Item 22 2024-00322 Adoption of the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (Noticed on 02-16-2024) Attachment 4 — Sacramento City Council, February 27, 2024

Prepared by:
1810 13TH STREET
SUITE 110
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
Prepared for:
300 RICHARDS BOULEVARD
3RD FLOOR
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811
FINAL

MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SACRAMENTO 2040

GENERAL PLAN AND

CLIMATE ACTION &

ADAPTATION PLAN
SCH# 2019012048
JANUARY 2024

Sacramento 2040 General Plan
and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan
Final Master Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2019012048
Prepared for:

City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor
Sacramento, California 95811
Contact: Scott Johnson ([email protected]) Prepared by:

1810 13th Street, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95811
Contact: Christine Kronenberg, AICP
JANUARY 2024

Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 TOC-i
Table of Contents
Chapter Page No.
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 2 LIST OF AGENCIES/PERSONS COMMENTING .................................................................................................... 2-1 3 CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MASTER EIR ......................................................................................................... 3-1 4 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ...................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Response To State And Local Agency Comments ............................................................................ 4-3 Comment Letter 1 .............................................................................................................................. 4-3 Comment Letter 2 .............................................................................................................................. 4-9 Comment Letter 3 ............................................................................................................................4-13 Comment Letter 4 ............................................................................................................................4-17 Comment Letter 5 ............................................................................................................................4-25 Comment Letter 6 ............................................................................................................................4-33 Comment Letter 7 ............................................................................................................................4-43 Comment Letter 8 ............................................................................................................................4-51

4.2 Response To Organization Comments ............................................................................................4-55 Comment Letter 9 ............................................................................................................................4-55 Comment Letter 10..........................................................................................................................4-63

4.3 Response To Individual Comments...............................................................................................4-143 Comment Letter 11........................................................................................................................4-143 Comment Letter 12........................................................................................................................4-167 Comment Letter 13........................................................................................................................4-171 Comment Letter 14........................................................................................................................4-235 Comment Letter 15........................................................................................................................4-241 5 MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARERS ........................................................................... 5-1 Revised Appendix
C Parks Inventory...............................................................................................................................................3-67 Revised Figures
2-1 General Plan Planning Area......................................................................................................................3-63

2.3 Community Plan Areas..............................................................................................................................3-65 2-4 2040 General Plan land use map............................................................................................................3-67

4.2-3 Williamson Act Lands................................................................................................................................3-69

4.14-4a 2040 General Plan Circulation Diagram (Functional Classification and Number of Lanes)................3-71

4.14-4b 2040 General Plan Circulation Diagram (Functional Classification and Number of Lanes)................3-73 Table of Contents
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 TOC-ii
Tables
2-1 List of Commenters on the Draft MEIR ....................................................................................................... 2-2

4.12-8 Parks Level of Service Standards..............................................................................................................3-56 Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 1-1
1 Introduction

1.0 Introduction
This Final Master Environmental Impact Report (Final Master EIR) contains the public and agency comments received during the public review comment period for the Sacramento 2040 Project Draft Master EIR. The 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan together form the Sacramento 2040 Project and were the subject of the Master EIR.

The EIR is an informational document intended to disclose to the Lead Agency, the City of Sacramento (City), and the public the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Sacramento 2040 Project or one of the alternatives to the project described in the Draft Master EIR. All written comments received during the public review period (August 24 through October 10, 2023) are addressed in this Final Master EIR. During the public review period, the City received a total of 15 comment letters from public agencies, organizations, and individuals.

The responses in this Final Master EIR clarify, correct, and/or amplify text in the Draft Master EIR, as appropriate. Also included are text changes made at the initiative of the Lead Agency. These changes (summarized in Chapter 3) do not alter the conclusions of the Draft Master EIR.

1.1 Background
In accordance with CEQA, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on January 28, 2019, for the required 30-day review period. The City issued a revised NOP on October 3, 2019, that updated information specific to the Special Study Areas. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that a Master EIR for the project was being prepared and to solicit guidance on the scope and content of the document. The City held a public scoping meeting to take oral comments on February 13, 2019. The Draft Master EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days from August 24 through October 10, 2023.

State and local agencies as well as local organizations and individuals provided written comments on issues evaluated in the Draft Master EIR. This Final Master EIR has been prepared to respond to all comments received, consistent with Sections 15089 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. Responses to each of the comments received are provided in Chapter 4, Comments and Responses, of this Final Master EIR. Based on input the City received from agencies, individuals and the decision makers on the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaption Plan some of the policies have been revised and new language added to the documents that are included in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR. None of the changes constitute “significant new information” as defined in Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which would require recirculation of the Draft Master EIR.

The comments and responses that make up the Final Master EIR, in combination with the Draft Master EIR, as amended by the text changes, constitute the “Master EIR” that will be considered for certification by the City Planning and Design Commission and City Council.
1 – Introduction
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 1-2

1.2 CEQA Requirements
The contents of a Final EIR are specified in Sections 15089 and 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the Final EIR1 shall consist of:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft.
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The Lead Agency must provide each agency that commented on the Draft Master EIR with a copy of the Lead Agency’s response to their comments a minimum of 10-days before certifying the Final Master EIR.

Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a lead agency must recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. The Guidelines clarify that “[n]ew information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.”
Examples of significant new information requiring recirculation include:
a) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
b) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. c) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
d) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043).

Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.
1 Note: A Final Master EIR is subject to the same requirements under CEQA as a program level Final EIR. 1 – Introduction
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 1-3

1.3 Use of the Final Master EIR
The Final Master EIR serves as the environmental document to inform the Lead Agency’s consideration of approval of the Sacramento 2040 Project, either in whole or in part, or one of the alternatives to the project discussed in the Draft Master EIR.

As required by Section 15090 (a) (1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:

The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the Lead Agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.

The Final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record. The possible findings are:

Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.

Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Additionally, pursuant to Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, when a Lead Agency approves a project that would result in significant unavoidable impacts that are disclosed in the Final EIR, the agency must state in writing the reasons supporting the action. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the Lead Agency’s administrative record. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project and is available as part of the staff report prepared as part of the hearing process.

1.4 Project Under Review
The City is updating its 2035 general plan and climate action plan, adopted in 2015 to reflect current conditions, new legal requirements for general plans and climate action plans, and changes to reflect the City’s planning vision through 2040. The proposed 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (together, the “Sacramento 2040 Project”) is based on an updated vision statement and guiding principles that were adopted by the City Council on November 12, 2019. The vision and guiding principles for the proposed Sacramento 2040 General Plan are organized into six general categories or themes: (1) Sustainable and Responsible Growth; (2) Resiliency and Climate Action; (3) Safe, Equitable, Inclusive and Just City; (4) 1 – Introduction
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 1-4
Regional Economic Hub; (5) Livability and Sense of Place; and (6) Interconnected, Accessible City. These guiding principles establish the basis for a framework of Key Strategies to help guide the creation of goals and policies for land use, circulation, open space, conservation, noise, safety, historic and cultural resources, and environmental justice for the entire city, consistent with state law. An update to the Housing Element of the General Plan was prepared separately on a different timeline due to associated legal requirements and is not part of the “project” evaluated in this Master EIR.

As part of the Sacramento 2040 Project, an updated Climate Action & Adaptation Plan has been prepared that includes strategies to help the City address the effects of climate change and to provide the tools for the City to meet state goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

The 2040 General Plan Planning Area includes land within the city limits and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (outside the city limits), including five special study areas. The Planning Area comprises approximately 113,572 acres (197 square miles) of incorporated and unincorporated land. The 2040 General Plan does not propose expanding the existing SOI boundaries, nor make any changes to the existing land use designations within the SOI.

A detailed project description is contained in the Draft Master EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description. The environmental impact analysis is included in Chapter 4 of the Draft Master EIR.

1.5 Summary of Text Changes
Chapter 3 in this Final Master EIR, Changes to the Draft Master EIR, identifies all changes made to the document by section. These text changes provide additional clarity in response to comments received on the Draft Master EIR, but do not change the significance of the conclusions presented in the Draft Master EIR.

1.6 Responses to Comments
A list of public agencies and individuals commenting on the Draft Master EIR is included in Chapter 2 in this Final Master EIR. During the public comment period, the City received 15 letters from agencies, organizations, and individuals. Section 15088(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that the focus of the responses to comments shall be on the disposition of significant environmental issues. Responses are not required on comments regarding the merits of update or on issues not related to environmental impacts. Comments on the merits or other comments that do not raise environmental issues are noted in the responses and will be reviewed by the City Council before any action on whether to approve the Sacramento 2040 Project. When a comment does not directly pertain to the environmental issues analyzed in the Draft Master EIR, does not address the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft Master EIR, or does not challenge a conclusion of the Draft Master EIR, the response will note the comment and provide additional information where possible.

Responses to comments received appear in Chapter 4 of this Final Master EIR. Each comment letter is numbered and presented with brackets indicating how the letter has been divided into individual comments.

Each comment is given a binomial with the number of the comment letter appearing first, followed by the comment number. For example, comments in Letter 1 are numbered 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, and so on. Immediately following the letter are responses, each with binomials that correspond to the bracketed comments. 1 – Introduction
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 1-5

1.7 Mitigation Monitoring Program
Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines requires mitigation monitoring plans for any mitigation measures.

These plans, which are generally adopted upon approval of a project, describe 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.

The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) includes all of the mitigation measures required of the project included in the Draft Master EIR. The proposed 2040 General Plan has been prepared with environmental impact reduction as a central theme; and is intended to be self-mitigating through compliance with environmentally protective policies. The Master EIR identified one mitigation measure, NOI-1, Construction Noise that establishes performance requirements for projects that include construction activities ensure construction noise is reduced to a less-than-significant level. A copy of the MMP is provided as an attachment to the Findings of Fact.

