students in Sacramento City Unified School District. (p. 4.11-29)

4.11-6: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in student enrollment in Sacramento City Unified School District. (p. 4.11-30)

4.11-7: The proposed CCSP could cause existing parks within the CCSP area to physically deteriorate, requiring additional parks to be constructed. (p. 4.11-44)
Transportation
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
17 of 83

4.12-1: The propose
d CCSP could increase Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
(p. 4.12-44)

4.12-2: The proposed CCSP could worsen intersection operations. (p. 4.12- 50)

4.12-4: The proposed CCSP could worsen freeway off-ramp queueing. (p.

4.12-59)

4.12-5: The proposed CCSP could impact pedestrian facilities. (p. 4.12-60)

4.12-6: The proposed CCSP could impact transit facilities. (p. 4.12-61)

4.12-7: The proposed CCSP could impact bicycle facilities. (p. 4.12-64)

4.12-8: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT). (p. 4.12-65)

4.12-9: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative impacts to intersection operations. (p. 4.12-66)

4.12-11: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative impacts to freeway off-ramp queueing. (p. 4.12-77)

4.12-12: The proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could impact pedestrian facilities. (p. 4.12-78)

4.12-13: The proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could impact transit facilities. (p. 4.12-79)

4.12-14: The proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could impact bicycle facilities. (p. 4.12-81) Utilities
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
18 of 83

4.13-2: The propos
ed CCSP would increase demand for wastewater
treatment. (p. 4.13-12)

4.13-4: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for wastewater treatment capacity at the SRWWTP. (p. 4.13-14)

4.13-5: The proposed CCSP would increase demand for potable water. (p.

4.13-29)

4.13-6: The proposed CCSP could require additional water conveyance and treatment. (p. 4.13-30)

4.13-8 (incorrectly referenced as 4.11-8 in Table S-1): Implementation of the proposed CCSP would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water conveyance in the vicinity of the CCSP areas. (p. 4.13-36)

4.13-9: The collection or disposal of additional solid waste generated under the proposed CCSP would result in adverse physical environmental effects. (p. 4.13-41)

4.13-10: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in solid waste. (p. 4.13-43)
B. Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level.

The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the projects, including cumulative impacts, are being mitigated to a less-than- significant level and are set out below. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, as to each such impact, the City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, finds that changes or alterations incorporated into the projects by means of conditions or otherwise, mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen to a level of insignificance these significant or potentially significant environmental impacts of the projects. The basis for the finding for each identified impact is set forth below.

Aesthetics, Light and Glare
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
19 of 83

No potential imp
acts to Aesthetics, Light and Glare were evaluated in the Draft EIR as having a potentially significant impact conclusion and requiring mitigation.

Air Quality

4.2-2: Construction of development under the proposed CCSP could result in short-term emissions of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. (p. 4.2-21) Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-2(a)
For any development project within the CCSP area that would involve excavation, grading, or site preparation that would expose soil, the applicant shall comply with all applicable Rules of the Sacramento Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and shall include the required SMAQMD Basic Construction Emission Control Practices on all grading or improvement plans.

The applicant shall include on all grading or improvement plans the following SMAQMD Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices:
• Provide 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 proposed CCSP to the City and the SMAQMD. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine model year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. The construction Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
20 of 83

contractor shal
l provide the anticipated construction timeline
including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman. This information shall be submitted at least four business days prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the proposed CCSP, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs.
• Provide a plan in conjunction with the equipment inventory, approved by the SMAQMD, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (50 horsepower or more) 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. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after- treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. • Emissions from all off-road diesel-powered equipment used on the project site shall 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 the City and SMAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of non-compliant 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 measure shall supersede other SMAQMD or state rules or regulations.
• If at the time of granting of each building permit, the SMAQMD has adopted a regulation applicable to construction emissions, compliance with the regulation may completely or partially replace this mitigation. Consultation with the SMAQMD prior to construction will be necessary to make this determination.

The applicant shall include the following SMAQMD Fugitive Dust Control Practices on all grading or improvement plans:
• Water exposed soil with adequate frequency for continued moist soil.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
21 of 83

• Suspend excav
ation, grading, and/or demolition activity when wind
speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Install wind breaks (e.g., plant trees, solid fencing) on windward side(s) of construction areas.
• Plant vegetative ground cover (fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible. Water appropriately until vegetation is established.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Treat site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6- to 12-inch layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel to reduce generation of road dust and road dust carryout onto public roads. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the District shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

Finding: With implementation of the above mitigation measures, fugitive dust would be controlled, exhaust emissions would be reduced on-site, and mitigation fees would be provided to SMAQMD for project NOx emissions that exceed the SMAQMD significance threshold. SMAQMD uses the fees to fund off-site projects and programs that would offset the project’s NOx emissions.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.
4 4.2-7: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative increases in short-term (construction) emissions. (p. 4.2-33) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
22 of 83

4.2-7
Implement
Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a) and (b).

Finding: With implementation of the above mitigation measure for the proposed CCSP, cumulative increases in short-term (construction) emissions would be reduced. Fugitive dust would be controlled, exhaust emissions would be reduced on-site, and mitigation fees would be provided to SMAQMD for project NOx emissions that exceed the SMAQMD significance threshold.

SMAQMD uses the fees to fund off-site projects and programs that would offset the project’s NOx emissions. Although cumulative NOx emissions in the SVAB would be significant due to existing violations in the region, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a) and (b) the proposed CCSP contributions would be reduced to a level that would result in a less-than-considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Biological Resources

4.3-2: Development under the proposed CCSP could result in the loss of potential nesting habitat for special-status bird species and other sensitive and/or protected bird species. (p. 4.3-47)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-2(a)
For projects proposed to be constructed in the CCSP area that have trees onsite or trees immediately adjacent to the project site (including within a planter strip), the applicant shall conduct a nesting bird survey to determine whether there are nesting special-status birds present. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 14 days of construction activities. If nesting birds are present during the survey, then the applicant shall notify the City’s Planning Director and proceed as follows:
1) The applicant shall conduct any tree removal activities required for project construction outside of the migratory bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31) where feasible.
2) All trees slated for removal during the nesting season shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48-hours before removal to ensure that no nesting birds are occupying the tree.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
23 of 83

3) Depending on condit
ions specific to each nest, and the relative location
and rate of construction activities, it may be feasible for construction to occur as planned without impacting the breeding season. In this case (to be determined on an individual basis), the nest(s) shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during excavation and other outdoor construction that involves the use of heavy equipment. If, in the professional opinion of the monitor, the construction activities associated with that part of construction activities would impact the nest, the monitor shall immediately inform the construction manager and the applicant shall notify the City’s Planning Director. The construction manager shall stop construction activities that have the potential to adversely affect the nest until the nest is no longer active.

Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified biologist. If construction begins outside of the migratory bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31), then the applicant is permitted to continue construction activities through the breeding season. 4) The applicant shall maintain a 100-ft buffer around each active purple martin nest. No construction activities are permitted within this buffer. 5) For other migratory birds, a no-work buffer zone shall be established around the active nest in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The no-work buffer may vary depending on species and site-specific conditions as determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

4.3-2(b)
For projects proposed to be constructed in the CCSP area that would include the use of off-road vehicles during project construction, the applicant shall conduct a survey for Swainson’s hawk nests, the survey shall be of all trees within 500 feet of the project site which has a 24-inch minimum diameter at breast height. The survey distance may be decreased based on type of construction and whether heavy construction equipment would be used. The applicant may ask the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for a reduced survey distance and/or reduced buffer area. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (2000). If active Swainson’s hawk nests or other raptors’ nests are found during the survey performed under Mitigation Measure

4.3-2(a), construction activities shall not be permitted on those portions of the project site within 500 feet of the active nest during the Swainson’s hawk breeding season (March 1 – September 15).

4.3-2(c)
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
24 of 83

For projects
proposed within suitable habitat for burrowing owl (in
particular for projects proposed in annual grassland habitat occurring in the northeast part of the CCSP area as shown in Figure 4.3-1 in the EIR, and areas adjacent to Sutter’s Landing Park that have not been developed), the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls in accordance with guidance from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a), (b), and (c) would reduce impacts to nesting birds by requiring preconstruction surveys to identify any nesting birds, and if found, observing no-disturbance zones around nest sites, and therefore would reduce the impact to nesting birds during construction of development under the proposed CCSP to a less-than-significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-4: Projects proposed under the CCSP could result in removal of habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. (p. 4.3-52)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-1 in the EIR), the applicant shall conduct surveys prior to construction for the presence of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its elderberry host plant by a qualified biologist in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. If elderberry plants with stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater are not identified, no further mitigation is required.

4.3-4(b)
If elderberry plants with one or more stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level occur on or adjacent to and within 100 feet of ground disturbing activities (shrub’s dripline is within 100 feet of construction activities or site), or are otherwise located where they may be directly or indirectly affected by the project, minimization and compensation measures, which include transplanting existing shrubs and planting replacement habitat (conservation plantings) are required (see below). Surveys are valid for a period of two years. Elderberry plants with no stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level are unlikely to be habitat for the beetle because of their small size and/or Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
25 of 83

immaturity
. Therefore, no minimization measures are required for removal of elderberry plants with all stems measuring 1.0 inch or less in diameter at ground level.

4.3-4(c)
For shrubs with stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater, the applicant shall ensure that elderberry shrubs within 100 feet of ground disturbing activities be protected and/or compensated for (if affected by construction activities) in accordance with the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ (USFWS) Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle and the Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office.”
Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-4(a), (b), and (c), elderberry shrubs would be protected and any shrubs that require removal would be compensated for. As a result, the proposed CCSP would not cause a reduction in VELB habitat. Thus, impacts to VELB from implementation of the proposed CCSP would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-6: Projects developed under the proposed CCSP could result in impacts to special-status bat species. (p. 4.3-54)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-6
If a project would result in the removal of large, mature trees within the riparian areas along the Sacramento or American rivers as shown on Figure 4.3-1 of the EIR or the removal of an unsealed, open to the elements, vacant building, and construction activities commence on the project site during the breeding season of special-status bat species (May 1 to August 31), then a field survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether active roosts are present on site or within 100 feet of the project boundaries prior to the commencement of construction activities. Field surveys shall be conducted early in the breeding season before any construction activities begin, when bats are establishing maternity roosts but before pregnant females give birth (April through early May). If no roosting bats are found, then no further mitigation is required.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
26 of 83

If roosting b
ats are found, then disturbance of the maternity roosts shall be avoided by halting construction until the end of the breeding season.

Alternatively, a qualified bat biologist may exclude the roosting bats in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, thereby allowing construction to continue after successful exclusion activities.

If the biologist determines that bats could potentially inhabit a building planned for demolition or alteration, and a nighttime survey is necessary, then the biologist may return for an emergence survey.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-6(a), (b), and (c) would minimize potential direct and indirect impacts on maternity roosting bats within the CCSP area by requiring preconstruction surveys to identify any maternity roosting sites within 100 feet of project activities, and if found, observance of no- disturbance zones around those sites. This would reduce impacts to maternity colonies during construction activities to a less-than-significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-8: Projects developed pursuant to the CCSP could result in net reduction of sensitive habitats including protected wetland habitat as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands. (p. 4.3-56)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-8(a)
For projects proposed in areas that contain aquatic habitat which may support wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands (i.e., riparian or riverine areas associated with the Sacramento and American rivers as shown on Figure

4.3-1 in the EIR), the applicant shall conduct a formal aquatic resources delineation within those project sites. The aquatic resources delineation shall be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for verification. If jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, is required.

4.3-8(b)
If jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands are present, the applicant shall avoid them if feasible. The applicant shall minimize disturbances and construction footprints near avoided wetlands and other waters of the Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
27 of 83

U.S., ripar
ian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands to the extent feasible.

4.3-8(c)
If avoidance of wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands are not feasible, then the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no net loss of wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands through compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements.

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-8(a), (b), and (c) there would be no net loss of wetlands and potential indirect impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands would be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. Thus, impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands from implementation of the projects developed under the proposed CCSP would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-10: Implementation of the proposed CCSP could result in removal of protected street trees and conflict with local policies protecting trees. (p.

4.3-60)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-10
For any project within the CCSP area that would remove protected trees as defined by City Code 12.56, the applicant shall submit a tree removal permit application for the removal of protected trees and comply with all conditions of any issued permit.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-10 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the City’s established requirements to avoid or mitigate for the loss of protected trees.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-11: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to the cumulative harm to, or Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
28 of 83

loss of nesti
ng habitat, for nesting habitat for special-status bird species and other sensitive and/or protected bird species. (p. 4.3-61) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-11
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a), 4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-11 and compliance with applicable federal, State, and local policies and regulations, the proposed CCSP’s contribution to the regional cumulative impact on nesting birds and their habitat would be less than considerable, and the impact would be reduced to less than significant.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-13: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. (p. 4.3-63)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-13
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-4(a), 4.3-4(b), and 4.3-4(c).

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-13 and compliance with applicable federal, State, and local policies and regulations, the proposed CCSP’s contribution to the regional cumulative impact on VELB and their habitat would be less than considerable, and this impact would be less than significant.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-14: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to the cumulative loss of habitat, or impacts to bat species. (p. 4.3-64)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
29 of 83

4.3-14
Implement
Mitigation Measure 4.3-6.

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-14, in combination with CDFW riparian vegetation mitigation requirements, the proposed plan’s contribution to cumulative impact on bat species within Sacramento County would be reduced. Project-related disturbance to bat species would be less than considerable contribution to the cumulative loss of bats within Sacramento County, and this impact would be less than significant.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.3-15: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to the cumulative loss of sensitive habitats including protected wetland habitat as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands. (p. 4.3-65)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-15
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-8(a), 4.3-8(b), and 4.3-8(c).

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-15 would mitigate impacts to wetlands, riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands within the CCSP area. This would occur through a combination of restoration/enhancement, and/or purchase of restoration credits to ensure no net loss. By ensuring that projects proposed under the CCSP achieve no net loss of waters of the U.S. or riparian habitat, the contribution of the CCSP to the overall cumulative impact would be less than considerable, and thus the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Energy Demand and Conservation
Finding: No mitigation is required for the identified potential impacts to Energy Demand and Conservation that are evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Geology, Soils and Seismicity
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
30 of 83

Finding: No mitigation is required for the identified potential impacts to Geology, Soils, and Seismicity that are evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Global Climate Change
Finding: No mitigation is required for the identified potential impacts to Global Climate Change that are evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8-1: Development pursuant to the proposed CCSP could expose people to contaminated soil. (p. 4.8-18)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.8-1
If a development site is listed in the Phase I ESA Overview Study as being of moderate or high potential to have a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC), the applicant shall conduct a site specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment during the entitlement process in general accordance with the current version of ASTM 1527 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process prior to construction and shall comply with the recommendations in the report. Recommendations may include guidance on mitigating hazards from encountering contaminated groundwater, including measures related to disturbance of existing treatment systems, drilling, groundwater extraction, or vapor intrusion.

This requirement does not apply to projects in which excavation would extend no deeper than 18 inches, including projects that are limited to installation of a fence, deck, single-family residence, garage or addition to an existing residence (e.g., room addition), shallow landscaping with or without irrigation lines, or other minor site improvements, or replacement of existing facilities (road signs, sidewalks, pipes, etc.) where ground disturbance would occur principally in previously disturbed sediment.

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8 1 listed above, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because the Phase I assessment would identify the presence of potential or actual hazardous materials, which, if identified, would then require further investigation and cleanup in compliance with applicable regulations, if needed.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
31 of 83

With implem
entation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.8-7: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative impacts by exposing people to contaminated soil during construction activities. (p. 4.8- 26)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.8-7
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-1.

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-7, the Phase I assessment would identify the presence of potential or actual contaminated soil, which if identified, would then require further investigation and cleanup in compliance with applicable regulations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.8-7 would reduce the cumulative impacts to less than significant.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Noise and Vibration

4.10-4: Construction of buildings pursuant to the proposed CCSP could expose existing and/or planned buildings, and persons within, to vibration that could disturb people or damage buildings. (p. 4.10-27) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.10-4(a)
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.10-1.

4.10-4(b)
For all projects in the CCSP area that require the use of graders or impact pile drivers:

Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall develop and submit a Vibration Reduction Plan to the City Chief Building Official for approval. The Plan shall include measures that will reduce vibration at surrounding buildings to less than 80 VdB and 83 Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
32 of 83

VdB where peo
ple sleep and work, respectively, and less than 0.25 PPV for historic buildings. Measures and controls shall be identified based on project-specific final design plans, and may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following:
1) Inclusion of buffers and selection of equipment to minimize vibration impacts during construction at nearby receptors in order to meet the specified standards.
2) Implementation of a vibration, crack, and line and grade monitoring program at existing Nationally registered, State listed, and locally recognized historic buildings located within 47 feet of construction activities. The following elements shall be included in this program:
i. Prior to start of construction:

1. The applicant or construction contractor shall install crack gauges on proximate historic structures.
ii. During building construction:

1. The construction contractor shall regularly inspect and photograph crack gauges, maintaining records of these
inspections to be included in post-construction reporting. Gauges shall be inspected every two weeks, or more frequently during periods of active project actions in close proximity to crack gauges.

2. The construction contractor shall collect vibration data from receptors and report vibration levels to the City Chief Building Official on a monthly basis. The reports shall include annotations regarding project activities as necessary to explain changes in vibration levels, along with proposed corrective actions to avoid vibration levels approaching or exceeding the established threshold.

treatment shal
l ensure retention of the historical resource’s
character-defining features. Stabilization may temporarily impair the historic integrity of the building's design, material, or setting, and as such, the stabilization must be conducted in a manner that will not permanently impair a building's ability to convey its significance. Measures to shore or stabilize the building shall be installed in a manner that avoids damage to the historic integrity of the building, including integrity of material.
iii. Post-construction:

1. At the conclusion of vibration generating construction activities, the applicant shall submit a crack and vibration monitoring report to the City Chief Building Official. The report shall include: a narrative summary of the monitoring activities and their findings; photographs illustrating the post-construction state of cracks and material conditions that were presented in the pre-construction assessment report; annotated analysis of vibration data related to project activities; a summary of measures undertaken to avoid vibration impacts; a post-construction line and grade survey; and photographs of other relevant conditions showing the impact, or lack of impact, of project activities. The photographs shall be of sufficient detail to illustrate damage, if any, caused by the project and/or show how the project did not cause physical damage to the historic and non-historic buildings.