If the City chooses to approve the Sacramento 2040 Project or one of the alternatives described in the Draft Master EIR, then the City Council will adopt the MMP at the same time it adopts its CEQA Findings of Fact, as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

1.8 Review of the Final Master EIR
This Final Master EIR and associated appendices are available for review on the City’s website at:
• https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports A hard copy of the document is available at the following location:
• City of Sacramento, Public Counter, 300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95811

1.9 Overview of the Public Participation and
Draft Master EIR Review Process
The City notified all responsible and trustee agencies and all known interested groups, organizations, tribes, and individuals that the Draft Master EIR was available for review. The following list of actions took place during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Master EIR:
• A Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on January 28, 2019 and on October 3, 2019 along with the NOP stating the City’s intention to prepare a Master EIR for the project with the State Clearinghouse for the required 30-day public review period. • A Notice of Availability (NOA) and copies of the Draft Master EIR were filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 24, 2023 to start the required 45-day public review period. The City posted a legal notice in the Sacramento Bulletin and Sacramento Bee newspapers on August 24, 2023 and emailed a Notice of Availability to agencies, organizations and interested individuals regarding the availability of the Draft Master EIR. Copies of the Draft Master EIR were available for review on the City website 1 – Introduction
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 1-6
(https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Environmental/ImpactReports); information regarding the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan was available for review on the City’s website (www.sac2040gpu.org); hard copies of the Draft Master EIR were available for review during normal business hours at the City of Sacramento Public Counter, 300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor; and the Sacramento Public Library, 828 I Street (during regular library hours).

Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 2-1
2 List of Agencies/
Persons Commenting
The 45-day public comment period for the Draft Master Environmental Impact Report (Draft Master EIR) was held from August 24 through October 10, 2023. During that period, the City of Sacramento (City) received 15 public comment letters from agencies, organizations, and individuals. A complete list of all comment letters received is provided in Table 2-1 below.

2.0 Federal and State Agencies
The City received five (5) comment letters from state agencies during the public comment period and no comment letters from federal agencies. State agencies that commented on the Draft MEIR include Caltrans, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Delta Stewardship Council, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

2.1 Local Agencies
The City received three (3) comment letters from local agencies and public service providers during the comment review period. The local agencies and public service providers that commented on the Draft MEIR include RegionalSan, Sacramento Metropolitan Air District, and Regional Transit.

2.2 Organizations
The City received two (2) comment letters from organizations during the comment review period. These organizations include House Sacramento and the Environmental Council of Sacramento or ECOS.

2.3 Tribes
There were no comments received from tribes by the close of the comment review period.

2.4 Individuals
The City received five (5) individual comment letters from members of the public during the comment review period.

Comments received from agencies, organizations, and individuals are provided in Table 2-1 below. In some instances, the same commenter provided more than one comment. To differentiate between the comments, they are listed in the order they were received. The number of each commenter reflects the order in which responses are provided in Chapter 4.
2 – List of Agencies/Persons Commenting
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 2-2
Table 2-1. List of Commenters on the Draft MEIR
Letter Number Commenter
State Agencies
1 Caltrans, District 3. Gary Arnold, Branch Chief
2 Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning/Aeronautics. Tiffany Martinez, Transportation Planner
3 Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Constantin Raether, Environmental Planner 4 California Water Boards, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Peter Minkel, Engineering Geologist
5 Delta Stewardship Council. Jeff Henderson, AICP, Deputy Executive Director Local Agencies
6 RegionalSan, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. Robb Armstrong, Regional San Development Services & Plan Check
7 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Molly Wright, Air Quality Planner/Analyst
8 Regional Transit. Sarah Poe, Planner, SacRT
Organizations
9 House Sacramento. Kevin Dumler, Director
10 ECOS Environmental Council of Sacramento. Susan Herre, AIA, AICP, President of the Board of Directors and Judith Lamare, Founder, Friends of Swainson’s Hawks Individuals
11 Howard Levine (October 2, 2023)
12 Howard Levine (October 5, 2023)
13 Sigrid Waggener, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
14 Tim Vendlinski
15 Evan Edgar, Edgar and Associates, Principal Civil Engineer Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-1
3 Changes to the Draft Master EIR

3.0 Introduction
After release of the public Draft Master EIR, changes were made as a part of the ongoing policy refinement process to some proposed 2040 General Plan policies, including the addition of new policies, implementing actions and other text that were not specifically stated in the Draft Master EIR project description or elsewhere in the Draft Master EIR. These edits are now included in the proposed 2040 General Plan. The changes to 2040 General Plan policy and text are described below. These changes do not alter the Draft Master EIR analysis and conclusions.

New text is indicated in underline and text to be deleted is reflected by strike through, unless otherwise noted in the introduction preceding the text change. Text changes are presented in the section and page order in which they appear in the Draft Master EIR. The changes represent minor clarifications/amplifications of the analysis contained in the Draft Master EIR and do not constitute significant new information that, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, would trigger the need to recirculate portions or all of the Draft Master EIR.

3.1 Updates to the Project Description
Since completion of the Draft Master EIR the City has further revised policy language based on input from the public and City decisionmakers. In summary, minor text changes were made for clarification, including the descriptions for four land use designations, the description of building intensity standards, as well as updates to three maps (Figure 2-1, Figure 2-3, and Figure 2-4). Please see specific updates to the Project Description provided below.

3.2 Changes to the Draft Master EIR
The following new policies are proposed to be added to the 2040 General Plan Master EIR. As noted above, additional edits were made as a part of the ongoing policy refinement process to the 2040 General Plan policies which included the addition of new policies and implementing actions, shown by element below in underline. The majority of new policies and actions were included in response to public comments received during the public review process. Three new policies and one implementing action were also added to better support the General Plan’s transition to using Floor Area Ratio maximums to regulate development. All new policies and implementing actions align with City Council-adopted Vision and Guiding Principles as well as Key Strategies. Additionally, these additions are not expected to change projected development capacity or anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, these additions do not require recirculation. 3 Land Use and Placemaking Element
Policy LUP-3.2: Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale. Additional building area may increase proportionally to the number of units proposed on a lot, consistent with Figure LUP-5, up to the maximum FAR established by Map LUP-6.
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-2
Policy LUP-3.3: Allowed Net Building Area. The City shall permit up to 2,000 square feet of net building area per lot or the maximum allowed by the Sliding FAR Scale (Figure LUP-5), whichever is greater.

Policy LUP-3.4: Exemption from Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale for Remodels and Additions.

Remodels and additions to existing single-unit, duplex, and neighborhood-scale multi-unit dwellings are exempt from the limits established by the Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale (Figure LUP-5).

Policy LUP-4.14: Elimination of Vehicle Parking Minimums. The City shall not require new or existing development to provide off-street vehicle parking spaces.

Policy LUP-4.15: Vacant Property. The City shall develop regulations, mechanisms, programs, or incentives to facilitate the development or temporary active use of vacant buildings and property.

Policy LUP-4.16: Compatibility Between Light Industrial and Residential Uses. The City shall develop appropriate design guidelines and development standards to promote compatibility between light industrial and larger employment uses and surrounding residential uses.

Policy LUP-6.12: Reconnecting Communities. The City shall support efforts and opportunities to reconnect communities that were disconnected by large infrastructure projects and developments, including but not limited to freeway facilities, railways, and buildings.

Policy LUP-8.15: Setbacks from Rivers and Creeks. The City shall ensure adequate building setbacks from rivers and creeks, increasing them where possible to protect natural resources.

Implementing Action LUP-A.2: Local Bonus Program. The City shall amend the Planning and Development Code to establish a local bonus program for development projects providing regulated affordable housing, including those with less than 5 units that would not qualify under the state density bonus law (CA Govt Code Sections 65915-65918).

Implementing Action LUP-A.6: Future High-Frequency Transit Routes. Every 5 years to coincide with updates of the General Plan, the City shall review and update land use designations and development intensities where new high-frequency transit routes and bus rapid transit routes have been adopted by transit agencies.
4 Historic and Cultural Resources Element
Policy HCR-1.19: Access to Energy Retrofits. The City shall continue to work with federal, State, and regional agencies and partners to seek funding opportunities for economically disadvantaged property owners to pursue climate-adaptive energy retrofit and electrification of existing historic buildings. 6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Policy ERC-2.6: Wetland Protection. The City shall preserve and protect wetland resources including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands, to the extent feasible. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on wetland resources shall be required in compliance with State and Federal regulations protecting wetland resources, and if applicable, threatened or endangered species. Additionally, the City shall require either on- or offsite permanent preservation of an equivalent amount of wetland habitat to ensure no-net loss of value and/or function.
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-3
Policy ERC-2.7: Annual Grasslands. The City shall preserve and protect native grasslands and vernal pools that provide habitat for rare and endangered species. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on annual grasslands shall comply with State and Federal regulations protecting foraging habitat for those species known to utilize this habitat.

Policy ERC- 2.8: Wildlife Corridors. The City shall preserve, protect, and avoid impacts to natural, undisturbed habitats that provides movement corridors for sensitive wildlife species. If corridors are adversely affected, damaged habitat shall, be replaced with habitat of equivalent value or enhanced to enable the continued movement of species.

Policy ERC- 2.9: Habitat Assessments. The City shall consider the potential impact on sensitive plants and wildlife for each project requiring discretionary approval. If site conditions are such that potential habitat for sensitive plant and/or wildlife species may be present, the City shall require habitat assessments, prepared by a qualified biologist, for sensitive plant and wildlife species. If the habitat assessment determines that suitable habitat for sensitive plant and/or wildlife species is present, then either:
(1) protocol-level surveys shall be conducted (where survey protocol has been established by a resource agency), or, in the absence of established survey protocol, a focused survey shall be conducted consistent with industry-recognized best practices; or (2) suitable habitat and presence of the species shall be assumed to occur within all potential habitat locations identified on the project site. Survey Reports shall be prepared and submitted to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (depending on the species) for further consultation and development of avoidance and/ or mitigation measures consistent with state and federal law.