2. The applicant shall be responsible for repairs from damage to historic and non-historic buildings if damage is caused by vibration or movement during the demolition and/or construction activities. Repairs may be necessary to address, for example, cracks that expanded as a result of the project, physical damage visible in post-construction assessment, or holes or connection points that were needed for shoring or stabilization. Repairs shall be limited to project impacts and do not apply to general rehabilitation or restoration activities of the buildings. If necessary for historic structures, repairs shall be conducted in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards Treatment of Preservation. The applicant shall provide a work plan for the repairs and a completion report to ensure compliance with the SOI Standards to the City Chief Building Official and City Preservation Director for review and comment.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-4 would ensure that construction activities within the CCSP area would not result in building damage at the nearest historic building structures, and would reduce human disturbance to the extent feasible. Therefore, implementation of Migration Measure 4.10-4(a) Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
34 of 83

and Mitigation
Measure 4.10(b) would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Public Services

4.11-8: The proposed CCSP could result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities or the need for new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for parks and recreation services. (p. 4.11-45) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.11-8
Projects within the CCSP area shall comply with the City’s Quimby and Park Impact Fees (PIF) ordinances.

Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.11-8 would ensure that City park standards reflective of urban residential needs are met through dedication of parks and open space and the payment of in-lieu fees. Consistent with General Plan Policy ERC 2.2.6, this mitigation measure allows the City to consider the urban nature of the CCSP area, as well as the recreational value of project elements that are not typical parks.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.11-9: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in the physical deterioration of existing CCSP area parks, requiring additional parks to be provided. (p. 4.11-46)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.11-8
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.11-8.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
35 of 83

Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.11-9 would ensure that City park standards reflective of urban residential needs are met through dedication of parks and open space and the payment of in-lieu fees. The City would use in-lieu fees from these developments and other residential development projects to fund parks and recreational facilities as needed throughout the community, including regional parks, as indicated by the PRMP and applicable City policies.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.11-10: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in the substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities or the need for new or physically altered parks or recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for parks and recreation services. (p.

4.11-47)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.11-10
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.11-8.

Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.11-10 would ensure that City park standards reflective of urban residential needs are met through dedication of parks and open space and the payment of in-lieu fees. The City would use in-lieu fees from these developments and other residential development projects to fund parks and recreational facilities as needed throughout the community, including regional parks, as indicated by the PRMP and applicable City policies.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Transportation

4.12-3: The proposed CCSP could worsen freeway operations. (p. 4.12-58) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.12-3
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
36 of 83

Each project devel
oped pursuant to the CCSP, and subject to mitigation
measures of the CCSP EIR, that generates more than 100 vehicular AM or PM peak hour trips that are directed toward the highway system shall:
• Remit monetary payment to the I-5 Freeway Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program (SCMP). This remittance shall be completed prior to the issuance of building permits.

OR
• Negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with Caltrans and the City.

Projects in the CCSP area that would be exempt from the implementation of this measure include projects not subject to CEQA (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080(b)), projects that are categorically exempt from CEQA or projects eligible for statutory streamlining including but not limited to qualified housing projects (PRC §§21159.21 and 21159.24), affordable low-income housing projects (PRC §21159.23), and qualifying infill developments (PRC §21094.5 and State CEQA Guidelines §15332), as well as projects that are not required to address specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips generated by the project on the regional transportation network (PRC §21159.28).

Finding: On April 5, 2016, the City approved the I-5 SCMP and certified its Supplemental EIR (SCH #2011012081). The SCMP would reduce auto travel on study area freeways by providing funding towards a diverse list of multimodal transportation improvement projects, including a new bridge across the American River, two new bridges across the Sacramento River, a streetcar system that would serve the study area, and new high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-5.

The SCMP provides the option for development projects to monetarily contribute to the program, which would constitute mitigation for a project’s impacts to the area’s freeway system. To reduce the Plan’s freeway impacts shown in Table

4.12-11, the Plan would participate in the SCMP through Mitigation Measure

4.12-3. As stated in Resolution 2016-0109, certain projects would be exempt from the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Fee Program; projects that are statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA would also be exempt from the fee program. Therefore, the Plan would not have significant impacts to freeway facilities in the area.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
37 of 83

4.12-10: Impl
ementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to cumulative impacts to freeway operations. (p. 4.12-76)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.12-10
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-3.

To reduce the Plan’s freeway impacts shown in Table 4.12 15, the Plan would participate in the SCMP through Mitigation Measure 4.12-3. Therefore, the Plan would not have cumulatively considerable impacts to freeway facilities in the area.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Utilities

4.13-1: The proposed CCSP would discharge additional flows to the City’s sewer and drainage systems, which could exceed existing infrastructure capacity. (p. 4.13-11)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.13-1
The City shall manage wastewater from the CCSP such that it shall not exceed existing CSS capacity by implementing the following methods:
a) Project applicants within the CCSP area shall pay the established CSS mitigation fee.
b) For projects within the CCSP area that require localized upsizing of existing CSS infrastructure for service, applicants shall pay their fair Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
38 of 83

share for improv
ements to upsize or upgrade the CSS
infrastructure. A separate cost sharing agreement may be executed between applicants and the City for this option.

Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 would require the implementation of measures to manage wastewater, drainage and dewatered groundwater flows in a manner that would not exceed existing capacity of the CSS and Basin 52 systems.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.13-3: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for wastewater and stormwater facilities. (p. 4.13-13) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.13-3
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.13-1.

Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.13-3 would fully offset the project contribution to the sewer and wastewater systems by requiring that the applicant construct appropriate facilities to delay discharge of wastewater, groundwater and/or stormwater or pay the applicable fee to the City to make necessary localized or system-wide improvements.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

C. Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts for which Mitigation Measures Are Found To Be Infeasible.

Mitigation measures to mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the project have been identified. However, pursuant to Section 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, as to each such impact and mitigation measure, the City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, specifically finds that the mitigation measures are infeasible. The impact and mitigation measures and the facts supporting the finding of infeasibility of each mitigation measure are set forth below.

Notwithstanding the disclosure of these impacts and the finding of infeasibility, the City Council elects to approve the projects due to the overriding considerations set forth below in Section F, the statement of overriding considerations.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
39 of 83

Air Quality

4.2-3: Development under the proposed CCSP could result in long-term (operational) emissions of NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. (p. 4.10-26)

4.2-8: The proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative increases in long-term (operational) emissions of NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. (p. 4.10- 34)
Finding: No feasible mitigation strategies have been identified to reduce the long-term (operational) emissions of NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5.

For these reasons, mitigation to reduce the long-term (operational) emissions of NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2.5. is infeasible and the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

D. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.

The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, including cumulative impacts, are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would lessen the significant impact to below the level of significance. Notwithstanding disclosure of these impacts, the City Council elects to approve the project due to overriding considerations as set forth below in Section F, the statement of overriding considerations.

Air Quality

4.2-5 (Operation): Implementation of the proposed CCSP could result in short-term and long-term exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants. (p. 4.2-29) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-5
The City shall require implementation of the following mitigation measures as part of approval of any residences in the CCSP area within 500 feet of Business 80, Highway 50 or I-5:
• Locate sensitive receptors as far as possible from Business 80, Highway 50 or I-5.
• Provide vegetative barriers between the source and receptors.

Guidance from the US EPA’s July 2016 Recommendations for Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-Road Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
40 of 83

Air Quality
or Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District Landscaping Guidance for Improving Air Quality near Roadways may be incorporated.

Finding: The evaluation of health risks from TAC represents a local rather than regional analysis. The qualitative discussion in Impact 4.2-5 shows that TACs and resulting health risks produced during construction of the CCSP would result in a less-than-significant impact. Impact 4.2-5 also includes an evaluation of the TAC emissions generated during the operation of the CCSP, which concluded that any sources of onsite TAC emissions would be regulated through the SMAQMD permitting process, and the CCSP’s contribution would be less than significant. However, TAC emissions generated by vehicles on Business 80, Highway 50 and I-5 could adversely affect future residents. The qualitative discussion in Impact 4.2-5 concluded that future proposed residences would be placed within the SMAQMD’s health risk screening distance of 500 feet of Business 80, Highway 50 and I-5 resulting in a significant impact. Portions of the CCSP area are within 500 feet of a freeway, and the CCSP’s contribution to residents’ exposure is cumulatively considerable.

Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 4.2-5 would reduce the exposure of future residents to TAC emissions. However, since residences could be less than 500 feet from Business 80, Highway 50 or I-5, future residents would be exposed to mobile source TAC emissions.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

4.2-10:

Implementation of the proposed CCSP could contribute to cumulative increases in short- and long-term exposures to Toxic Air Contaminants. (p. 4.10-36)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-10
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-5.

discussion in
Impact 4.2-5 concluded that future proposed residences would be placed within the SMAQMD’s health risk screening distance of 500 feet of Business 80, Highway 50 and I-5 resulting in a significant impact. Regionally, there are many residential areas that are adjacent to high volume roadways and freeways, exposing residents to TAC. Portions of the CCSP area are within 500 feet of a freeway, and the CCSP’s contribution to residents’ exposure is cumulatively considerable.

Significance after Mitigation: Mitigation Measure 4.2-10 would reduce the exposure of future residents to TAC emissions. However, since residences could be less than 500 feet from Business 80, Highway 50 or I-5, future residents would be exposed to mobile source TAC emissions.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Cultural Resources

4.4-1: New construction in the proposed CCSP area could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including human remains. (p. 4.4-29)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.4-1(a)
Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are encountered during any stage of construction for any project in the CCSP area, all ground disturbing activities shall halt within the project property up to 100 feet from the location of the discovery and the City shall be notified.

Prehistoric archaeological materials include, for example, obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat- affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Any tribal cultural resources discovered during project work shall be immediately disclosed to the City and treated in consultation with the Native American monitor on site, if applicable, or with Native American representatives, with the goal of preserving in place with proper treatment. Historic-period materials may include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. A qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
42 of 83

Professional
Qualifications Standards for Archeology, shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery. If the City determines that an archaeological resource qualifies as a historical resource, unique archaeological resource, or tribal cultural resource (as defined pursuant to CEQA Guidelines) and that the project has potential to damage or destroy the resource, the following shall be implemented:
1) If the resource has an association with Native Americans, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American Tribal
Representatives and a qualified archaeologist to determine the appropriate mitigation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding resource site into a permanent conservation easement.

Consultation between the City, Native American Tribal
Representatives, and a qualified archaeologist may result in alternative means of preservation for archaeological resources and/or tribal cultural resources associated with Native Americans. 2) If the resource does not have an association with Native Americans, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), mitigation shall be accomplished through either preservation in place or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any excavation at the resource site. Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
43 of 83

facility,
and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.
3) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during project implementation, project construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the Sacramento County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. The City shall comply with requirements identified by the NAHC for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[d]).

4.4-1(b)
Identification of Sensitive Areas
The City, based on input from Native American consultation, shall prepare a map of the CCSP area identifying previously recorded archaeological resources and potential locations of tribal cultural resources— these areas to be collectively known as “sensitive areas”—for use by the City, applicant, archaeologist and Native American monitor. The map shall be subject to California law regarding confidentiality of such materials.

4.4-1(c)
Worker Training and Archaeological Monitoring of Project Ground- Disturbing Activities in Sensitive Areas
The provisions of this mitigation measure shall not be required for projects in sensitive areas that consist of: 1) replacement of existing facilities (road signs, sidewalks, pipes, etc.) where ground disturbance would occur principally in previously disturbed sediment, or 2) minor levels of ground disturbance (e.g., to no more than 18 inches below surface). For all other projects in the CCSP area that are within sensitive areas:
1) Cons truction worker cultural resources awareness training shall be conducted for construction personnel involved with excavation activities where ground disturbance would be greater than 18 inches below the ground surface. The training shall consist of a preconstruction training session conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, and shall be held for all construction personnel and staff involved with excavation activities. The training may be delivered to applicable construction personnel via an electronic format (DVD or video file, for example). Training content will cover procedures to be followed and appropriate conduct to be adhered Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
44 of 83

to if archaeol
ogical materials, including tribal cultural resources, are encountered during the project work. Training will include:
a) Purpose of archaeological monitoring;
b) Identifying archaeological resources; and
c) Maintaining proper discovery protocols during construction. 2) Excavation work within the areas identified as sensitive areas shall be undertaken in a manner that is responsive to the potential for discovery of resources. The applicant, archaeologist, and tribal monitor shall coordinate in implementing construction techniques.

In the event of dispute, the City’s Director of Community Development shall be consulted and shall determine the
appropriate procedures at the site.
3) An archaeologist meeting, or supervised by an archaeologist meeting, the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Archeology, shall monitor all project ground- disturbing activities within the sensitive areas agreed upon by the City and Native American Tribal Representatives. Information regarding the location of ground disturbing activities and any resource finds shall be kept on file at the City. Such monitoring and reporting shall be conducted at the applicant’s expense. 4) A Native American monitor shall be employed at the applicant’s expense to conduct monitoring of project construction activities for sensitive areas. The conduct and work of any Native American monitor shall be consistent with the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Guidelines for Native American Monitors/Consultants.
5) Potential tribal cultural resources discovered during project work shall be treated in consultation with the Native American monitor on site.
6) If discovery is made of items of potential archaeological resources, including tribal cultural resources, the procedures set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a) shall be followed.

Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) through 4.4-1(c) address the training of construction crew, archaeological construction monitoring, and discovery of unanticipated archaeological resources, and would apply to all future proposed projects within the CCSP area. Implementation of the mitigation measures would lessen potential project impacts to prehistoric and historic-period archaeological resources by increasing the likelihood that previously unidentified archaeological resources and human remains are protected. However, because the presence of Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
45 of 83

potentially s
ignificant archaeological resources, including human remains, may not be known until the resource is disturbed during project-related ground- disturbing activities, damage may occur prior to the discovery of such resources; such damage could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including human remains, and would be considered a significant impact. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.4-2: New construction in the CCSP area could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. (p. 4.4-33) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.4-2
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a) through (c).

Finding: With the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) through

4.4-1(c), addresses the training of construction crew, archaeological construction monitoring, and discovery of unanticipated archaeological resources, and would apply to all future proposed projects within the CCSP area. Implementation of the mitigation measures would lessen potential project impacts to tribal cultural resources that may be archaeological resources by increasing the likelihood that previously unidentified archaeological resources and human remains are protected. However, because the presence of buried archaeological resources, including human remains, that may be tribal cultural resources may not be known until the resource is disturbed during project-related ground-disturbing activities, damage may occur prior to the discovery of such resources; such damage could potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource and would be considered a significant impact. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

4.4-4: New construction in the proposed CCSP area, in combination with other cumulative development, could contribute to the cumulative loss or alteration of archaeological resources, including human remains. (p. 4.4-35) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
46 of 83

4.4-4
Implem
ent Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a) through (c).

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 would ensure that existing archaeological resources are identified, evaluated and treated promptly before they can be damaged or destroyed during construction. However, as noted above, archaeological resources are finite. As such, the loss of this material record cannot be completely mitigated. Therefore, the project’s potential contribution to this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

With implementation of the mitigation measure(s), this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Noise and Vibration

4.10-1: Construction of development allowed under the proposed CCSP could generate noise that would conflict with City standards or result in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. (p. 4.10- 17)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.10-1
For all projects in the CCSP area that require a building permit, the City shall require that the contractor implement the following measures during all phases of construction:
a) All heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources (such as diesel generators) shall have manufacturer-installed mufflers. b) Auger displacement shall be used for installation of foundation piles, if feasible. If impact pile driving is required, sonic pile drivers shall be used, unless engineering studies are submitted to the City that show this is not feasible, based on geotechnical considerations.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 would reduce construction noise within the CCSP area to the extent feasible. Restricting heavy- duty equipment operations in close proximity to buildings would substantially reduce exterior and interior noise at adjacent buildings. Use of auger displacement would reduce noise levels of pile installation to be comparable to the existing noise levels of passing trains. If auger displacement is not feasible, use of sonic pile drivers would reduce noise levels by about 5 dB compared to impact pile drivers. These measures would minimize interior noise and Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
47 of 83

associated sle
ep disturbance and any potential hearing loss effects at nearby receptors during excavation, and construction. After implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, this impact would be reduced in magnitude, but because site conditions may make it infeasible to implement all measures identified above.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

4.10-2: Operations of development allowed under the proposed CCSP could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient exterior noise levels. (p. 4.10-20)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.10-2
For development of new commercial or mixed-use buildings within the CCSP area, the applicant shall demonstrate that noise levels from HVAC and/or loading docks would not exceed the stationary noise standards established in the City’s Code. To demonstrate that a proposed development will meet the City’s stationary noise standards, the developer must implement the following measures:
a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit engineering and acoustical specification for project mechanical HVAC equipment and the proposed locations of onsite loading docks to the Planning Director demonstrating that the HVAC equipment and loading dock design (types, location, enclosure, specification) will control noise from the equipment to at least 10 dB below existing ambient levels at nearby residential and other noise- sensitive land uses.
b) Noise-generating stationary equipment associated with proposed commercial and/or office uses, including portable generators, compressors, and compactors shall be enclosed or acoustically shielded to reduce noise-related impacts to noise-sensitive residential uses.

Finding: No feasible mitigation strategies have been identified to reduce the on-road transportation noise impacts to less than significant. Alternative modes of transportation (i.e., walking, biking, and transit) are already accounted for in the above traffic noise estimates. The reduction in roadway traffic volumes needed to mitigate these roadway noise impacts is not feasible for the proposed CCSP. In addition, typical measures to reduce roadway noise impacts, such as noise walls, setbacks, and rubberized asphalt, are not considered feasible mitigation for development in the urban core of the City. This impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
48 of 83

Impacts of no
n-transportation noise sources (i.e., HVAC units and loading docks), with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-2, would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. As a result, impacts associated with HVAC and loading dock noise would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

For these reasons the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

4.10-5: Implementation of the proposed CCSP would result in exposure of people to cumulative increases in construction noise levels. (p. 4.10-32) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.10-5
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.10-1.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-5 would reduce the contribution of the CCSP to cumulative construction noise levels at the existing and future planed noise sensitive land uses located within the CCSP area. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-5 listed above, the contribution of the CCSP to this cumulative impact would be reduced in magnitude, but because site conditions make it infeasible to implement all measures identified in Mitigation Measure 4.10-1, the contribution of the proposed CCSP could remain considerable.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

4.10-6: Oper
ations of development allowed under the proposed CCSP
would contribute to cumulative increases in ambient exterior noise levels. (p. 4.10-32)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.10-6
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.10-2.

typical measur
es to reduce roadway noise impacts, such as noise walls, setbacks, and rubberized asphalt, are not considered feasible mitigation for development in the urban core of the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measure

4.10-6 would reduce noise impacts related to HVAC equipment and loading docks by requiring HVAC equipment and loading dock design to reduce noise to a less-than-significant level. However, because no feasible mitigation exists to lessen the impact of on-road transportation noise, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

4.10-8: Construction of buildings pursuant to the proposed CCSP would contribute to cumulative construction that could expose existing and/or planned buildings, and persons within, to significant vibration. (p. 4.10-39) Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

4.10-8
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.10-4(a) and (b).

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-4(a) and Mitigation Measure 4.10-4(b) would ensure that construction activities within the CCSP area would not result in building damage at the nearest historic and non-historic building structures, and would reduce human disturbance to the extent feasible.

While implementation of the mitigation measures described above would avoid vibration-caused building damage and would reduce vibration impacts to surrounding receptors, it is reasonable to assume that the combined cumulative construction activities could still adversely affect surrounding sensitive land uses.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-8 listed above, the contribution of the CCSP to this cumulative impact would remain considerable, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

Utilities

4.13-7: Implementation of the proposed CCSP, in combination with other cumulative development, would contribute to cumulative increases in demand for water supply. (p. 4.13-31)
Mitigation Measure: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
50 of 83

4.13-7
To ensure t
hat sufficient capacity would be available to meet cumulative demands, the City shall implement, to the extent needed in order to secure sufficient supply, one or a combination of the following:
a. Maximize Water Conservation
b. Implement New Water Diversion and/or Treatment Infrastructure c. Implement Additional Groundwater Pumping
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.13-7 would result in implementation of water conservation measures by projects in the CCSP, and actions for increasing diversion and treatment capacity. The mitigation requires the City to implement long-term, system-wide measures to secure a sufficient water supply. The timing and location of any diversion and treatment capacity improvements are unknown, nor can the effectiveness of the mitigation be known with certainty.

For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

E. Project Alternatives.

The City Council has considered the project alternatives presented and analyzed in the final EIR and presented during the comment period and public hearing process. Some of these alternatives have the potential to avoid or reduce certain significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, as set forth below.

The City Council finds, based on specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, that these alternatives are infeasible. Based on the impacts identified in the Final EIR and other reasons summarized below, and as supported by substantial evidence in the record, the City Council finds that approval and implementation of the Projects as proposed is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action and hereby rejects the other alternatives and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible based on consideration of the relevant factors set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subdivision (f). (See also CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Each alternative and the facts supporting the finding of infeasibility of each alternative are set forth below.

Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration In identifying alternatives to the proposed plan, primary consideration was given to alternatives that could reduce significant unavoidable impacts resulting from the proposed plan while still obtaining the plan’s objectives. Certain impacts that are identified as being significant and unavoidable under the proposed plan (e.g., increase in air pollutants from project construction and operation) are due primarily to developing an area that is currently undeveloped or intensifying Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
51 of 83

development activ
ity beyond current levels. These impacts would not be possible to eliminate, but could be reduced, for example, by limiting the scope of the proposed plan, reconfiguring uses, or implementing mitigation measures.

Alternatives that reduce the intensity of development in the CCSP area are addressed later in this chapter.

The following plan alternatives were considered but rejected for the reasons discussed below:
• No Project/No Development Alternative: The no project/no development alternative would prevent future growth by prohibiting new development within the CCSP area, establishing a de facto moratorium on development. This alternative was dismissed from consideration because it would be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), which states that “When the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the ‘no project’ alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy or operation into the future.”
More importantly, this alternative was dismissed from further consideration because it would fail to meet any of the basic objectives of the CCSP, including to encourage future growth in the City inward into existing urbanized areas. Implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative would prohibit development of existing vacant or underutilized sites within the CCSP area, which would direct growth into areas outside of the CCSP area. In addition, this alternative would fail to meet the growth projections in the City’s 2035 General Plan or the SACOG MTP/SCS, which envisions high-density residential development in the Central City. As required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f), an EIR need examine in detail only the alternatives that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.

Because this alternative would fail to meet the all of the basic objectives of the CCSP and is inconsistent with the guidance provided by State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(3)(A), it was dismissed from further consideration.
• Smaller/Less Growth Alternative: A smaller/less growth alternative would implement policies that would limit development within the CCSP area to lower levels than have been anticipated for the proposed CCSP, the 2035 General Plan, or the SACOG MTP/SCS growth assumptions.

This alternative would tend to reduce several impacts of the proposed CCSP, including construction-related air quality and noise effects on locations in the CCSP area.

However, similar to the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Smaller/Less Growth Alternative would fail to accommodate the amount of growth projected under the 2035 General Plan and SACOG 2016 Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
52 of 83

MTP/SCS,
which would tend to push growth outward from the City core into more suburban areas. This growth would result in higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT), relative to the per capita and per employee VMT estimated under the proposed CCSP, and would be inconsistent with CCSP objectives. Concomitant effects triggered by increased per capita and per employee VMT would be increased criteria pollutant emissions and greenhouse gas emissions, increased loss of prime farmland and habitat for special status species, increased water demand, increased energy demand, and the like.

The Smaller/Less Growth Alternative would be inconsistent with some of the most basic objectives of the proposed CCSP, including (1) encouraging growth in the City inward and fostering infill development, (2) protecting important environmental resources and ensuring long-term economic sustainability and health, (3) creating housing in downtown consistent with the 2035 General Plan, and (4) diversifying downtown employment opportunities. Because the Smaller/Less Growth Alternative would fail to meet some of the most basic objectives of the proposed CCSP and would exacerbate a wide range of environmental effects on a regional basis, it was dismissed from further consideration. • Larger/Higher Growth Alternative: The larger/higher growth alternative would implement policies directing development of a substantially higher number of residential units. The larger residential growth proposed by this Alternative would exceed the growth assumptions of the 2035 General Plan and the SACOG 2016 MTP/SCS. For several reasons this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. Housing demand studies undertaken during the preparation did not indicate an available demand to support housing or non-residential development beyond that identified for the proposed CCSP.1 In addition, this alternative would tend to exacerbate many, if not all, of the environmental impacts disclosed for the proposed CCSP, including all construction-related impacts, criteria and greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestion, water demand, and related effects. Thus, this alternative would not be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) which states that an alternative in an EIR 1 Bay Area Economics, Sacramento Downtown Specific Plan Draft Housing Market Analysis, Phase I and Phase II, November 2016.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
53 of 83

must “avoid or s
ubstantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,” Because the evidence suggests that this alternative would not be economically feasible, would be inconsistent with the 2035 General Plan, and would exacerbate environmental impacts, it was dismissed from further consideration.
• Transportation Network Option A Alternative: Transportation Network Option A, considered as part of the Grid 3.0 planning process, evaluated a substantially lower level of investment in transportation improvements relative to the level of investment included as part of the proposed CCSP.

Key differences between Option A and the transportation network included in the proposed CCSP are summarized below.

Roadway Network: Transportation Network Option A would include fewer changes to the CCSP area’s existing roadway network. This option would preserve more of the existing system of three-lane one-way roadways, and includes fewer lane reductions and fewer two-way conversions. As described in Section 4.12, lane reductions would be necessary to provide space for additional bicycle facilities and dedicated transit lanes; two-way conversions improve access for bicycles and automobiles, while slowing traffic and improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. More specifically, key differences between Transportation Network Option A and the proposed CCSP include the following:
o 5
th Street – No two-way conversion between Capitol Mall and Q Street;
o 8th Street – No lane reduction between G Street and P Street; o 10th Street – No lane reduction between I Street and N Street; o 15th Street – No lane reduction between G Street and Broadway; o 16th Street – No lane reduction between N Street and X Street; o G Street – No two-way conversion between 12th Street and 16th Street;
o H
Street – No two-way conversion between 5th Street and 8th Street and no two-way conversion between 12th Street and 16th Street; o I Street – No lane reduction between 12th Street and 16th Street and no two-way conversion between 16th Street and 21st Street; o J Street – No lane reduction between 5th Street and 9th Street and no lane reduction between 16th Street and 30th Street;
o L Street – No lane reduction between 11th Street and 15th Street; Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
54 of 83

o Capitol Mall
– No lane reduction between 5th Street and 9th Street;
o N Street – No two-way conversion between 3rd Street and 21st Street (
however, this option does include a lane reduction on N Street between 3rd Street and 10th Street); and
o Broadway – No lane reduction between 9th Street and SR-99.

Bicycle Network: Transportation Network Option A would include fewer new on-street bicycle facilities than the proposed CCSP, and no upgrades to existing bicycle facilities to improve safety and comfort for bicyclists.

Key differences between Transportation Network Option A and the proposed CCSP include the following:
o 10
th Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between L Street and N Street;
o 15th Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between C Street and Broadway;
o 16th Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between N Street and X Street;
o H Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between 13th Street and 15th Street;
o I S
treet – No on-street bicycle lanes between 12th Street and 21st Street;
o J
Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between 19th Street and 30th Street;
o N
Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between 10th Street and 15th Street;
o S
Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between 13th Street and 21st Street;
and
o Broadway – No on-street bicycle lanes between 9th Street and SR-

99. Transit Network: Transportation Network Option A would include fewer transit investments than the proposed CCSP. Key differences between Transportation Network Option A and the proposed CCSP include the following:
o 7th Street – No bus stop enhancements between I Street and P Street;
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
55 of 83

o 8th Street – No dedicated transit lane between G Street and P Street;
o 15th Street – No bus stop enhancements between L Street and N Street;
o J Street – No bus stop enhancements between 9th Street and 12th Street,
no dedicated transit lane between 5th Street and 9th Street, and no dedicated transit lane between 16th Street and 19th Street; o L Street – No dedicated transit lane between 11th Street and 15th Street;
o P
Street – No bus stop enhancements between 5th Street and 15th Street;
and
o Broadway – No bus stop enhancements/transit investments between 19th Street and 21st Street.

Transportation Network Option A was dismissed from further consideration as it did not meet the basic objective of CCSP to create a connected walk- and transit-first mobility network that serves all modes of travel and supports transit-oriented development including along the Downtown-Riverfront Streetcar line. Because this option would preserve a higher level of automobile capacity, less space would be made available for expanding the network of on-street bikeways and implementing future dedicated transit lanes that would help to increase the percentage of trips made by bicycle and transit, and to accommodate higher levels of trip making within the CCSP area.

Transportation Network Option B Alternative: Transportation Network Option B, originally considered in the Grid 3.0 planning process, included a lower level of investment in transportation improvements relative to the level of investment included as part of the proposed CCSP, although more than included in Network Option A. Key differences between this option and the proposed CCSP are summarized below.

Roadway Network: Transportation Network Option B would include fewer changes to the CCSP area’s existing roadway network. This option would preserve more of the existing system of three-lane one-way roadways, and includes fewer lane reductions and fewer two-way conversions. As described in Section 4.12, lane reductions are necessary to provide space for additional bicycle facilities and dedicated transit lanes; two-way conversions improve access for bicycles and automobiles, while slowing traffic and improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. o Key differences between Transportation Network Option B and the proposed CCSP include the following:

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
56 of 83

o 10th Stree
t – No lane reduction between I Street and L Street;
o 15th Street – No lane reduction between G Street and Broadway; o 16th Street – No lane reduction between N Street and X Street; o G Street – No two-way conversion between 12th Street and 16th Street;
o H Street – No two-way conversion between 5th Street and 8th Street
and no two-way conversion between 12th Street and 16th
Street;
o I Street – No lane reduction between 12th Street and 16th Street; o J Street – No lane reduction between 16th Street and 30th Street; o L Street – No lane reduction between 11th Street and 15th Street; o Capitol Mall – No lane reduction between 5th Street and 9th Street; o N Street – No two-way conversion between 3rd Street and 16th Street (
however, this option does include a lane reduction on N Street between 3rd Street and 15th Street); and
o Broadway – No lane reduction between and 21st Street and SR 99.

Bicycle Network: Transportation Network Option B would include fewer new on-street bicycle facilities than the proposed CCSP, and no upgrades to existing bicycle facilities to improve safety and comfort for bicyclists.

Key differences between Transportation Network Option B and the proposed CCSP include the following:
o 15
th Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between C Street and Broadway;
o 16th Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between N Street and X Street;
o H Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between 13th Street and 15th Street;
o J
Street – No on-street bicycle lanes between 19th Street and 30th Street;
and
o Broadway – No on-street bicycle lanes between 21st Street and SR-

99. Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
57 of 83

Transit Netw
ork: Transportation Network Option B would include fewer transit investments than the proposed CCSP. Key differences between Transportation Network Option B and the proposed CCSP include the following:
o 7th Street – No bus stop enhancements between I Street and P Street;
o 15th Street – No bus stop enhancements between L Street and N Street;
o J Street – No bus stop enhancements between 9th Street and 12th Street
and no dedicated transit lane between 16th Street and 19th Street;
o L
Street – No dedicated transit lane between 11th Street and 15th Street;
o P
Street – No bus stop enhancements between 5th Street and 15th Street;
and
o Broadway – No bus stop enhancements/transit investments between 19th Street and 21st Street.

Transportation Network Option B was ultimately rejected as an alternative for further consideration as part of the CCSP EIR because it did not meet the basic objective of the CCSP to create a connected walk- and transit- first mobility network that serves all modes of travel and supports transit- oriented development including along the Downtown-Riverfront Streetcar line. Because this option would preserve a higher level of automobile capacity relatively to the proposed CCSP, less space would be made available for expanding the network of on-street bikeways and implementing future dedicated transit lanes that would help to increase the percentage of trips made by bicycle and transit, and to accommodate higher levels of trip making within the CCSP area.

Summary of Alternatives Considered
CEQA mandates that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or project locations that generally reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts of the project. CEQA requires that every EIR also evaluate a “No Project” alternative. Alternatives provide a basis of comparison to the project in terms of their significant impacts and their ability to meet project objectives. This comparative analysis is used to consider reasonable, potentially feasible options for minimizing environmental consequences of the project. The range of alternatives to the proposed plan analyzed in the Draft EIR present specific environmental impacts and how they would differ in severity compared to those Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
58 of 83

associated wit
h the proposed CCSP. For the most part, significant impacts of the alternatives can be mitigated to less than significant levels through adoption of mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4, which contains the environmental analysis of the proposed CCSP. To varying degrees, the following alternatives would also avoid and/or lessen impacts, including some or all of the significant and unavoidable impacts, of the proposed CCSP. The alternatives considered in this section include:
• Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan
• Alternative 2: Reduced Height Alternative
• Alternative 3: Transportation Network Option C Alternative The evaluation of alternatives is organized to facilitate a clear comparison between the effects of the alternative and the effects of the proposed CCSP. First there is a discussion of those impacts of the alternative that would be the same or similar to those of the proposed CCSP. Then there is a discussion of those effects of the alternative that would be less severe than those of the proposed CCSP, followed by those effects of the alternative that would be more severe than those of the proposed CCSP. Each discussion concludes with a discussion of the relationship between the alternative and the basic objectives of the proposed CCSP.

Alternative 1: No Project/Existing General Plan
Description
Alternative 1, the No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative, assumes that the CCSP area would be subject to infill and redevelopment consistent with the land use designations and allowable uses identified in the existing 2035 General Plan and Central City Community Plan, developed consistent with the guidance of the existing Central City Urban Design Guidelines, and physically located consistent with the assumptions made in the 2035 General Plan Master EIR and the SACOG 2016 MPT/SCS.

Relationship to Project Objectives
Alternative 1 would not meet most of the basic objectives of the proposed CCSP , because it would maintain the existing mix of uses, transportation network configurations, infrastructure, street lighting, and public art policies. As such, Alternative 1 would fail to achieve the CCSP objective to (1) foster infill development, (2) support the City’s Downtown Housing Initiative, (3) maximize livability and quality of life by expanding community amenities, create a connected walk- and transit-first mobility network that serves all modes of travel and supports transit oriented development along the Streetcar line, (4) achieves the goals of the Grid 3.0 planning process, and (5) removes barriers to new housing by streamlining the development and environmental review processes. The CCSP Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
59 of 83

objectives are i
ntended to improve upon existing conditions, which would be sustained by the No Plan/Existing General Plan Alternative.

Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility
With the CCSP being designed to accommodate growth that would inevitably occur within the Sacramento region, the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in development occurring in a less concentrated way, decreasing densities in proximity to the Streetcar line and major transit stops, and maintaining the existing CCSP area transportation network, with the result being an increase in per capita and per employee VMT. This effect would increase traffic congestion with population growth, leading to higher queuing delays at freeway off-ramps and CCSP area intersections and additional roadway noise.

The subsequent air quality impact would be increased carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations within the CCSP area, relative to anticipated CO concentrations under the CCSP.

Under Alternative 1 the planning policies and transportation network proposed in the CCSP would not be approved. The anticipated result would be that Alternative 1 would not result in a concentration of development and a lowering of per capita and per employee VMT, both of which would be anticipated to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the region under the proposed CCSP.

While it is reasonable to assume that development under Alternative 1 would be in compliance with the City’s CAP, since per capita and per employee VMT would be higher than under the proposed CCSP, it is also reasonable to conclude that overall levels of GHG emissions would be higher under Alternative 1 than under the proposed CCSP.