Policy ERC-2.10: Agency Coordination. The City shall coordinate with State and Federal resource agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect areas containing rare or endangered species of plants and animals.

Policy ERC-2.11: Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. The City shall continue to participate in and support the policies of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources in the Natomas Basin.

Policy ERC- 2.12: Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts. The City shall encourage and support regional habitat conservation planning efforts to conserve and manage habitat for special status species. New or amended Habitat Conservation Plans should provide a robust adaptive management component sufficient to ensure that habitat preserves are resilient to climate change effects/impacts and to ensure their mitigation value over time. Provisions should include but are not limited to: greater habitat ranges and diversity; corridors and transition zones to accommodate retreat or spatial shifts in natural areas; redundant water supply; elevated topography to accommodate extreme flooding; and flexible management and fee structure.

Policy ERC-2.13: Climate Change-related Habitat Shifts. The City shall support the efforts of The Natomas Basin Conservancy and other habitat preserve managers to adaptively manage wildlife preserves to ensure adequate connectivity, habitat range, and diversity of topographic and climatic conditions are provided for species to move as climate shifts. 3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-4
Policy ERC-2.14: Climate Change-related Habitat Restoration and Enhancement. The City shall support active habitat restoration and enhancement to reduce impact of climate change stressors and improve overall resilience of habitat within existing parks and open space in the city. The City shall support the efforts of Sacramento County to improve the resilience of habitat areas in the American River Parkway.

Policy ERC-4.7 Operation Emissions. The City shall require development projects that exceed Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) operational thresholds to incorporate design or operational features that reduce emissions equal to 15 percent from the level that would be produced by an unmitigated project.

Policy ERC-9.12: Regenerative Food System. The City shall encourage regenerative agriculture practices in urban agriculture uses, including carbon-sequestering practices. 7 Environmental Justice Element
Implementing Action EJ-A.4: Community-Led Planning. Pilot a community-led planning grant program focused on addressing the needs of people within disadvantaged and/or historically underserved communities. The planning process would include documenting community vision for a specific neighborhood, concerns keeping the people in that neighborhood from thriving, and potential actions to increase community resiliency, equity, and/or inclusive economic development. These actions could include regulatory fixes to City ordinances, education and training on City programs and opportunities, infrastructure improvements, or others. Pending funding and staff availability, the planning effort should be accompanied by funding and staff time to address some near-term implementation as well as include a final document (or action plan) with a list of short and longer-term actions that can be used to support grant applications, advocacy to government officials, and guide ongoing community collaborations. 8 Mobility Element
Policy M-4.9: Safe Routes to School. The City shall assess opportunities to develop and support Safe Routes to School programming.
11 Community Plan Areas and Special Study Areas
Policy CC LUP-8: Temporary Alley Closures. The City shall discourage temporary alley closures for private use in an effort to develop an active and cohesive alley system that better integrates pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access.

Policy NN-YPRO-2: Organized Sports and Recreational Facilities. The City shall develop and maintain quality facilities (including sports courts and fields) for a variety of organized sports to ensure active recreation opportunities are met for the growing community needs in North Natomas.

Policy NS-LUP-3 Engage North of I-80. The City shall engage the neighborhoods north of I-80 in an effort to assess community needs and identify the appropriate level of planning study required for the area.
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-5
Policy NS-M-5: High-Frequency Transit. The City should encourage and collaborate with the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to plan and implement high-frequency, connected, and convenient transit to the North Natomas Community Plan Area and the wider city.

Policy NS-M-6 Street Improvements. The City shall continue to seek funding to carry out improvements as prioritized in the Transportation Priorities Plan for streets that lack sidewalks and street lighting, are under heavy use by pedestrians, or will not be improved through new development and assessment districts.

Policy NS-PFS-7: Assessment Districts. The City shall encourage property owners to form assessment districts in order to support the provision of infrastructure.

Policy SN-YPRO-6: Connections to East Levee Road Trails. The City shall explore options to improve connectivity to the East Levee Road trails.

Executive Summary
The following revisions are made to Table ES-1, Impacts and Mitigation Measures starting on page ES-3. 3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-6
Minor corrections are made to Table ES-1 starting on page ES-11.

Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2040 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

4.3 Air Quality

4.3-1: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could conflict with or
obstruct implementation of
an applicable air quality
plan.

Sacramento Valley Regional
Ozone and PM-attainment
plans,
Policies LUP-2.2, LUP-4.1
and LUP-5.3, M-1.1, M-1.2,
M-1.4, M-1.6, M-1.11, M1.12 through M-1.15, M1.17, M-1.18, M-1.20, M1.22, M-1.25, M-4.1, ERC8.1, and CAAP LTS None required LTS

4.3-2: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could result in a
cumulatively considerable
net increase of criteria
pollutants for which the
project region is nonattainment.