Under Alternative 1, facilities for alternate modes of travel, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, would not be subject to the improvements proposed under the proposed CCSP transportation network. With anticipated increased VMT and fewer improvements to the transportation network within the CCSP area, under Alternative 1 conditions for alternate modes of travel would be more severe.

While the No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid impacts associated with the CCSP, this alternative would not further any of the CCSP’s objectives or provide any of the benefits contemplated by the projects. Additionally, this alternative would result in different and greater significant impacts than the proposed CCSP. Therefore, Alternative 1 is rejected.

Alternative 2: Reduced Heights Alternative
Description
Land Use and Zoning
The purpose of the Reduced Heights Alternative (Alternative 2) is to reduce those impacts associated with the height of development that would occur within Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
60 of 83

the commercial
corridors in the CCSP area. By reducing the number of
residential units and the square footage for retail, commercial and other uses in the commercial corridors, the resident, employee and visitor population within those portions of the CCSP area would drop, resulting in a greater concentration of development in the C-3 zone and potentially in residential zones in the CCSP area.

The Reduced Heights Alternative would retain the same distribution of land use and zoning designations as are described in the proposed CCSP, but would not increase allowable heights in the Central City SPD area for C-2, RMX, or OB zones. Table 6-1 provides the existing maximum allowable heights for the zones above, and maximum allowable heights for the proposed Central City SPD, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description.

TABLE 6-1

ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT HEIGHTS BY ALTERNATIVE
Zone
Existing Maximum Height
(Alternative 1)
Maximum Height Under
Alternative 2
(Same as Existing)
Maximum Height Under
CCSP
C-2 65 feet 65 feet 85 feet
RMX 45 feet 45 feet 65 feet
OB 35 feet 35 feet 65 feet
Development under Alternative 2 would be consistent with the growth assumptions of the CCSP and the 2035 General Plan, with similar residential units and non-residential square footage, overall. As such, taller development that would be incentivized by the increased allowable heights within the C-2, RMX, and OB zones and other incentives under the CCSP, would be less concentrated along those commercial corridors. Instead, that development would be anticipated to occur in other zones throughout the plan area. Lower height limits in commercial corridors may affect future residential development and commercial uses. Fewer new residents within those zones would impact retail uses that rely on residential spending. Many developments would be required to develop above a certain number of residential units, below which some developments may become financially infeasible, and those sites would remain underutilized or undeveloped.

Infrastructure Improvements
Alternative 2 would require infrastructure improvements to serve new development but would require differing localized capacity to accommodate a similar but different distribution of growth within the CCSP area, relative to the proposed CCSP. As discussed above, Alternative 2 would result in lower density development within commercial corridors, requiring less infrastructure capacity in those areas. Under Alternative 2, vacant and under-utilized sites would still be Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
61 of 83

developed, so the
amount of impervious surfaces within the CCSP area would be similar to the amount anticipated under the proposed CCSP, placing the same drainage requirements on the CSS and Basin 52. Overall, development under Alternative 2 would be similar to the proposed CCSP, so demand for utilities, including natural gas and electrical services within the CCSP area would be similar.

Transportation Network
The transportation improvements under Alternative 2 would be the same as would occur under the proposed CCSP. Increased allowable development height in commercial corridors (C-2, RMX, and OB zones) under the proposed CCSP would facilitate the concentration of residential and development along transit corridors, which would be anticipated to increase transit ridership and utilization of nearby bicycle network improvements. Under Alternative 2, new residential development in commercial corridors would be less dense along some of the key transit and bicycle network improvements, which would be anticipated to result in lower utilization of transit and bicycle transportation, relative to the proposed CCSP.

Relationship to Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would be anticipated to meet CCSP objectives to facilitate arts and culture in the CCSP area (Objective 6) and cultivate high standards of urban design and best practices (Objective 8) which would celebrate the CCSP area’s various cultural and geographic assets (Objective 9). Improved amenities and development streamlining, provided under Alternative 2, would encourage growth in the City inward as well as encourage integration of housing with commercial, office, and entertainment uses (Objective 1). Under Alternative 2, the City would meet the City’s housing initiative (Objective 3) and streamline housing development (Objective 13), however height limitations may hinder the development of varied and unique housing options (Objective 4) and may dampen attractiveness to new, emerging, and innovative businesses (Objective 7), relative to the proposed CCSP. Under Alternative 2, expanded community amenities such as improvements to the transportation system would improve livability and quality life for CCSP area residents (Objectives 5, 10, 11, and 12).

Overall, relative to the proposed CCSP, Alternative 2 would be less likely to meet all of the City’s basic objectives.

Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility
Many impacts caused by Alternative 2 would either be the same as or less than the impacts of the CCSP. However, although the Reduced Heights Alternative would be anticipated to result in less development within the C-2, BO, and RMX zones, a portion of projected regional growth would be diverted into the C-3 and residential zones. As such, it is anticipated that, relative to the proposed CCSP, fewer residents would be located in close proximity to transportation Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
62 of 83

improvements
under Alternative 2. Thus, fewer residents within and in the vicinity of the plan area would be anticipated to utilize bicycle, pedestrian or transit improvements, such that VMT would be higher, and there would be increased vehicle traffic within the CCSP area, and additional roadway noise. A subsequent impact would be increased queuing at CCSP area intersections, which would have increased CO concentrations as a result, and an increase in GHG emissions. In addition, with anticipated cumulative increases in vehicular traffic within the CCSP area, under Alternative 2, conditions for alternate modes of travel would be more severe.

Alternative 3: Decreased Density/Intensity Alternative
Description
The Transportation Network Option C Alternative (Alternative 3) includes all elements of the proposed CCSP including updated land use and zoning, infrastructure improvements, street light improvements, proposed hotels, and public art. However, Alternative 3 would have an alternative transportation network that includes changes to the roadway, bicycle, and transit networks included as part of the proposed CCSP. The pedestrian infrastructure investments evaluated as part of Network Option C are consistent with the investments included in the proposed CCSP. Key differences between this Alternative 3 and the proposed CCSP are summarized below.

Relationship to Project Objectives
Alternative 3 is similar to the proposed CCSP and would meet the majority of the City’s objectives, with the exception of Objectives 5 and 10. The City’s goal of maximizing livability and quality of life through expanded community amenities would be less satisfied by Alternative 3, as transit investments would be fewer and traffic conditions would be subject to greater congestion. Furthermore, the lesser investment in transit facilities would fail to meet the City’s objective of creating a transit-first mobility network.

Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility
While Alternative 3, Transportation Network Option C Alternative, would avoid or lessen some impacts associated with the CCSP, additional improvements to the transportation system would increase delay and queueing within the CCSP area at intersections and freeway off-ramps. Increased delay at CCSP area intersections would be anticipated to generate higher concentrations of CO and TACs relative to the anticipated performance of the same variables under the proposed CCSP. Increased queueing and congestion would be more likely to interrupt the performance of emergency response and emergency evacuation plans. Under Alternative 3, higher levels of congestion would contribute to increases in ambient exterior and interior noise and railway noise levels.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
63 of 83

Under Alternati
ve 3, there would be fewer improvements to transit facilities, including fewer lanes converted to transit-only lanes, within the CCSP area. In combination with increased delay and queueing under Alternative 3, impacts to transit facilities would be more severe.

F. Statement of Overriding Considerations:

Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the proposed plan it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant and potentially significant effects of the plan on the environment where feasible. The City Council further finds that it has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the plan against the remaining unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the plan and has determined that those benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental risks and that those risks are acceptable. The City Council makes this statement of overriding considerations in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines in support of approval of the plan.

The City of Sacramento has considered the information contained in and related to the Final EIR (the Draft EIR, Comments and Responses to those documents, text changes and other revisions to the EIR, and all other public comments, responses to comments, accompanying technical memoranda and staff reports, and findings included in the public record for the plan). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the Central City Specific Plan, it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant and potentially significant effects of the plan on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings. The City Council further finds that it has balanced the economic, social, technological and other benefits of the plan against the remaining unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the plan and has determined that those benefits outweigh the unavoidable risks and that those risks are acceptable. The City Council makes this statement of overriding considerations in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 in support of approval of the plan. Specifically, in the City Council’s judgment, the each of the benefits of the plan as proposed separately and independently outweigh all of the unmitigated adverse impacts and the proposed plan should be approved.

The overall goal of the proposed plan is to facilitate and incentivize residential and non-residential growth within the CCSP area. Based on the objectives identified in the Final EIR and administrative record, and through extensive public participation, the City Council has determined that the proposed plan should be approved, and any remaining significant environmental impacts attributable to the proposed plan are outweighed by the following specific environmental economic, fiscal, social, housing and other overriding considerations. Each benefit set forth below is supported by substantial evidence in the record and constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the proposed plan, independent of the other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable impact.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
64 of 83

The considerat
ions that have been taken into account by the City Council in making this decision are identified below.

Land Use. The CCSP is designed to facilitate future development within the City of Sacramento’s central core and serve as a bridge between 2035 General Plan and the Central City Community Plan (CCCP), customizing the planning process and land use regulations to the unique characteristics of the CCSP area. Under the proposed CCSP, the CCSP area would retain the existing land use and zoning designations as described in the 2035 General Plan. However, the proposed CCSP would include modifications to allowable maximum heights, maximum densities, and other uses within certain portions of the CCSP area, particularly along corridors. A new SPD would be created for the CCSP area in order to facilitate housing and non-residential growth. Key land use-related benefits include the following:
• The CCSP would support and further existing General Plan policies by focusing development on infill areas by encouraging the development of vacant or underutilized parcels within the existing urban fabric. • Due to the multiple, diverse neighborhoods within the CCSP area, the CCSP provides direction to strengthen and preserve individual neighborhood identities and directs new development in the CCSP area to be in context with the surrounding area and sensitive to surrounding uses.
• The CCSP provides expanded opportunities for access to multi-modal transportation options by enhancing the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit networks throughout the CCSP area, linking existing neighborhoods within the CCSP area.
• The CCSP provides policies to encourage development of neighborhood amenities such as grocery stores, neighborhood-serving retail, parks and open space, and enhancement of the public realm.
• The CCSP would create opportunities for mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented urban infill development, including residential, recreation, retail, restaurant, hotel, office, open space, and other related uses in close proximity to a wide array of modes of transportation consistent with 2035 General Plan goal LU 2.1; policies LU 2.1.3 and LU 2.1.6; goal LU

2.5; policy LU 2.5.1; goal LU 2.6; policies LU 2.6.1 and LU 2.6.2; goal LU

4.1, policies LU 4.1.1, LU 4.1.2, LU 4.1.3, LU 4.1.4, LU 4.1.6, LU 4.4.6; goal LU 5.1; policies LU 5.1.2, and 5.1.3; goal LU 5.5; policy LU 5.5.1; goal LU 5.6; policies LU 5.6.2 and LU 5.6.3; goal LU 8.1; policy LU 8.1.1, LU 8.1.2, and LU 8.1.13; goal LU 8.2; policies LU 8.2.1 and 8.2.5; goal LU

9.1; policies LU 9.1.1, LU 9.1.2, and LU 9.1.3.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
65 of 83

Housing. The plan will a
dd approximately 13,400 housing units to the City’s
housing stock, focusing residential development in the Central City near jobs and transit corridors. Development anticipated under the proposed DSP would be consistent with the growth projections anticipated in the City’s 2035 General Plan. The 2035 General Plan’s buildout assumptions and population projections, as well as the transportation assumptions, are based largely on information provided by the SACOG for the MTP/SCS. Key housing-related benefits include the following:
• Encouragement of market-rate, high-rise and mid-rise housing in the heart of the Central City, where little market rate housing currently exists, consistent with 2035 General Plan goal LU 2.4 and policy LU 2.4.5. • Encouragement of housing as part of mixed-use development projects, consistent with 2035 General Plan goal LU 2.1; policy LU 2.1.6; goal LU

2.6; policy LU 2.6.2; goal LU 4.1; policy LU 4.1.1; goal LU 4.4; goal LU

5.1; policies LU 5.1.1, LU 5.1.2, LU 5.1.4, and LU 5.1.5; policy LU 5.6.3; policy M 1.3.1; and Central City Community Plan policies CC.H 1.1 and CC.SPD 1.1.
• Addition of approximately 13,400 units to the housing inventory, advancing the City’s ability to achieve its Downtown Housing Initiative, which is intended to facilitate development of at least 10,000 new places to live in Downtown Sacramento over the next ten years and meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation established by SACOG and reflected in the 2013-2021 Housing Element, which requires 24,101 new units, including 3,200 above moderate income, multi-family units (see 2013-2021 Housing Element, Table H9-1).

Sustainable Development. The plan is consistent with the SACOG MTP/SCS by locating housing and jobs in close proximity to transit systems, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering vehicle miles traveled, and in turn, will decrease consumption of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels. The project will create a walkable, bikeable transit-friendly community.

Development in the CCSP area would implement Title 24 (California Energy Efficiency Standards) measures that are in effect at the time of building permit issuance. The result would be lower energy consumption and higher energy efficiency. Where feasible, individual projects may employ additional energy conservation measures. This would include implementing energy conservation measures in design and construction. The proposed plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by creating an urban area that encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. The project will create a walkable, bikeable transit- friendly community. This will reduce vehicle miles traveled, and in turn, will decrease consumption of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
66 of 83

Transportati
on. The plan will consciously implement roadways and facilities to accommodate multi-modal transportation and circulation. • Bicycle network improvements include the provision of Class I bike paths for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians; Class II bike lanes on streets that provide delineated (i.e., striped) separation from adjacent travel lanes or parking lanes; buffered bike lanes which are enhancements to Class II bike lanes that provide buffer space to separate the bike lane from adjacent travel lanes and/or parking lanes; additional Class III bike routes on roadways shared between bicyclists and motorized vehicles; and Class IV separated bikeways (also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks) on three streets in the Central City.
• Pedestrian network improvements include the addition of pedestrian-scale street lighting and streetscape projects such as adding street furniture, widening sidewalks, improving landscaping, and new/improved crosswalks, which create a more comfortable and safe pedestrian atmosphere. The addition of connector streets and construction of gap projects will enhance the pedestrian experience and connect the pedestrian fabric with areas within and just outside of the CCSP area, creating a more comprehensive and complete pedestrian network. The provision of activity center enhancement projects will expand existing pedestrian facilities adjacent to major activity centers in the Central City. • The transit network would be enhanced by lane conversion projects that reduce the number of travel lanes on select one-way streets from three lanes to two lanes to provide dedicated transit lanes where the number of transit vehicles is projected to be high during the peak hour. Dedicated transit lanes would be implemented when transit volumes reach an established threshold.

Economic Development. The plan will provide opportunities to generate thousands of new annual construction jobs and long-term stable jobs through the development of non-residential development. Development of the non-residential uses in the CCSP area would create an estimated 22,750 jobs in a variety of employment sectors including medical office, retail/commercial, office, government, and services such as restaurants. encouraging participation by small and local business enterprises through a comprehensive employment and contracting policy. Key benefits of the project’s economic development plan include the following:
• Buildout of the CCSP would be consistent with the smart growth principals identified in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Blueprint Preferred Scenario. The project promotes the City’s goal to develop the downtown area as the urban core of the City. The SACOG Blueprint calls for capturing a greater amount of regional employment, retail, and housing within, or contiguous to the existing urban footprint, to Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
67 of 83

reduce urban spraw
l and protect open space and agricultural land within
the greater Sacramento region. The plan meets this objective by providing compact development that maximizes existing land while encouraging mixed land uses within and in close proximity to the downtown urban center.
• Buildout of the CCSP would be consistent with the Central City Community Plan urban development goal of revitalizing the Central City as a viable living, working, shopping and cultural environment. The plan proposes to develop higher density development in close proximity to the existing downtown Central Business District. This will capture a greater amount of regional employment, retail and housing within the existing urban footprint, thereby reducing urban sprawl while protecting open space and agricultural land within the greater Sacramento region. The plan adds residential, office and retail uses within the urban core of the City. This strengthens the City’s downtown urban area while establishing a dynamic community, in which the uses strengthen each other and provide a full range of day and night activities.
• The CCSP will provide significant revenue to the City. The City will receive revenue from the Property Tax in lieu of Vehicle License Fee, sales taxes generated by the commercial portions of the plan, and utility taxes. The plan will also generate revenues for the City through payment of building fees and development impact fees, as well as transient occupancy taxes from hotel developments.
• The plan will provide significant employment for the City and the region.

Full buildout of the plan will be anticipated to yield approximately 13,400 jobs. The plan is also expected to create a number of secondary jobs, as implementation of the plan would require construction jobs for the development of the buildings and associated site improvements. Such jobs will provide income and work experience for City residents and other workers and their families.
• Development of the projects would increase economic and employment activity in the Central Business District of Sacramento. The operation of the retail stores, offices, restaurants, hotels, and food and beverage service will generate revenue. The creation of temporary construction jobs and permanent office and retail jobs will also financially benefit the City, as it will increase sales tax revenue from the purchase of goods by CCSP area residents and employees.

Social Considerations. The plan will seek to balance a dynamic 24-hour mixed- use urban core, while providing a range of complementary uses – including office, retail, hotel, and open space – and a mixture of housing types, including affordable housing.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
68 of 83

• The plan would e
nhance and expand pedestrian and green space
connections to enhance the urban experience of the Central City, while providing opportunities for social interaction and civic activity. Public art installations in key locations would create or enhance civic gathering spaces, resulting in a strengthened civic and public realm.

Having considered the benefits outlined above, the City Council finds that each and every one of the benefits of approving the plan outweigh and override the unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with the plan, and therefore, the plan’s unavoidable adverse environmental effects are acceptable.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
69 of 83

CHAPTER 4
Mitigation Monitoring Plan

4.1 Introduction
Public Resources Code section 21081.6 and section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require public agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a mitigated negative declaration or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.

The following is the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Central City Specific Plan. The intent of the MMP is to track and successfully implement the mitigation measures identified within the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for this project.

4.2 Mitigation Measures
The mitigation measures are taken from the Sacramento Central City Specific Plan Draft EIR and are assigned the same number as in the Draft EIR. The MMP describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.

4.3 MMP Components
The components of the attached table, which contains applicable mitigation measures, are addressed briefly, below.

Impact: This column summarizes the impact stated in the Draft EIR.

Mitigation Measure: All mitigation measures identified in the Sacramento Central City Specific Plan Draft EIR will be presented, as revised in the Final EIR, and numbered accordingly.

Action(s): For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented, and, in some instances, the criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented. Where mitigation measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure.

Implementing Party: This item identifies the entity that will undertake the required action.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
70 of 83

Timing: Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of project approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is identified.

Monitoring Party: The City of Sacramento is primarily responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are successfully implemented. Within the City, a number of departments and divisions would have responsibility for monitoring some aspect of the overall project. Other agencies, such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, may also be responsible for monitoring the implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, more than one monitoring party may be identified.

Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
71 of 83

TABLE 4-1

SACRAMENTO CENTRAL CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party • If at the time of granting of each building permit, the SMAQMD has adopted a regulation applicable to construction emissions, compliance with the regulation may completely or partially replace this mitigation.

Consultation with the SMAQMD prior to construction will be necessary to make this determination.

The applicant s hall include the following SMAQMD Fugitive Dust Control Practices on all grading or improvement plans:
• Water exposed soil with adequate frequency for continued moist soil. • Suspend excavation, grading, and/or demolition activity when wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Install wind breaks (e.g., plant trees, solid fencing) on windward side(s) of construction areas.
• Plant vegetative ground cover (fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible. Water appropriately until vegetation is established.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site.
• Treat site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6- to 12-inch layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel to reduce generation of road dust and road dust carryout onto public roads. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the District shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

4.2-5: Implement
ation of the proposed
CCSP could result in short-term and long-
term exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants.

Guidance from the US EPA’s July 2016 Recommendations for Constructing Roadside Vegetation Barriers to Improve Near-Road Air Quality or Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Landscaping Guidance for Improving Air Quality near Roadways may be incorporated.

Implement the criteria described in Mitigation
Measure 4.2-5.

Project applicant Prior to issuance of a building permit City of Sacramento Community Development Department,
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD)

4.2-7: Implementation of the proposed
CCSP could contribute to cumulative
increases in short-term (construction)
emissions.

4.2-7
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-2(a) and (b).

See Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(b). See Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(a) through 4.2-2(b).

See Mitigation Measures 4.2-2(a)
through 4.2-2(b).

4.2-10: Implementation of the proposed
CCSP could contribute to cumulative
increases in short- and long-term
exposures to Toxic Air Contaminants.

4.2-10
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-5.

See Mitigation Measures 4.2-5 See Mitigation Measures 4.2-5 See Mitigation Measures 4.2-5 See Mitigation Measures 4.2-5 Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
73 of 83

TABLE 4-1

SACRAMENTO CENTRAL CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party

4.3-2(c)
For p
rojects proposed within suitable habitat for burrowing owl (in particular for projects proposed in annual grassland habitat occurring in the northeast part of the CCSP area as shown in Figure 4.3-1 in the EIR, and areas adjacent to Sutter’s Landing Park that have not been developed), the applicant shall conduct preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls in accordance with guidance from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Determine presence/absence of the burrowing owl
within identified geography.

Project applicant Prior to site plan and design review
for individual projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)

4.3-4: Projects proposed under the CCSP
could result in removal of habitat for the
valley elderberry longhorn beetle.

4.3-4(a)
For projects proposed within or adjacent to habitat for VELB (suitable habitat for the VELB occurs in close proximity to the Sacramento and American rivers in association with undeveloped valley foothill riparian habitat and at undeveloped areas of Sutter’s Landing Park; see Figure 4.3-1 in the EIR), the applicant shall conduct surveys prior to construction for the presence of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its elderberry host plant by a qualified biologist in accordance with U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service protocols. If elderberry plants with stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater are not identified, no further mitigation is required.

Retain a qualified biologist who shall conduct
preconstruction surveys for elderberry shrubs.

Project applicant Prior to ground disturbance such as
grading and excavation activities
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department

Surveys are valid for a period of two years. Elderberry plants with no stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater in diameter at ground level are unlikely to be habitat for the beetle because of their small size and/or immaturity.

Therefore, no minimization measures are required for removal of elderberry plants with all stems measuring 1.0 inch or less in diameter at ground level.

Protect shrubs within 100 feet of construction
activities; compensate for removed shrubs.

Project applicant Prior to issuance of building permit City of Sacramento Community Development Department and
USFWS

4.3-4 (c)
For s
hrubs with stems measuring 1.0 inch or greater, the applicant shall ensure that elderberry shrubs within 100 feet of ground disturbing activities be protected and/or compensated for (if affected by construction activities) in accordance with the “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services’ (USFWS) Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle and the Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office.”
Protect shrubs within 100 feet of construction
activities; compensate for removed shrubs.

Project applicant Prior to issuance of building permit City of Sacramento Community Development Department and
USFWS

4.3-6: Projects developed under the
proposed CCSP could result in impacts to
special-status bat species.

Retain a qualified biologist to conduct
preconstruction surveys and prepare a report;
provide the report to the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department.

Provide buffer around bat maternity roosts, if
applicable.

Project applicant Prior to issuance of grading permit or tree removal permit; provide buffer
through completion of construction or
abandonment of the roosts
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
75 of 83

TABLE 4-1

SACRAMENTO CENTRAL CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party If roosting bats a re found, then disturbance of the maternity roosts shall be avoided by halting construction until the end of the breeding season.

Prepare a wetland and riparian mitigation plan. Project applicant Concurrent with 404 permit process and Streambed Alteration Agreement
process
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department, USACE,
and CDFW

4.3-8 (b)
If juri
sdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands are present, the applicant shall avoid them if feasible. The applicant shall minimize disturbances and construction footprints near avoided wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands to the extent feasible.

Install protective fencing. Project applicant Prior to and during construction on individual applicable development
sites
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department, USACE,
and CDFW

4.3-8 (c)
If avoidanc
e of wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands are not feasible, then the applicant shall demonstrate that there is no net loss of wetlands and other waters of the U.S., riparian vegetation, and state jurisdictional waters/wetlands through compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements.

Implement erosion control measures including
adding measures to construction plans.

Project applicant During construction activities in-water and adjacent to the Sacramento
River
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department, USACE,
and CDFW

4.3-10: Implementation of the proposed
CCSP could result in removal of protected
street trees and conflict with local policies
protecting trees.

Conduct tree removal activities in accordance with
City tree protection ordinance.

Project applicant During site plan and design review
and in compliance with tree
protection ordinance requirements
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department

4.3-11: Implementation of the proposed
CCSP, in combination with other
cumulative development, would contribute
to the cumulative harm to, or loss of
nesting habitat, for nesting habitat for
special-status bird species and other
sensitive and/or protected bird species.

4.3-11
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a), 4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a), 4.3-2(b), and 4.3-
2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a),

4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a),

4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a),

4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

4.3-13: Implementation of the proposed
CCSP, in combination with other
cumulative development, would contribute
to the cumulative loss of habitat for the
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.

4.3-13
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-2(a), 4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a), 4.3-2(b), and 4.3-
2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a),

4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a),

4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

See Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a),

4.3-2(b), and 4.3-2(c).

4.3-14: Implementation of the proposed
CCSP, in combination with other
cumulative development, would contribute
to the cumulative loss of habitat, or
impacts to bat species.

4.3-14
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-6
See Mitigation Measure 4.3-6. See Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 See Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 See Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
76 of 83

TABLE 4-1

SACRAMENTO CENTRAL CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party 2) the resource does not have an association with Native Americans, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), mitigation shall be accomplished through either preservation in place or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to any excavation at the resource site.

Treatment of unique archaeological resources shall follow the applicable requirements of PRC Section 21083.2. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Prepare an Archaeological Mitigation Plan, if
necessary.

Project applicant Prior to ground disturbance such as
grading and excavation activities for
individual applicable development
projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
3) the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during project implementation, project construction activities within 100 feet of the find shall cease until the Sacramento County Coroner has been contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required. The City shall comply with requirements identified by the NAHC for the appropriate means of treating the human remains and any associated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[d]).

Cease work and notify the County Coroner. Follow
protocol for further notification including to the
NAHC, if applicable. Contact the Native American
Heritage Commission to identify the Most Likely
Descendant, if applicable.

Project applicant During ground-disturbing activities for individual applicable development
projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department

4.4-1(b)
Ident
ification of Sensitive Areas
The City, based on input from Native American consultation, shall prepare a map of the CCSP area identifying previously recorded archaeological resources and potential locations of tribal cultural resources—these areas to be collectively known as “sensitive areas”—for use by the City, applicant, archaeologist and Native American monitor. The map shall be subject to California law regarding confidentiality of such materials.

Retain a qualified archaeologist to prepare and
implement an Archaeological Monitoring Plan for the
area within the footprint of the northern levee
embankment.

Project applicant Prepare plan prior to ground-
disturbing activities (grading or
excavation) that are anticipated to
extend below the level of North B
Street; implement plan during
ground-disturbing activities
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department

1. Construction worker cultural resources awareness training shall be conducted for construction personnel involved with excavation activities where ground disturbance would be greater than 18 inches below the ground surface. The training shall consist of a preconstruction training session conducted by or under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, and shall be held for all construction personnel and staff involved with excavation activities. The training may be delivered to applicable construction personnel via an electronic format (DVD or video file, for example).

Cease work if a discovery is made. Conduct field
investigation. Recover data and record resources on
appropriate DPR forms, as appropriate. If find is
Native American in origin, follow actions outlined in
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a).

Project applicant During ground-disturbing activities for individual applicable development
projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
78 of 83

TABLE 4-1

SACRAMENTO CENTRAL CITY SPECIFIC PLAN, MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementing Party Timing Monitoring Party

4.10-4(b)
For all
projects in the CCSP area that require the use of graders or impact pile drivers:

0.25 PPV for historic buildings. Measures and controls shall be identified based on project-specific final design plans, and may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following:

Prepare and submit a V bration Reduction Plan.

Implement vibration avoidance, minimization, and
monitoring requirements within the Vibration
Reduction Plan.

Project applicant Prior to issuance of a building permit for individual applicable development
projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
1) Inclusion of buffers and selection of equipment to minimize vibration impacts during construction at nearby receptors in order to meet the specified standards.
2) Implementation of a vibration, crack, and line and grade monitoring program at existing Nationally registered, State listed, and locally recognized historic buildings located within 47 feet of construction activities. The following elements shall be included in this program:

Limit vibration during construction. Project applicant Prior to issuance of a building permit for individual applicable development
projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
i. Prior to start of construction:

1. The applicant or construction contractor shall install crack gauges on proximate historic structures.

Prepare crack monitoring plan for existing historic
buildings located within 47 feet of construction
activities. Project applicant shall provide City with
regular reporting.

Project applicant Prior to issuance of a building permit for individual applicable development
projects
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
ii. During building construction:

1. The construction contractor shall regularly inspect and photograph crack gauges, maintaining records of these
inspections to be included in post-construction reporting.

Gauges shall be inspected every two weeks, or more
frequently during periods of active project actions in close proximity to crack gauges.

Monitor crack gauges during construction. Project applicant During construction activities within 47 feet of a historic building
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department

2. The construc
tion contractor shall collect vibration data from
receptors and report vibration levels to the City Chief Building Official on a monthly basis. The reports shall include
annotations regarding project activities as necessary to explain changes in vibration levels, along with proposed corrective actions to avoid vibration levels approaching or exceeding the established threshold.

Collect and report vibration data to City Chief
Building Official.

Project applicant During construction activities within 47 feet of a historic building
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department

3. If vibration l
evels exceed the threshold and monitoring or
inspection indicates that the project is damaging the historic structure, additional protection or stabilization shall be implemented. If necessary and with approval by the City Chief Building Official, the construction contractor shall install temporary shoring or stabilization to help avoid permanent impacts. Stabilization may involve structural reinforcement or corrections for deterioration that would minimize or avoid potential structural failures or avoid accelerating damage to the historic structure. Stabilization shall be conducted following the Secretary of Interior Standards Treatment of Preservation. This treatment shall ensure retention of the historical resource’s character-defining features. Stabilization may temporarily impair the historic integrity of the building's design, material, or setting, and as such, the stabilization must be conducted in a manner that will not permanently impair a building's ability to convey its significance. Measures to shore or stabilize the building shall be installed in a manner that avoids damage to the historic integrity of the building, including integrity of material.

Provide additional protection or stabilization of
historic structures, as needed.

Project applicant During construction activities within 47 feet of a historic building
City of Sacramento Community
Development Department
Resolution 2018-0129
April 19, 2018
81 of 83

ORDINANCE NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Date Adopted

AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 0.15 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY
FROM THE MULTI-UNIT DWELLING (R-3A-SPD) ZONE
TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-2-SPD) ZONE

WITHIN THE CENTRAL CITY SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT
(002-0165-025 AND -015) (P21-032)

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO:

Section 1. The City Council finds the following:

A. The rezoning of the properties accomplished by this ordinance is consistent with the applicable General Plan TNMD land use designation, use, and development standards; the goals, policies, and other provisions of the general plan; C-2-SPD zone and Central City SPD.

B. The amendment in this ordinance promotes the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the city.

Section 2. Environmental Determination: The California Environmental Quality Act exemption for the Project has been adopted by Resolution No. _____.

Section 3. Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code (the Planning and Development Code) is hereby amended to rezone ±0.15 acres from the Multi-Unit Dwelling (R-3A-SPD) zone to the General Commercial (C -2-SPD) zone within the Central City Special P lanning District, as depicted in Exhibit A.

Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Sacramento is hereby directed to amend the official zoning maps to conform to the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 5. Exhibit A is part of this ordinance.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: Rezone Exhibit

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Date Adopted

ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING

THE GRACE REZONE AND MIXED-USE PROJECT
(002-0165-025 AND -015) (P21-032)

BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO:

BACKGROUND

B. On May 25 , 2023, the Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code chapter

17.812, received and considered evidence concerning the Project, and forwarded to City Council a recommendation to approve the Project.

C. On _____, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant to Sacramento City Code chapter 17.812 and received and considered evidence concerning the Project.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearing on the Project, the City Council approves the Project entitlements based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval as set forth below.

Section 2. The City Council approves the Project entitlements based on the following Findings of Fact:

A. Environmental Determination: Environmental Determination: The California Environmental Quality Act exemption for the Project has been adopted by Resolution No. _____.

B. Rezone: The amendment of Title 17 of the Sacramento City Code (SCC) by rezoning ±0.15 acres from the Multi-Unit Dwelling (R-3A-SPD) zone to the General Commercial (C-2-SPD) zone within the Central City Special Planning District has been approved by Ordinance No. _____.

C. Site Plan and Design Review for the construction of a three -story, 25,925+/ - square foot, mixed-use building with 40 multi-unit dwellings and one ±1,786 square foot commercial space with a deviation to exceed building height standards in the Central City SPD (3 feet) and historic district (0.75 feet to 8.25 feet) on ±0.22 acres within the C-2-SPD zone, Central City SPD, and Old Washington School Historic District is approved subject to the following Findings of Fact:

C1. The project is located on properties identified as noncontributors to the Old Washington School Historic District. The properties to the west at 1425 G Street and 1421 G Street are identified as contributors to the Old Washington School Historic District.

The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. This property was originally used for residential buildings and the current project proposes to return the site to a residential use , activati ng a vacant site. The building respects the neighborhood setback patterns and streetscape, while providing a neighborhood serving commercial space and activating a vacant site. The project is of a contemporary design and does not attempt to emulate historic features found in the district in a way that would create a false sense of historical development . This portion of the Washington Historic District contains several other multi -unit buildings that have prominent front porches, strong datum lines, and are setback from the street. The proposed project is setback from the street with a metal canopy over the front patio area on G Street. The front patio emulates the large full-width porches and activation of the pedestrian realm. The main building wall res pects the setback from G Street and is in line with the residential structure with the west. The pedestrian experience along this portion of the district will remain consistent with the district with plane changes and material changes that mimic the 40-foot-wide lots and massing in the historic district.

The proposed development is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable design guidelines and development standards. The building is compatible within the existing historic district context with regard the scale, massing, and materials. The project does request two deviations from the transitional height limits and the historic district height limits. The height deviations are consistent with the purpose and intent of the height limit s in that the deviation will not result in a building that would detract from or be detrimental to the integrity of the historic district character. Further, the project is consistent and compatible with and complements the surrounding historic district.

D. Exceeding Floor -Area-Ratio. The project exceeds the floor -area-ratio by providing a significant benefit to the community that outweighs the strict adherence to the General Plan’s maximum FAR. It has been determined that by providing eight, affordable units at the low -income level (80% of AMI) that the project provides a significant benefit to the community; therefore, the project may exceed the floor area ratio established in the General Plan for the TNMD land use.

E. No Net Loss Finding (Gov. Code, § 65863). This project is located on a site listed in the 2021-2029 RHNA Housing Element Sites Inventory. This project proposes eight units of low -income housing. The site inventory assumes six units o f moderate-income housing. Thus, the project exceeds the assumed capacity in the Housing Element sites inventory.

F. The 200-Year Flood Protection. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by SAFCA’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project. Even though the project site is within a flood hazard zone, the local flood management agency, SAFCA, has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will ensure protection from a 200-year flood event or will achieve that protection by 2025. This is based on the SAFCA Urban level of flood protection plan, adequate progress baseline report, and adequate progress toward an urban level of flood protection engineer’s report that were accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2016 -0226 on June 21, 2016 and the SAFCA 2022 Adequate Progress Annual Report accepted by City Council Resolution No. 2022-0313 on October 11, 2022

Section 3. The City Council approves the Project entitlements subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

A. Site Plan a nd Design Review for the construction of a three -story, 25,925+/ - square foot, mixed-use building with 40 multi-unit dwellings and one ±1,786 square foot commercial space with a deviation to exceed building height standards in the Central City SPD (3 feet) and historic district (0.7 feet to 8.25 feet on ±0.22 acres within the C-2-SPD zone, Central City SPD, and Old Washington School Historic District is approved subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Planning

A1. The floor area ratio (FAR) of the mixe d-use building shall not exceed 2.68 and must be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 1.1.10 (relating to developments exceeding the FAR above that which is permitted for a land use designation if a significant community benefit is provided). Project approval relies on the use of this Policy; and therefore, is expressly conditioned upon the applicant’s implementation of the following. a. The applicant shall enter into the appropriate regulatory agreement(s) with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) for monitoring of eight income-restricted dwelling units. The following conditions will be included in the regulatory agreement:

I. Eights (8) units will be regulated at the low-income level (80% of area median income (AMI)) using guidance from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for a period of 55 years.