SMAQMD Guidelines, Rules,
and Regulations
Policies ERC-4.3, ERC-4.5,
ERC-4.7 and ERC-8.1, LUP2.2, LUP-4.1, LUP-5.1, LUP5.3, EJ-1.4, ERC-8.1, M1.13, M-1.20, M-1.28, M1.30, M-1.33, M-1.35, M45.8, and CAAP LTS None required LTS

4.3-3: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

CARB land use guidance
and SMAQMD protocols
Policies M-45.9, ERC-4.3,
ERC-4.4, ERC-4.7, and
CAAP
LTS None required LTS

4.3-5: The 2040 General
Plan, in combination with
past, present and
reasonably foreseeable
future projects, could result
in a cumulatively
considerable impact to air
quality.

CARB air toxic control
measures and SMAQMD
Guidelines, Rules, and
Regulations
Policy EJ-1.4 and ERC-4.7 LTS None required LTS
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-7
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

4.4 Biological Resources

4.4-1: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could contribute to
degradation of the
environment or reduction of
habitat or population below
self-sustaining levels for
special-status plants.

Federal Endangered
Species Act (ESA), California
Endangered Species
Act (CESA), California Fish
and Game
Code, and CEQA Section
15380
Policies ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
and ERC-6.3, ERC-2.9
through ERC-2.14
LTS None required LTS

4.4-2: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could contribute to
degradation of the
environment or reduction of
habitat or population below
self-sustaining levels for
special-status invertebrates.

Federal ESA, CESA,
California Fish and Game
Code, and CEQA Section
15380
Policies ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.7 through ERC-2.14,
ERC-6.3, and LUP-1.11.

LTS None required LTS

4.4-3: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could contribute to
degradation of the
environment or reduction of
habitat or population below
self- sustaining levels for
special-status fish species.

Federal ESA, Clean Water
Act (CWA), CESA, California
Fish and Game Code, CEQA
Section 15380
Policies ERC-1.1 through
ERC-1.3, ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.8 through ERC-2.14,
ERC-6.3, and PFS-4.2.

LTS None required LTS

4.4-4: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could contribute to
degradation of the
environment or reduction of
habitat or population below
self-sustaining levels for
Federal ESA, CESA,
California Fish and Game
Code, and CEQA Section
15380
Policies ERC-2.1, and ERC2.2, ERC-2.7 through ERC2.14LTS None required LTS 3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-8
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
special-status reptiles and
amphibians.

4.4-5: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could contribute to
degradation of the
environment or reduction of
habitat or population below
self-sustaining levels for
special-status birds.

Federal ESA, Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
CESA, California Fish and
Game Code; and CEQA
Section 15380
Policies ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.7 through ERC-2.14,
ERC-3.2, ERC-3.3, and
ERC-3.6
LTS None required LTS

4.4-6: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could contribute to
degradation of the
environment or reduction of
habitat or population below
self-sustaining levels for
special-status mammals.

Federal ESA, CESA,
California Fish and Game
Code, and CEQA Section
15380
Policies ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.7 through ERC-2.14,
ERC-3.2, ERC-3.3, ERC-3.6
LTS None required LTS

4.4-7: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could result in loss or
modification of riparian
habitat.

CEQA, California Fish and
Game Code, Clean Water
Act Section 404
Policies ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.8, ERC-2.10 through
ERC-2.14, and ERC-6.3
LTS None required LTS

4.4-8: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could adversely affect state
or federally protected
wetlands and/or waters of
the United States through
direct removal, filling, or
hydrological interruption.

Clean Water Act Section
404, California Wetlands
Conservation Policy 1993,
Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, and
California Fish and Game
Code
Policies ERC-2.1, and ERC2.2, and ERC-2.6LTS None required LTS 3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-9
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

4.4-9: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could result in loss of
sensitive natural
communities.

Federal ESA, CEQA,
California Fish and Game
Code, and Clean Water Act
Section 404
Policies ERC-2.1 through
ERC-2.3, and ERC-2.7
LTS None required LTS

4.4-10: The 2040 General
Plan, combined with past,
present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects,
could contribute to a
regional loss of specialstatus plant or wildlife
species or their habitat.

Without mitigation this is a
significant impact.

CEQA, California Fish and
Game Code, and Clean
Water Act Section 404
Policies ERC-1.1 through
ERC-1.3, ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.7 through ERC-2.14,
ERC-3.2, ERC-3.3, and
ERC-6.3, LUP-1.11, and
PFS-4.2.

Significant and
Unavoidable (SU)
None
available
SU

4.4-11: The 2040 General
Plan, combined with past,
present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects,
could contribute to a
regional loss of sensitive
natural communities
including wetlands and
riparian habitat. Without
mitigation this is a
significant impact.