II. Both tenant income and rent may not exceed the amount calculated by HUD annually for 80% of AMI households. Rents will be determined with a deduction for utility payments.

III. Applicant will pay a one -time fee to SHRA for the 55 -year monitoring. Exact fee will be calculated at the time of the execution of the agreement and is expected to be approximately $18,000
IV. Annual monitoring will be required to ensure the units remain affordable. The following items will be included in the monitoring:
i. Household Composition Summary Certification form
ii. Household income certification and verification documents iii. Income Calculation form
iv. Lease Agreement and Current Rent Notices

b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a copy of the executed regulatory agreement(s) to City Planning Division staff. City Planning Division staff will also confirm with SHRA that fees have been paid prior to the issuance of a building permits. c. The draft regulatory agreement included in the City Council staff report of June 27, 2023 will document the proposed affordability levels of the project and other requirements.

A2. The applicant shall obtain all necessary building permits and encroachment permits prior to commencing construction. Building permits shall not be issued unless Planning staff has approved.

A3. Contractor and design team shall contact Planning Site Conditions unit (Brad Marchetti – [email protected]) for a Pre-construction meeting prior to any grading or construction activities on-site.

A4. Planning In -progress inspections (93) shall be called for prior to the following Building Inspections: (10) Bldg-Foundation Forms, (12) Bldg- Concrete Slab Forms, and (19) Bldg-Frame. An (89) Planning Final shall be called for prior to (29) Building Final.

A5. The project shall demonstrate compliance with the standards for Multi -unit dwellings pursuant to SCC section 17.228.117.

A6. The plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate compliance with the standards for mixed -use developments pursuant to SCC section

17.600.150.

A7. The plans submitted for building permit shall demonstrate compliance with standards for mechanical screening pursuant to SCC section 17.600.165.

Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be at or below the parapet or provide integral self-supporting screening system. Location of HVAC units and any other rooftop mechanical equipment and screening design shall be per approved plans.

A8. The plans submitted for building permit shall include a photometric plan for all outdoor lighting in and around the site at the time of plan check. Any new building mounted lighting shall be subject to final review and approval by Planning staff.

A9. Provide the following minimum bicycle storages spaces for the project. A long-term bicycle storage room shall be provided for the multi -unit portion of the building as shown on the final approved plans. Final location and design of both short and long-term spaces shall be reviewed and approved by Planning staff at time of building permit plan check.

a. 22 long-term bicycle parking spaces
b. 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces

A10. Provide provisions or designated areas for trash and recycling waste sized to accomm odate the proposed project. A dedicated trash and recycling waste room shall be located within the building as shown on the final approved plans and comply with provisions of SCC chapter 17.616 including required volumes for the proposed uses. No trash containers/dumpsters are allowed in the right-of-way.

A11. A sign indicating a 24 -hour emergency phone number and contact person shall be kept current and posted on the building in a place clearly visible from the exterior.

A12. The operator shall comply with the mai ntenance, repair, and operation standards for multi-unit dwellings pursuant to SCC section 17.228.117.

a. The operator shall have an on -site manager that resides on -site pursuant to SCC section 17.228.117.B.1.

A13. Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the attached exhibits.

A14. The owner or operator shall maintain landscaping and irrigation in a healthy and serviceable condition.

A15. The building exterior elevations shall have a consistency of detail and quality as indicated on the approved plans and attached exhibits.

A16. Provide the following building materials on the building as indicated per approved plans.

a. Plaster siding
b. Grey horizontal metal siding
c. Brick siding
d. Metal canopy
e. Metal railings
f. Metal window systems
g. Honed block wall

A17. The color palette shall be consistent with the approved plans.

A18. Window design and fenestration shall be as shown on the approved plans.

A19. The project shall be constructed per approved plans and shall be consistent with the attached exhibits.

A20. Any change in the design, materials, or colors shall be submitted to Planning staff for review and approval and may require additional entitlements.

A21. Signage has not been reviewed as a part of this project approval. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit before the fabrication or installation of any signage for the development.

A22. Final occupancy shall be subject to approval and involve an on -site inspection by Planning staff.

A23. This approval is valid for three years and is subject to SCC section

17.808.400.

Environmental

A24. The project shall compl y with each mitigation measured adopted for the project, as identified in the environmental document prepared pursuant to the CEQA and/or Mitigation Monitoring Plan (in this case the Central City EIR). If there is an error or omission in the Mitigation Mo nitoring Plan, the mitigation measure as set forth in the environmental document shall control.

A25. In the event that archaeological resources or human remains are encountered during construction, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease until a notice to proceed is issued by the City. The applicant shall notify the City of Sacramento Manager of Environmental Planning Services (phone 311 or (916) 799 -1531; email [email protected]) and shall comply with City direction, and federal and State regulations and guidelines regarding the treatment of cultural resources and human remains. The Coroner shall be n otified in the event human remains are discovered; the applicant shall be responsible for the employment of a qualified archaeologist to advise regarding treatment of any artifacts.

A26. The project applicant shall conduct any tree removal activities required for project construction outside of the migratory bird and raptor breeding season (February 1 through August 31) where feasible. All trees slated for removal during the nesting season shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than 48-hours before removal to ensure that no nesting birds are occupying the tree.

A27. For any construction activities that will occur between February 1 and August 31, the applicant shall employ a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys in suitable nesting hab itat on or near the construction area for nesting raptors and migratory birds. If the biologist determines that construction may occur without impacting the breeding effort, the nest(s) shall be monitored by the biologist during construction. If the biologist concludes that the project would impact the nest, construction activities will cease until the nest is no longer active. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by the biologist.

A28. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Bas ic Construction Emission Control Practices apply and compliance is required.

See www.airquality.org. Other air district rules may apply and the air district should be consulted.

Public Works

A29. Construct standard public improvements as noted in these cond itions pursuant to Title 17 of the City Code. Improvements shall be designed to City Standards and assured as set forth in Section 17.502.130 of the City Code. All improvements shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Any public improvement not specifically noted in these conditions shall be designed and constructed to City Standards. This shall include the repair or replacement/reconstruction of any existing deteriorated curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the subject property along 15th Street and G Street per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A30. The applicant shall repair, or replace/reconstruct (in concrete) any deteriorated portion of the alley adjacent to the subject pr operty (from the subject property’s western property line to 15th Street) per City standards to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A31. With the proposed development along the alley, the applicant shall install alley name signs at both alley entrances when required by either the Building, Police and/or Fire Departments. In the event the alley name signs are required, the applicant shall co ordinate with the Department of Public Works on the location of the alley name signs at alley entrances. The installation of the alley name signs shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A32. The applicant shall complete the proposed va cation/abandonment for the existing Air and Light Easement as shown on the site plan prior to obtaining building permits to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. Note:

This includes obtaining clearance letters from all pertinent agencies and departments.

A33. Bulb outs/curb extensions are required where there is on -street parking in the central City area or as directed by the Department of Public Works.

Locations of bulb outs must be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall construct bulb -outs/ curb extension at the following locations to the satisfaction of Public Works:

a. NW corner of the intersection of 15th Street and G Street

A34. The site plan shall conform to A.D.A. requirements in all respects. This shall include the replacement of any curb ramp that does not meet current A.D.A. standards.

A35. The applicant shall provide a signing and striping improvement plan if new signage or striping is proposed; or if existing signing and/or striping is removed or relocate d. The plans shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.

A36. The design of walls fences and signage near intersections and driveways shall allow stopping sight distance per Caltrans standards and comply with City Code Section 12.28.010 (25-foot sight triangle). Walls shall be set back three feet behind the sight line needed for stopping sight distance to allow sufficient room for pilasters. Landscaping in the area required for adequate stopping sight distance shall be limited 3.5 feet in height at maturity. The area of exclusion shall be determined by the Department of Public Works.

Solid Waste

A37. Project must meet the requirements outlined in City Code Chapter 13.10,

13.24, and 17.616.

A38. The trash enclosure must have sufficient space to accommodate bins for trash, recycling, and organics for both residential and commercial tenants.

A39. Applicant must provide a statement of how trash, recycling and organics will be organized and collected after project is complete, per City Code Chapter

17.616.020. This statement must explain how the property manager will collect from the trash, recycling and organics receptacles located around the site and place each material type in the appropriate bin in the trash enclosure.

A40. Solid waste trucks must be ab le to safely move about the project, with minimum backing, and able to empty the bins and cans safely.

A41. This project will be required to submit a Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris plan, as outlined on the City’s web site at
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/public-works/RSW/Collection- Services/Recycling/Construction-and-Demolition. Please contact the Solid Waste C&D team if you have any questions: (916) 808 -0965 or C&[email protected]

Utilities

A42. Per City Code Section, 13.04.070, multiple water service to a single lot or parcel may be allowed if approved by DOU Development Review and Operations and Maintenance staff. Any new water services (other than fire) shall be metered. Excess services shall be abandoned to the satisfaction of the DOU.

A43. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of improvement plans, prepare a project specific water study for review and approval by the DOU. The water distribution system shall be designed to satisfy the more critical of the two following conditions: (1) at maximum day peak hour demand, the operating or "residual" pressure at all water service connections shall be at least 30 pounds per square inch, (2) at average maximum day demand plus fire flow, the operating or "residual" pressure in the area of the fire shall not be less than 20 pounds per square inch. The water study shall determine if the existing and proposed water distribution system is adequate to supply fire flow demands for the project. A water supply test may be required for this project. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916 -808-7890) at the early planning stages to address any water related requirements. Failure to submit the water study may delay review and approval.

A44. This project is served by the Combined Sewer System (CSS). Therefore, the developer/property owner will be required to pay the Combined Sewer System Development Fee prior to the issuance of building permit. The fee will be used for improvements to the CSS. The applicant is recommended to contact the Department of Utilities Development Services at 916 -808- 7890 for a CSS fee estimate.

A45. All increases in sewer flow shall be mitigated. The proposed project is contributing increased sewer flows to the CSS and shall evaluate the available capacity of existing CSS mains from the project’s point of service to the nearest 18-inch main. If any portion of the City mains to the nearest 18-inch main is determined to have insufficient capacity to accommodate the increased sewer flow, the development shall be required to improve the undersized mains to the nearest 18-inch main. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Sewer Planning Section (916-808-7890) at the early planning stag es to address any sewer related requirements.

A46. There is an existing City combined sanitary sewer main in the Alley that is over 80 years old and is in need of an assessment . Prior to design, the applicant shall contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Section at (916) 808 -7890 to determine if there is existing CCTV data. If none exists, the applicant/Developer will be required to provide a CCTV video and report (following City criteria) of the sewer main at no cost to the City. If the CCTV data determines that the sewer main is in need of repair or replacement, the applicant shall enter into a cost share with the Department of Utilities.

A47. Prior to of fsite improvement plan approval, the applicant shall coordinate with Department of Utilities Development Review Section (916 -808-7890), so the City can make any necessary repairs to the existing eight-inch CSS main in Fat Alley.

A48. Current records indicate that an existing water and sewer service for 1425 G Street may go through the project site. The applicant shall locate, verify, and provide a drawing to the Department of Utilities showing all utility services to the existing building at 1425 G Street. An y utility services that cross property lines to serve the existing building shall be relocated or private easements dedicated to the satisfaction of the Department of Utilities.

A49. Prior to or concurrent with the submittal of the building permit application, the applicant shall prepare a project specific drainage study meeting the criteria specified in the current Onsite Design Manual and/or the Design and Procedures Manual, for review and approval by the DOU. Per the current DOU Onsite Design Manual, either a static or dynamic analysis for mitigating sizing and drainage system design may be used. Using the static analysis and per the DOU onsite project storage method, an estimated 7,600 cubic feet of detention must be provided per each additional acre of impervious area. The maximum discharge rate must be limited to an estimated 0.18 cfs/acre. The applicant is advised to contact the City of Sacramento Utilities Department Development Review Section (916 -808- 7890) at the early planning stages to address any dra inage related requirements. Failure to submit the drainage study may delay review and approval. (Note: A maintenance agreement may be required for detention and Low Impact Development (LID) features.)

A50. Onsite sewer and drainage facilities shall be separated systems.

A51. All on-site drainage systems shall be designed to the standards specified in the DOU onsite design manual.

A52. Finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of 1 -foot above the 100 -year HGL or 1.5 –feet above the overland flow release elevation, whichever is higher or as approved by the DOU.

A53. Per City Code, the applicant may not develop the project in any way that obstructs, impedes, or interferes with the natural flow of existing off -site drainage that crosses the property. The project shall construct the required public and/or private infrastructure to handle off-site runoff to the satisfaction of the DOU. If private infrastructure is constructed to handle off-site runoff, the applicant shall dedicate the required private easements, and/or, at the discretion of the DOU, the applicant shall enter into and record an Agreement for Maintenance of Drainage with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

A54. No more than 6,000 square feet is allowed to sheet drain over a public sidewalk. If th e area is larger than 6,000 square feet, then an on -site surface drainage system is required and shall be connected to the street drainage system by means of a storm drain service tap. All on-site systems shall be designed to the standard specified in the DOU onsite manual.

A55. A grading plan showing existing and proposed elevations is required.

Adjacent off-site topography shall also be shown to the extent necessary to determine impacts to existing surface drainage paths. No grading shall occur until the grading plan has been reviewed and approved by the DOU.

SMUD

A56. SMUD has existing overhead 21kV facilities along the north side of the property (south side of Fat Alley) that will need to remain. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all CalOSHA and State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95 safety clearances during construction and upon building completion. If the required clearances cannot be maintained, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of relocation.

A57. SMUD has existing underground low voltage/secondary facilities at the northwest area of the property (south side of Fat Alley) that will need to remain. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all CalOSHA and State of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 128 safety clearances during construction and upon building completion. If the required clearances cannot be maintained, the Applicant shall be responsible for the cost of relocation.

A58. Structural setbacks less than 14-feet shall require the Applicant to conduct a pre-engineering meeting with all utilities to ensure property clearances are maintained.

A59. Any necessary future SMUD facilities located on the Applicant’s property shall require a dedicated SMUD easement. This will be determined prior to SMUD performing work on the Applicant’s property.

A60. In the event the Applicant requires the relocation or removal of existing SMUD facilities on or adjacent to the subject property, the Applicant shall coordinate with SMUD. The Applica nt shall be responsible for the cost of relocation or removal.

A61. SMUD reserves the right to use any portion of its easements on or adjacent to the subject property that it reasonably needs and shall not be responsible for any damages to the developed proper ty within said easement that unreasonably interferes with those needs.

A62. The Applicant shall not place any building foundations within 5 -feet of any SMUD trench to maintain adequate trench integrity. The Applicant shall verify specific clearance requirement s for other utilities (e.g., Gas, Telephone, etc.).

A63. In the event the City requires an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (IOD) for future roadway improvements, the Applicant shall dedicate a 12.5 -foot public utility easement (PUE) for overhead and/or underground facilities and appurtenances adjacent to the City’s IOD.

A64. The Applicant shall comply with SMUD siting requirements (e.g., panel size/location, clearances from SMUD equipment, transformer location, service conductors). Information regarding SMUD siting requirements can be found at: https://www.smud.org/en/Business-Solutions-and- Rebates/Design-and-Construction-Services.

A65. The Applicant shall provide separate SMUD service points to each parcel to the satisfaction of SMUD.

A66. The Applicant shall dedicate the west three-feet of Parcel One (1) as a public utility easement for overhead and underground facilities and appurtenances (the reduced PUE may necessitate additional requirements such as concrete encasement and additional conduits) (clearance requirements including separation from wet utilities and building setbacks shall need to be complied with)

A67. The shown transformer location and space on the provided plans will have to be validated by SMUD to ensure it meets all spacing and design criteria per the requested service size. Please contact SMUD Line Design for additional information.

A68. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Sacramento to confirm that the proposed underground electrical service along Fat Alley is allowed. If the City rejects this alternative a five-foot PUE along the northerly property line will be required.

Fire

A69. Provide a water flow test. (Make arrangements at the Permit Center walk - in counter: 300 Richards Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95814). CFC 507.4

A70. Provide appropriate Knox access for site. CFC Section 506

A71. An approved dedicated fire control room shall be provided for all buildings protected by an automatic fire extinguishing system. The room shall contain all system control valves, fire alarm control panels and other fire equipment required by the Fire Code Official. Fire Control rooms shall be located within the building at a location approved by the Fire Code Official, and shall be provided with a means to access the room directly from the exterior.

Durable signage shall be provided on the exterior side o f the access door to identify the fire control room. Fire Control rooms shall not be less than 50 square feet for rooms without a fire pump and 200 square feet when a fire pump is present. CFC as Amended by the SCC section 901.4.7

A72. Emergency Responder Radio Coverage may be required. Testing shall be conducted by an authorized technician to verify compliance with section 510, CFC. This test shall verify that building will support the Sacramento City Fire Department Radio Communication System. This test shal l be performed once all computers, electronics and/ or wireless systems and etc. have been installed.

Police

Lighting:

A73. Exterior lighting shall be white light using LED lamps with full cutoff fixtures to limit glare and light trespass. Color temperature shall be between 2700K and 4100K with a color rendering index of 80 or higher and a light loss factor of 0.95 or better. When choosing lamps, the applicant shall look for efficiency of 110 lumens per watt or better. All existing exterior fixtures shall be replaced with fixtures that meet this requirement.

A74. Broken or damaged exterior lighting shall be repaired or replaced within 48 hours of being noted.

A75. Entry drives, drive aisles, parking and bicycle parking shall be illuminated to a maintained minimum of 1.5 foot candles per square foot of parking area at a 6:1 average to minimum ratio.

A76. Exterior walkways, alcoves and passageways shall be illuminated to a maintained minimum of 1/3 foot candles per square foot of surface area at a 6:1 average to minimum ratio.

A77. Exterior lighting distribution and fixtures shall be approved by the Sacramento Police Department CPTED Sergeant (or designee) prior to issuance of a building permit.

A78. Exterior lighting shall be designed in coordination with the landscaping plan to minimize interference between the light standards and required illumination and the landscape trees and required shading.

A79. Exterior lighting shall be shielded or otherwise designed to avoid spill -over illumination to adjacent streets and properties.

Landscaping:

A80. All mature landscaping shall follow the two -foot, six -foot rule. All landscaping shall be ground cover, two feet or less and lower tree canopies of mature trees shall be above six feet. This increases natural surveillance, eliminates hiding areas within the landscape, and provides for tenants and users a safer environment.

A81. Tree canopies shall not interfere with or block lighting. This creates shadows and areas of concealment. The landscaping plan shall allow for proper illumination and visibility regarding lighting and surveillance cameras through the maturity of trees and shrubs.

Security:

A82. Fencing, if applicable, shall be of decorative tubular steel, no climb type and a minimum of six feet in height.

A83. A Video Assessment and Surveillance System (VASS) shall be installed at the site and maintained by a property management company, security company, or designee.

A84. Manager with access to VASS stor age shall be able to respond to any activation within two hours.

A85. Cameras shall be day/night capable with a resolution of no less than two megapixels and a minimum frame rate of 15 frames per second.

A86. Each driveway entrance and each building entrance shal l be covered by a camera set at 100 pixels per foot or higher.

A87. VASS shall be capable of exporting footage to common media in a standard viewing format and shall not require proprietary software for third party viewing.

A88. VASS shall be capable of storing no less than 30 days’ worth of activity.

A89. VASS shall provide comprehensive coverage of:

a. areas of ingress and egress
b. parking lot
c. coverage of all four (4) exterior sides of the property d. adjacent public rights of way
e. all pedestrian entrance and exits
f. main entrance lobby
g. hallways
h. elevators

A90. No more than 10 percent of the square footage of windows and clear doors for retail purposes shall be blocked by advertising, signs, shelves or anything else. All advertising, signs, and shelving shall be placed and maintained in a manner that ensures that law enforcement personnel have a clear and unobstructed view of the interior of the premises from the exterior public sidewalk or entrance to the premises. All signs shall comply with the City Code.

A91. All dumpsters shall be kept locked or in locked enclosures. Gating for dumpster enclosures shall be slatted to allow visual surveillance of the interior.

A92. Exterior trash receptacles shall be of a design to prevent unauthorized removal of articles from the trash bin.

A93. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the applicant shall be removed or painted over with matching paint within 72 hours of being applied.

A94. Exterior benches shall be constructed so as to deter skateboarding (e.g., center armrest partitions).

A95. Property management shall be responsible for the daily removal of all litter from the site.

A96. Applicant shall install a law enforcement “Knox Box” for police access to common areas on the premises, including, but not limited to the main lobby entrance, etc. If elevators can only be operated via electronic access card, management shall ensure a card is placed in the exterior knox box.

A97. Applicant shall employ uniformed security to respond to onsite disturbances, 24/7, called in by management or residents. The contracted security company shall be registered and in good standing with the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS). Applicant may request a modification of this condition at any time. Any request for modification shall be in writing and submitted to the Sergeant of the Sacramento Police Department’s CPTED unit, or designee, and specify the desired modification(s). The Sacramento Police Department will evaluate the modification request and will respond within 30 days of receipt of the request.

During Construction:

A98. The applicant shall enclose the entire perimeter of the project with a chain link fence with necessary construction gates to be locked after normal construction hours.

A99. The location shall be monitored by security after normal construction hours during all phases of construction. This can be done via remote camera monitoring.

A100. Adequate security lighting shall be provided to illuminate vulnerable equipment and materials. L ighting shall be white light with full cut off fixtures.

Park Planning and Development Services

A101. Maintenance District: The applicant shall initiate and complete the formation of a parks maintenance district (assessment or Mello -Roos special tax district) or annex the project into an existing parks maintenance district. The applicant shall pay all city fees for formation of or annexation to a parks maintenance district. (Contact Infrastructure Finance, Jessica Steinhauer, (916) 808-8243).

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District

A102. Developing this property will require the payment of Regional San sewer impact fees (connection fees). Regional San sewer impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. For questions pertaining to Regional San sewer impact fees, please contact the Permit Services Unit at (916) 876-6100 or email [email protected].

Advisory Comments

ADV.A1. PLANNING. As an advisory it is the ultimate responsibility of the property owner to screen the prospective affordable housing tenants for the eight affordable housing at the low-income level. As suc h, staff would encourage you to contract with a property management company with experience managing affordable housing to ensure compliance with the income qualification process and yearly reporting requirements for affordable housing units. The property management company would also work with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) at any point that the affordable housing units are not in compliance with the provisions of the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement.

ADV.A2. UTILITIES. Many projects within the City of Sacramento require on-site booster pumps for fire suppression and domestic water systems. Prior to design of the subject project, the DOU suggests that the applicant request a water supply test to determine what pressure and flows the surrounding public water distribution system can provide to the site. This information can then be used to assist the engineers in the design of the on-site fire suppression system.

ADV.A3. UTILITES. Water meters shall be located at the point of service, which is back of curb for separated sidewalks, back of walk for connected sidewalks or at the inside edge of the right-of-way for public alleys.

ADV.A4. UTILITIES. As of January 1, 2018, all new multi -family residential construction will require sub -metering of each residential unit pursuant to all requirements found in California Senate Bill 7 (SB7). These requirements at a minimum include installing sub meters, billing for water based on the sub meters, and long -term calibration and maintenance of the sub meter. The SB7 requirements are the responsibility of the property owner.

ADV.A5. UTILITIES: The proposed project is located in a Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Accordingly, the project site lies in an area with no requirements to elevate or flood proof.

ADV.A6. POLICE: City of Sacramento permits must be obtained for private patrol, alarms, and camera systems.

ADV.A7. PARKS: As per City Code, the applicant will be responsible to meet his/her obligations regarding:

a. Title 18, 18.56 Park Development Impact Fee, due at the time of issuance of building permit. The Park Development Impact Fee due for this project i s estimated at $64,317. The Park Development Impact Fee due for this project is based on the Housing Incentive Zone rate of $0.20 for commercial projects, and $2.15 per square foot for residential projects, with a minimum rate of $1,599 for units under 750 square feet and a maximum of $4,267 for units over 2,000 square feet. If this project meets the Affordable Housing definition per City Code, then the Park Impact Fee on the affordable residential units will be zeroed out and PIF fee reduced per Code. Any change in these factors will change the amount of the PIF due. The fee is calculated using factors at the time that the project is submitted for building permit.
b. Community Facilities District 2002 -02, Neighborhood Park Maintenance CFD Annexation.

ADV.A8. FINANCE: The project site is located within the Central City Impact Fee boundaries and will be subject to the applicable impact fees with future development and/or change of land use of the site, during the building permit process. Contact Infrastructure Finance (916-808-1440) with any questions on the Central City Impact Fee.

ADV.A9. REGIONAL SAN: The City of Sacramento (City) is responsible for providing local sewer service to the proposed project site via their local sanitary sewer collection system. Regional San is responsible for the conveyance of wastewater from the City collection system to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP).

ADV.A10. BUILDING: Alternate Water Systems Requirement. Pursuant to Chapter

15.24.030, 15.24.040 and 15.24.050 of Sacramento City Code, beginning on July 1, 2023, new buildings that are 10,000 square feet or greater must include a gray water system to provide subsurface irrigation and buildings that are 50,000 square feet or greater must include installation of a separate, additional piping system for an on-site treated non -potable gray water system for water closets and urinals.

Limited exceptions apply. Please see City webpage for more details.

Complete building permit applications (including payment of all required fees) filed with and accepted by the City’s Building Division prior to July 1, 2023, will not be subject to Alternate Water Systems requirements.

Applicants are advised to plan for alternate water systems beginning with initial early design. For more information, please visit the City’s website: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-
Development/Planning/Major-Projects/General-Plan/About-The- Project/Climate_Change/Onsite-Water-Reuse-Study

ADV.A11. BUILDING: All-Electric New Buildings Requirement. P ursuant to Chapter 15.30 of Sacramento City Code, new buildings of 1 -3 stories will be required to be all-electric beginning on January 1, 2023, and new buildings 4 stories or more will be required to be all -electric beginning on January 1, 2026. An all -electric building is a building that does not have natural gas piping or propane plumbing installed on a lot or within a building.

Complete building permit applications (including payment of all required fees) filed with and accepted by the City’s Buildin g Division prior to the effective dates will not be subject to all-electric requirements.

Applicants are advised to plan for all-electric compliance beginning with initial early design. Solutions include but are not limited to: Designing projects to cre ate space for electric infrastructure and equipment; utilizing energy efficiency to reduce electrical loads; and consulting with SMUD to address electric infrastructure issues. Limited exemptions may apply. For more information, please visit the City’s we bsite:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/SacElectrificationOrdinance

Section 4. Exhibit A is part of this resolution.

Table of Contents:

Exhibit A: Project Plans

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis
The Grace Rezone & Mixed-Use (P21-032)

Introduction

The following analysis focuses on the potential preservation-related impacts for The Grace Rezone & Mixed -Use (Record No. P21 -032), a development proposal at 620 & 628 15th Street.

City Code & Environmental Review

Sacramento City Code (SCC) section 17.808.180 requires a development project located on a property listed on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register) to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) or meet certain other conditions that would make consistency with the Standards infeasible.

In addition to compliance with SCC section 1 7.808.180, development projects located within a historic district must be reviewed for consistency with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a h istorical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment ( PRC sections 21084.1 and 15064.5(b)(2)(B)). The Guidelines define a “substantial adverse change” as the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of t he resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” PRC section 15064.5(2)(B) states that “[t]he significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project demolish es or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for [the resource’s] inclusion in a local register…” The Sacramento Register meets the definition of a local register pursuant to the definition in the PRC section 5020.1(k).

Summary of Findings

Upon evaluation of the project, staff has determined that: (1) the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; and (2) the project will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource.

Figure 1: Historic District

Old Washington School Historic District

The Washington Historic District was designated for listing on the Sacramento Register by the City Preservation Commission in 1985 (Ordinance No. 85-076). The Historic District was updated in 2019 (Ordinance No. 2019-005) as a component of the City’s Historic District Plans initiative.

The Old Washington School Historic District (formerly Washington Historic District) is a primarily residential area locat ed within Sacramento’s original 1848 street grid and is roughly bounded to the east and west by commercial development along 12 th and 16th streets, to the north by industrial development along C Street, and to the south by mixed commercial and institutional development along G Street.

Figures 2 & 3: Typical Blocks in the Washington Historic District

Significance & Period of Significance

The Old Washington School Historic District Plan (HDP) identifies that the Historic District’s significance as: (1) a significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical development; and (2) an a rea associated with an event, person, or period significant of important to city history. The HDP notes:

 The district is significant for its collection of late nineteenth - and early twentieth - century houses that were built directly to the east of Sacramento’s older residential neighborhoods to the west as streetcar lines expanded outward from the city center. The Washington neighborhood, alternately known as Mansion Flats, grew alongside Sacramento’s first streetcar line, which began operation in 1870 an d initially ran down H Street before shifting to G Street in 1893. Easy access to transportation attracted both wealthy business owners and middle -class employees to build houses close to the streetcar line. While more affluent residents built the mansions along H Street that gave the neighborhood its nickname, the blocks to the north that comprise the Old Washington School Historic District were filled with the smaller houses of employees of the city’s railyards and other industries. The existing buildings in the area reflect the range of architectural styles that were popular for new residential development during this peak period of development in the neighborhoods. The end of streetcar service through the neighborhood in 1936 was an early transition poin t that signaled a wider shift in the city’s demographics and development, as the affluent residents began to relocate to newer residential suburbs outside of the central city, aided by the increasing availability and popularity of automobiles.

 The district is associated with the development of new residential neighborhoods along the city’s streetcar lines from the late nineteenth to early twentieth century.

Much of Old Washington School Historic District’s development is related to the expansion of streetcar lines to the area, first on H Street in the 1870s and later on G Street in the 1890s. Prior residential development in Sacramento had been primarily concentrated in the central business district downtown, where the commercial waterfront, railyards, indu stries, and state government offices were located. The availability of employment opportunities attracted large numbers of people to the downtown area who not only worked in the businesses downtown but often lived in the immediate area. As these areas beca me increasingly overcrowded and polluted, neighborhoods to the east, such as the Washington neighborhood, became attractive alternatives. Streetcars enabled workers who were employed by businesses downtown to live further from the city center, resulting in the establishment of Sacramento’s early residential subdivisions and the beginning of an exodus of residents from the downtown area.

The HDP identifies a period of significance between 1870 and 1936 and describes the period as follows:

 The period of significance for the Old Washington School Historic District begins with the start of streetcar service to the area in 1870, which attracted residential development to the area, and concludes in 1936, when streetcar service ended along G Street.

Historic District Context

Properties within the historic district context were developed with primary residential buildings on the street frontages and garage structures along the alleys. High basement cottage housing is the predominant architectural form; many in the Folk Victorian style.

However, there are a wide range of architectural styles throughout the adjacent blocks, including one and two -story Italianate (1870s early 1880s period), Queen Anne and Eastlake, (late 1880s -1900 period), Classic Box/Late Queen Anne (often featuring bay window projections) (1900-1905 period), and Craftsman (1905-1925 period).

The project site is located at the corner of G Street and 15 th Street and there is a high concentration of contributing resources to the north, east and w est. There is a landmark structure at 612 15 th Street, which is two properties north of Fat Alley, and is an individually-eligible landmark and a contributing resource within the Washington Historic District. The two-story dwelling is an example of the Eastlake style (1895) with clapboard siding, gable roof that overhangs an angled bay with flash glass, sunburst brackets, a

button frieze, and an elaborate L -shaped porch with spindles in the screen and balustrade. Significant architectural features include f lash glass, turned porch columns, and bandsaw decoration around the windows and door. Further to the north on F Street there are numerous individually-eligible landmark structures with a rear yard adjacent to Fat Alley.

629 G Street is located to the eas t of the project site at the northeast corner of G Street and 15th Street, is an individually-eligible landmark and a contributing resource within the Washington Historic District. The two -story dwelling (with highwater basement) is an example of the Itali anate style (early 1860s period) with Queen Anne architectural detailing added (1890’s) to the front of the building. The building is a rare brick Italianate with bracket eaves. The building was remodeled in the 1980’s with the addition of a shingle Queen Anne two -story bay windows. The two houses to the north of the landmark, and east of the project site are contributing resources in the historic district; however, they are not considered landmark structures.

The project site is adjoined on the west by two structures which are contributing resources in the Washington Historic District. The adjoining property to the west at 1425 -1427 G Street is a Colonial Revival, two -story triplex with a hipped roof and hipped dormer, horizontal narrow board siding, raised basement, full-width porches, balustrade balcony, tapering pillars atop clinker-brick piers, clinker-brick staircase, and oriel windows.

Figures 4 & 5: Sanborn Maps

The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (1915 -1952) documents development patterns in the Washington Historic District -Mansion Flats neighborhood at the mid -point of the 20 th century. The maps show that there were originally three lots with three structures in 1915, with a duplex on the northern most lot, four apartments on the middle L -shaped lot connected to 1425 – 1427 G Street, and a duplex on with southern lot. By 1952 one of the structures on the north lot was demolished and the two structures on the southern lots were still standing. Since 1952 all the structures have been demolished and the two northern lots were merged into one lot in the 1980’s. The map documents that a majority of the residential buildings within immediate neighborhood context accommodated multiple dwelling units (ranging from two to four units).

Development Proposal

The project proposes a new mixed-use building with 40 dwelling units and a commercial space on the ground floor. As mentioned above, the site was originally occupied by three parcels, with three buildings and a total of 8 units. The site is currently vacant.

The districts historic character is defined by the residential, compact, walkable, street grid, mature street trees, and diverse architecture. Returning the parcels to residential use is consistent with the district’s development as a middle - and w orking-class residential neighborhood. The proposed project creates relatively small units, with neighborhood servicing commercial. The proposed project will not adversely affect the street grid because the existing streets and alley way will be maintained . The new building is sited approximately the same as the historic buildings would have been with the building on G Street setback from the public right-of-way and in line with the adjacent structure and the building extending to Fat Alley with a minimal setback.

The contemporary design of the proposed project incorporates design elements that allow it to be compatible with the historic district. Specifically, the proposed project design has incorporated architectural detailing and materials such as narrow horizontal siding, strong horizontal datum lines, and balconies with railings. The longest facade facing 15 th Street incorporates plane changes in a rhythmic pattern of approximately 40 feet to mimic the historic lot width which is consistent with the district’s contributing resources in scale and massing. The design incorporates brick, horizontal metal siding, plaster, metal railings, metal window systems, and metal canopy.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

The Standards address four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. As stated in the regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part

68) promulgating the Standards, “one set of standards…will apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending on the property’s significance, existing physical condition, the extent of documentation available, and interpretive goals, when applicable.

The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project. The associated Guidelines have been developed by the National Parks Service to help apply the Standards to a specific type of historic resources.

The purpose of the Standards and associated Guidelines is to provide guidance to those involved in a project involving a historic property before beginning work. The Guidelines are intended as an aid to assist in applying the Standards to all types of historic buildings.

They are not meant to give case -specific advice or address excepti ons to unusual conditions.

Application of Standards

Given the proposed project includes development of a vacant lot in an urban historic district, staff has applied the Rehabilitation Treatment Approach to its evaluation of the project for compliance wit h the Standards. The Rehabilitation Treatment Approach acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic district or landmark to meet a resource’s continuing or changing uses while retaining the district or landmark’s historic character. The Standards are much better suited to evaluating whether a modification to an existing historic building would affect a historic property, however, certain concepts within the Standards do apply to new construction within a historic district as discussed in greater detail below.