CEQA, Clean Water Act
Section 404, California Fish
and Game Code Section
1602, National Pollutant
Discharge Evaluation
System (NPDES)
Construction General Permit
Policies ERC-2.1, ERC-2.2,
ERC-2.3, ERC-2.6 through
ERC-2.14, and ERC-6.3
SU None
available
SU
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-10
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

4.6 Energy

4.6-1: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could result in wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources.

Electrification Ordinance,
California Code of
Regulations (CCR) Title 24,
California Air Resources
Board (CARB) regulations
Policies ERC-4.3, ERC-4.5,
ERC-8.1, ERC-9.3, ERC-9.4
and ERC-9.9, HCR-1.19,
LUP-2.2, LUP-2.5, LUP-2.6,
LUP-4.1, and LUP-10.1,
LUP-4.13, M-1.1, M-1.3, M1.4, M-1.6, M-1.13, M1.20, M-1.22, M-1.23, M1.28, M-1.30, M-1.33, M1.35 through 1.37, M-4.7 and M-4.8
LTS None required LTS

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8-1: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment or could
conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of
GHGs.

California Fire Code (Title
24, Part 9, California Code
of Regulations)
Policies ERC-4.3, ERC-4.5,
ERC-9.12, M-1.1, M-1.2, M1.14, M-1.17
LTS None required LTS

4.9 Hazards and Public Safety

4.9-5: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could expose people or
structures to loss, injury or
California Fire Code (Title
24, Part 9, California Code
of Regulations)
Policies PFS-2.1 and PFS2.10 PFS-1.8LTS None required LTS 3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-11
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
death involving wildland
fires.

4.10 Hydrology, Water Quality and Flooding

4.10-3: The 2040 General
Plan, combined with past,
present and reasonably
foreseeable future projects,
could degrade water quality
or conflict with state water
quality objectives, due to
increases in sediments and
other contaminants
generated by construction
and/or operational
activities.

NPDES Construction
General Construction Permit
and NPDES MS4 Permit
None ERC-1.1 through
ERC-1.4, ERC-5.2
LTS None required LTS

4.10-4: Potential for the
2040 General Plan
combined with past, present
and reasonably foreseeable
future projects could
increase exposure of people
and/or property to the risk
of injury and damage in the
event of a 100-year flood.

NPDES MS4 Permit None ERC-6.1 through
ERC-6.12
LTS None required LTS

4.11 Noise

4.11-5: The 2040 General
Plan, in combination with
past, present and
reasonably foreseeable
future projects, could result
in a cumulatively
None ERC-4.3, ERC-10.1
through ERC-10.11, LUP1.14, LUP-8.5
PS None
available
SU
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-12
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
considerable impact to the
ambient noise and vibration
environment.

4.13 Public Utilities

4.13-4: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could require the
construction of new utilities
or the expansion of existing
utilities, the construction of
which could cause
significant environmental
impacts.

Water Management
Planning Act, 2020 Urban
Water Management Plan,
Regional San Connection
Fee Combined System
Development Fee, SMAQMD
District Rules and
Regulations pertaining to
construction Emissions,
Sacramento City Code
Chapters 13.08 and 15.30
Policies PFS-3.2, PFS-2.5,
PFS-3.5, PFS-3.6, PFS-3.8,
PFS-3.10, PFS-3.14, PFS6.3, PFS-6.4, ERC-5.4, and
ERC-5.6, ERC-9.4, and M1.27, CAAP
LTS None required LTS

4.13-7: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan,
combined with past, present
and reasonably foreseeable
future projects, could
require the construction of
new utilities or the
expansion of existing
utilities which could cause
significant environmental
impacts.

4.14 Transportation

4.14-2: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could adversely affect
existing and planned public
Policy M-2.1, M-2.14, M2.17LTS None required LTS
3 – Changes to the Draft EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-13
Environmental Impact Applicable Regulations
Proposed 2020 GP
Policies/CAAP
Significance
After Policy
Implementation
Mitigation
Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
transit facilities or services
or fail to adequately provide
access to transit.

4.14-3: Implementation of
the 2040 General Plan
could adversely affect
existing and planned bicycle
and pedestrian facilities or
fail to adequately provide
access for bicycle and
pedestrians.

City of Sacramento Bicycle
Master Plan
None M-1.2, M-1.11, M1.13 through M-1.19 and
M-4.9
LTS None required LTS
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-14
The following sets forth the text changes that have been made to the Draft Master EIR, by chapter.

Chapter 1, Introduction and Scope of the Master Environmental Impact Report The following information is added after the second paragraph under Section 1.2.1 on page 1-5.

The 2040 General Plan Planning Area is defined as the land area addressed by the 2040 General Plan, including land within the city limits, land area included in the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (outside the city limits), and the five special study areas. The five special study areas (see Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description) and land within the City’s SOI encompass areas that are not within the City’s land use jurisdiction, and the 2040 General Plan does not propose to annex or assign land uses to any of these areas.