Standards Analysis

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.

This property was originally used for residential buildings and the current project proposes to return the site to a residential use. The project is consistent with Standard No. 1.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

This portion of the Washington Historic District contains several other multi -unit residential buildings, such as those to the west of the subject property. These

buildings and others throughout the district have prominent front porches, strong datum lines, and are setback from the street. The proposed project is setback from the street with a metal canopy over the front patio area on G Street. The front patio emulates the large full-width porches and activation of the pedestrian realm. The main building wall respects the setback from G Street and is in line with the residential structure with the west. The pedestrian experience along this portion of the district will remain consistent with the rest of the district. The proposed project is consistent with Standard No. 2 as it pertains to removal or alteration of significant spaces and spatial relationships found in the historic district.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.

Standard No. 3 is typically applied to projects involving restoration of a building.

Though the development is modern i n design, this Standard applies to the proposed project in terms of use, which would be returned to residential. The project is consistent with Standard No. 3.

4. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural featur es or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

The proposed project is not trying to emulate historic features found in the district in a way that would create a false sense of historical development. The project is consistent with Standard No. 4.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

This Standard is applied when projects involve work to existing buildings (i.e. when distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques are present) and typically does not apply to infill within historic distric ts. Standard No. 5 does not apply and the project can be considered consistent with the Standard.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

This Standard is applied when projects involve work to existing buildings (i.e. when historic features are present) and typically does not apply to infill within historic districts. Standard No. 6 does not apply and the project can be considered consistent with the Standard.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

This Standard is applied when projects involve work to existing buildings (i.e. when historic materials are present) and typically does not apply to infill within historic districts. Standard No. 7 does not apply and the project can be considered consistent with the Standard.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

This Standard is applied when projects involve work with the potential to damage known significant archeological resources, and typically does not apply to infill within historic districts unless known significant archeologica l resources are present. In addition, mitigation measures included in the 2035 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would address any potential impacts resulting from accidental discovery of subsurface cultural resources or human remains.

Standard No. 8 does not apply and the project can be considered consistent with the Standard.

9. New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property.

The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

This portion of the Historic District maintains a streetscape dominated by two story wood buildings facing lettered and numbered streets. Many of the contributing resources retain their prominent front porches and highwater design elements. The proposed project site was originally three separate buildings on three lots that maintained this streetscape design. These features and spatial relationships found throughout the district, and once found on the project site, are important to maintaining the district’s feeling and association as a middle - and working-class residential neighborhood from the late 19th Century. The proposed project design

reimagines these materials, spaces, and spatial relationships on the proposed project in a modern form. Specifically, the project maintains the narrow building frontage on G Street and breaks up the massing on the 15 th Street elevation with plane changes and material changes that mimic the 40-foot-wide lots and massing in the historic district. Moreover, by incorporating strong datum lines for the each of the three stories with fenestration and balconies, the design is compatible with the district’s predominant streetscape feature (porches) and size (two - to three- stories). For these reasons, the proposed project is consistent with Standard No. 9 as it pertains to respecting materials, features, and spatial relationships found in the historic district.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of th e historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

This Standard is applied when projects involve work to existing buildings and typically does not apply to infill within historic districts. Standard 10 does not apply and the project can be considered consistent with the Standard.

Analysis Conclusion

The analysis above confirms the project complies with the Standards. As directed by the federal regulations (36 CFR Part 68), staff has considered the property’s significance, existing physical condition, the existing documentation for the property to conclude that the project is consistent with the Standards and concluded the project could not result in the substantial adverse change to the essential physical features necessary to convey the historic significance of the district or contributing resources.

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 1

NO FEE DOCUMENT:

Entitled to free recording
Pursuant to Government Code 27383.

When recorded, return to:

SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
801 12th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
ATTN: Development Services

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATORY AGREEMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY

CONTAINING COVENANTS AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY
Pursuant to Sacramento City Council Resolution 2023-____xxxxxx

PROJECT NAME: The Grace Apartments
PROJECT ADDRESS: 620 and 628 15th Street Sacramento CA

NOTICE: THIS REGULATORY AGREEMENT IMPOSES COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE

PROPERTY WHICH STAY WITH THE PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS, INCLUDING RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESALE, RENT, AND THE USE OF THE PROPERTY.

RECITALS

A. Sotiris Kolokotronis, Comani, L.P. (“Owner”) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Sacramento that is the subject of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and which is the location of the Residential Rental Project. Owner is seeking approval of the Residential Rental Project which is to be developed by Owner. For purposes of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, Owner and Developer are acting jointly and severally, and use of the term Owner and Developer shall be interpreted as the context may indicate.

B. The Owner has submitted to the City of Sacramento the Residential Rental Project Plans which have been approved by the Sacramento City Council pursuant to Resolution 2023-___. In order to obtain rights to exceed the floor area ratio standard established by the 2035 General Plan, the Owner is providing Restricted Affordable Housing Units consistent with 2035 General Plan Policy LU 1.1.10. To ensure consistency with this Policy, the Resolution imposes conditions of approval requiring this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement be signed as a condition to receiving the award of additional floor area ration for the Residential Rental Project, and recorded against the land in the Residential Rental Project.

C. The Housing Authority of the City of Sacramento (“Agency”) is charged with the responsibility for improving, increasing and maintaining the stock of affordable housing in the City of Sacramento. Pursuant to the Resolution , Owner is required to enter into this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement as a condition of the City’s approval of development of the Residential Rental Project to assure the development of the Restricted (or “Target”) Affordable Housing Units. Agency is entering into this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement in reliance upon Owner’s promises to meet the requirements of the Resolution, by which the stock of affordable housing in the community will be increased. On April xx, xx/2023, the Agency was approved to enter into this agreement and monitor the units on an annual basis to ensure compliance with this agreement.

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 4

Affordable
c. Unless Owner has obtained prior written authorization from the Agency, Owner shall maintain the allocation of Restricted Units by the bedroom sizes set forth in the Regulatory Agreement.

d. Owner shall be responsible to determine the affordable rents for the Restricted Units. Within ten (10) days of Owner’s request, Agency shall provide all information necessary for Owner to compute such affordable rents and will assist Owner in determining the amount of such rents.

7. INITIAL OCCUPANCY. Owner shall verify that all Restricted Units (target units) shall initially be occupied by households whose income levels are at or below the maximum income levels:

a. the annual income limit for Lower Income Households shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the median income for the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined in the applicable sections of the California Health and Safety Code.

8. INCOME VERIFICATION, RENT VERIFICATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS. Owner shall annually verify the income of the tenant(s) residing in the Restricted Units and maintain books and records of their respective rents and incomes.

Annually, not later than January 31 of each year of the term of these restrictions, Owner shall submit an Annual Compliance Report (attached as Exhibit 3) and incorporated in this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement by this reference) to Agency stating the address, unit number and bedroom size of each Restricted Unit, together with the rent amount for each respective Restricted Unit and the household size and household income of each household member residing in each Restricted Unit.

9. DISGORGEMENT OF EXCESS RENTS. If Agency determines that Owner has collected rents in excess of the Affordable Rent for any Restricted Unit, Agency shall notify Owner of such overpayment, and within thirty (30) days thereafter, Owner shall deliver the amount of overpaid rent to the over-charged resident(s). Owner shall be responsible to provide the over-charged resident(s) the entitled repayment even if the over-charged resident(s) has vacated the Restricted Unit.

10. ADDITIONAL COVENANTS. Owner makes the following covenants. Unless Owner has received the prior written consent or Agency approval, Owner shall fully comply with each and every covenant contained in this Regulatory Agreement. Except as otherwise stated in this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, the following covenants shall have the same term as specified in the Affordable Requirements.

a. Owner shall assure full compliance with the Affordable Housing Regulatory Requirements.

b. Owner shall not transfer or encumber any of the Property or permit the conveyance, transfer, or encumbrance of the Property unless such assignee, transferee or encumbrancer has agreed, in writing, and in a form suita ble for recordation, to be bound by the terms of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement.

c. Owner shall maintain the Property and the building improvements, grounds and equipment of the Property in good repair and condition and in compliance with all applicable local code requirements. Owner shall maintain the Property in good condition and shall keep the Property reasonably free from graffiti and unrepaired vandalism and from accumulation of abandoned property, inoperable vehicles, unenclosed storage, debris, and waste materials. In the event of a casualty loss, Owner shall cause the restoration or replacement of the Property in a timely manner, provided that such restoration or replacement is then economically feasible.

d. Owner shall not cause and shall not permit discrimination on the basis of race, color, ancestry, religion, creed, sex, marital status, or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Property. Owner covenants by and for himself/herself/itself, his/her/its heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him/her/it/them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the Property.

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 5

11. NATURE OF COVENANTS. The provisions contained in this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement are covenants which subject and burden the Property as covenants running with the land. I t is intended and agreed that the agreements and covenants set forth in this Regulatory Agreement shall be covenants running with the land and equitable servitudes on the land and that they shall, in any event, and without regard to technical classificatio ns or designation, be binding, to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity, for the benefit and in favor of, and enforceable by, the Agency, the Agency's successors and assigns, any other governmental entity acting within its authority and any successor in interest to Agency's interest under this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement against the Owner, its successors and assigns and every successor in interest to all or any part of the Property.

12. REVIVAL OF COVENANTS AFTER FORECLOSURE. The affordability restrictions shall be revived after foreclosure, or deed in lieu of foreclosure according to the original terms if, during the original term of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, the Owner, who was owner of record before the termination event, or a party related to the Owner obtains an ownership interest in the Property or Restricted Unit, as the case may be. For purposes of this provision, a related party is anyone with whom such Owner has or had family or business ties; provided that such interest would not be considered a “remote interest” in the usual and customary use of the term.

13. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING. Upon request of Agency, Owner shall promptly provide any additional information or documentation in writing as requested by the Agency to verify Owner's compliance with the provisions of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement. At the written request of the Agency, Owner shall, within sixty (60) days, or less if required by Agency, following receipt of such request, furnish reports and shall give specific answers to questions upon which information is desired from time to time relative to the income, assets, liabilities, contracts, operations, and condition of the property.

14. AUDIT AND INSPECTION. The Property and all related equipment, buildings, plans, offices, books, contracts, records, documents and other related papers shall at all times be maintained in reasonable condition for audit and shall be subject to examination by the Agency or its agents. The books and accounts of the operations of the Property and of the Property shall be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Owner shall provide Agency access to the Property and its tenants, including tenant files, during reasonable hours for the purpose of reviewing Owner’s compliance with this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement.

15. INDEMNITY FOR OWNER’S FAILURE TO MEET LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. Owner shall indemnify and hold Agency, its officers, directors, and employees harmless from any and all liability arising from Owner’s failure to comply with the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement or to comply with all other laws, rules, regulations and restrictions related to the Affordable Ordinance. Without limitation, such indemnity shall include repayment to the appropriate parties of rents or sales proceeds in excess of amounts authorized to be charged and repayment to the Agency of the costs of funds and the value of lost opportunities resulting from the required repayment by Agency to the funding source of funds improperly used.

16. CHANGES WITHOUT CONSENT OF TENANTS, LESSEES, OR OTHERS. Agency and its successors and assigns, and Owner (subject to the reasonable approval of Owner's lender, if any , senior to this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, in accordance with its rights under its loan terms) shall have the right to consent and agree t o changes in, or to eliminate in whole or in part, any of the covenants or restrictions contained in this Agreement without the consent of any easement holder, licensee, other mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary under a deed of trust or any other person or ent ity having any interest less than a fee in the Property.

17. DEFAULT. Upon a breach of any of the provisions of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement by Owner, the Agency may give written notice of such breach to Owner by registered or c ertified mail. If such violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of Agency within sixty (60) days after the date such notice is mailed or within such further time as the Agency may reasonably determine is necessary to correct the breach, and without further notice to Owner, the Agency may declare a default under the Agreement, effective on the date of such declaration of default, and upon such default the Agency may apply to any court for specific performance under this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, for an injunction against any violation of the Agreement, for the appointment of a receiver to take over and operate the Property in accordance with the terms of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, for money damages, or for such other and further relief as may be appropriate, since the injury to the Agency arising from a default under any of the terms in this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement would be irreparable, and the amount of such damages would be difficult to ascertain.

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 6

18. BINDING SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. This Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement shall bind and the benefits shall inure to the Owner, its successors in interest and assigns, and to the Agency and its successors for the term of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement.

19. CONTRADICTORY AGREEMENTS. Owner warrants that he has not, and will not, execute any other agreement with provisions contradictory of or in opposition to, the provisions of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, and that, in any event, the requirements of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement are controlling as to the rights and obligations set forth and supersede any other requirements in conflict with this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement.

20. ATTORNEYS' FEES. If the services of any attorney are required by any party to secure the performance of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement or otherwise upon the breach of default of another party, or if any judicial remedy or mediation is necessary to enforce or interpret any provision of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement or the rights and duties of any person in relation to this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses, in addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled. Any award of damages following judicial remedy or arbitration as a result of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement or any of its provisions shall include an award of prejudgment interest from the date of the breach at the maximum amount of interest allowed by law. The prevailin g party shall mean the party receiving an award in arbitration or a judgment in its favor, unless the award or judgment is less favorable than the best settlement offered in writing in a reasonable manner by the other party, in which case the prevailing pa rty is the other party.

21. SEVERABILITY. The invalidity of any clause, part or provision of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions.

22. ELECTION OF REMEDIES. To the extent applicable, in the event of any breach of the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement, the Agency shall reasonably endeavor to remedy such breach by conference and conciliation. If, in the opinion of Agency, the Agency and Owner are unable to mutually agree to a suitable remedy or the circumstances so warrant, such breach may be enjoined or abated by appropriate proceedings brought by the Agency.

Agency may institute or prosecute in its own name, any suit Agency may consider advisable in order to compel performance of any obligation of any owner to develop and maintain the subject property in conformity with this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and to remedy any default of this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement. Agency may also seek a decree requiring removal of any improvements constructed on the Property which improvements are designed for uses not permitted under this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and which improvements are unsuitable only for uses not permitted under this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement.

The remedies of the Agency under this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement are cumulative, and the exercise of one or more of such remedies shall not be deemed an election of remedies and shall not preclude the exercise by the Agency of any one or more of its other remedies.

23. NO WAIVER. No waiver by the Agency of any breach of or default under this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach or default.

24. NOTICES. Written notices and other written communications by and between the parties to this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement shall be addressed to the Owner at the Owner’s Address and to the Agency at the Agency’s Address or such other address as each respective party has designated by written notice to the other party.

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 7

THE PARTIES HAVE EXECUTED THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATORY AGREEMENT in the County of Sacramento, in the State of California, effective as of the date first written above.

OWNER:

By: _______________________________________

Approved as to form:_________________________
Developer Counsel
AGENCY: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
SACRAMENTO, a public body, corporate and politic

By: _______________________________________
La Shelle Dozier, Executive Director

Approved as to form:_________________________
Agency Counsel

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 8

Exhibit 1 – Legal Description TBD

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 9

Exhibit 2 – Schedule

Schedule for Completion and Occupancy of Affordable Units (Restricted/Affordable Units to be Constructed Concurrently with Non-Restricted Units)

I. Schedule for Completion

Month Description
MM/YYYY Obtain Approval of Entitlements from the City of Sacramento MM/YYYY Start of Project Construction
MM/YYYY Completion of Project Construction

II. Schedule for Occupancy of Affordable Units

Month Description
MM/YYYY Begin marketing units
MM/YYYY Full Lease-up of Affordable Units

Affordable Housing Agreement Page 10

Exhibit 3 – Annual Compliance Report

Annual Compliance Report
(due to Agency on January 31st of each year of the term of these restrictions)

Date:

Project Name and Address (add more rows if needed):

Unit
No.

Head of Household
Last Name
Unit
Size
Gross Annual
Household Income
Number in
Household
Tenant
Rent
Utility
Allowance
Gross
Rent

Submit the following tenant records listed below with the Annual Compliance Report for each occupied unit.

Items 1 through 3 apply to all new residents and only current residents with changes to household composition.

Item 4 applies to new and current residents.

Vacant units: indicate “Vacant” in the Head of Household Last Name column for the respective vacant unit.

1. Household Composition Summary Certification form

2. Household source income certification and verification documents; examples include and are not limited to:
 Verification of Employment form
 Paystubs
 Self-Employment Certification
 Tax Returns
 Verification of Asset/Investments form and Bank Statements  Student Status

3. Income Calculation form

4. Lease Agreement and Current Rent Notices

The Owner, in accordance with the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement dated , does hereby certify to the Housing Authority of the City of Sacramento (C/O Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency) that during the preceding year, the u nits identified on the above Annual Compliance Report were occupi ed in accordance with the Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and does hereby further certify th at the repres entations set forth herein are true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge.

Signed: Date:

Print Name: Title and Company: _________________________________

Email: Phone:

December 15, 2022
Sierra Peterson
Associate Planner
City of Sacramento
Community Development
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
[email protected]

Re: The Grace Project (File No. P21-032) – Significant Community Benefits

Dear Ms. Peterson:

Urban Capital LLC (“Urban Capital”) acknowledges the City of Sacramento’s (“the City”) letter dated 10-03-2022. Urban Capital would like to revise the previously proposed Community Benefit #4.

Community Benefit #4: Eight Deed-Restricted Affordable Rental Units

Urban Capital proposes deed restricting eight of The Grace’s 40 residential units to be made available as affordable housing. The eight ground floor studio units will be available to renters that meet the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) income standards for the low-income category (up to 80% of the local area median income (AMI)). This results in 20% of The Grace’s 40 residential units being made available to low-income renters as defined by the State of California – Business, consumer Services and housing Agency Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. We propose deed- restricting the eight units for 55 years.

Thank you,

John Vignocchi
Managing Partner
Urban Capital LLC

cc: Chris Garner, Urban Capital LLC
Matt Keasling, Taylor & Wiley

Sierra Peterson
Associate Planner
City of Sacramento
Community Development

Page 2 ends

Sacramento City CouncilJune 20, 2023

Sacramento City Council
June 20, 2023