For the purposes of the Master EIR, the analysis of impacts includes land areas in which the City has land use jurisdiction and where new land uses are proposed or redevelopment and reinvestment could intensify the uses over what currently exists. The Master EIR includes, to the extent appropriate for a cumulative impact analysis, physical changes in the environment that could occur in the Planning Area, and elsewhere. The discussion in each technical Section in Chapter 4 identifies the scope of the cumulative analysis.

Chapter 2, Project Description
The following figures included in the Project Description have been updated and are provided at the end of this chapter. Figure 2-1, General Plan Planning Area, on page 2-5 has been updated to show the entire Sphere of Influence. Figure 2-3, on page 2-11 has been updated to remove the planning area boundary and Figure 2-4, General Plan Land Use Map on page 2-25 has been updated incorporate public comments on the General Plan and staff initiated technical corrections.

Changes to the descriptions for the Employment Mixed-Use, Industrial Mixed-Use, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation land use designations are made for clarity, which are found on pages 2-20 through 2-22. The changes are shown below:

The Employment Mixed-Use (EMU) designation is intended to buffer residential uses from more intense industrial and service commercial activities and to provide compatible employment uses near higher-density and mixed-use in proximity to housing. This designation provides for a range of light industrial and high technology uses. Generally, tThe EMU designation generally applies to industrial areas that are next to residential neighborhoods, including McClellan Airfield, Pell-Main Industrial Park, Cannon Industrial Park, and portions of the Sacramento Railyards, River District, and the Power Inn Business Improvement District.

Allowable uses include the following:
• Light/advanced manufacturing, production, distribution, repair, testing, printing, research, and development
• Service commercial uses that do not generate substantial noise or odors • Accessory office uses
• Retail and service uses that provide support to employees 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-15
• Compatible residential uses such as live-work spaces or employee housing • Hotels and motels
• Care facilities
• Assembly facilities
• Compatible public and quasi-public uses
The Industrial Mixed-Use (IMU) designation provides for manufacturing, warehousing, and other employment-generating uses that may produce loud noise or odors and tend to have a high volume of truck traffic. Building intensities in this designation tend to be lower, and uses may require staging and support spaces, often outdoors. The IMU designation applies in the Power Inn/Army Depot area.

Allowable uses include the following:
• Industrial or manufacturing that may occur within or outside a building • Office, retail, and service uses that provide support to the employees • Assembly facilities
• Care facilities
• Compatible public and quasi-public uses
This designation should not be located next to a residential neighborhood without substantial buffers (i.e., office uses, regional parks, greenways, or open space). Supportive office, retail, and service uses that cater to employee needs are also allowedable. Compatible public, quasi-public, and special uses are also permitted.

The Open Space (OS) designation includes areas that are intended to remain open with limited or no development, including largely unimproved open spaces used primarily for passive recreation, resource protection, and/or hazard avoidance. The OS designation is intended to preserve natural features, establish quality living environments, and maintain boundaries and buffers between communities and incompatible uses.

Allowable uses include the following:
• Natural underdeveloped parks
• Woodlands preserves
• Habitat and wetlands
• Agriculture
• Floodplains
• Areas with permanent open space easements
• Buffers between urban areas
• Compatible public and quasi-public uses
The Parks and Recreation (PR) designation includes greenways parkways, public parks, and other areas primarily used for recreation. Typically, these areas are characterized by a high degree of managed green space open area and a limited number of buildings. Recreational facilities in the PR 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-16
designation frequently include sports fields, playground equipment, picnic areas, sitting areas, concession businesses, open turf and natural areas, trails, and golf courses.

Allowable uses include the following:
• Parks (neighborhood, community, and regional parks)
• Greenways Parkways and trails
• Golf courses, and commercial recreation facilities with an emphasis on outdoor • Compatible public and quasi-public uses
Parks and recreation facilities are also allowable in other designations.

The following change has been made to the “Building Intensity” section on page 2-22 for clarity:

FAR is calculated by dividing the net gross building area (NGBA) by the total net lot area (NLA) (both expressed in square feet). NGBA is the gross total building area of a site less the floor area of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs), and structured parking structures areas and open space (common, public, and private). Net lot area is the total lot size, excluding publicly dedicated land,; private streets which meet City standards, and other public use areas.

The formula for FAR is:
• FAR = NGBA / NLA
Example: A NGBA of 3,00043,560 square feet and NLA of 5,00043,560 square feet would yield an FAR of 0.61.0. (3,00043,560 / 5,00043,560 = FAR 0.61.0) Building density for residential land uses is expressed as the number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Building intensity standards are shown on Maps LUP-6, LUP-7, and LUP-8, and Figure LUP-5. Map LUP-6 shows the maximum FAR allowable on a site inclusive of both residential and non-residential uses. Figure LUP-5 shows a sliding FAR scale, applicable to residential uses in the single-unit and duplex dwelling zones, which limits single-unit dwellings to a FAR of 0.4 and grants additional increments of building area that increase proportionally to the number of units proposed on a lot. Map LUP-7 shows the minimum required FAR throughout the city for mixed-use and nonresidential development. Map LUP-8 shows the minimum required density for residential uses throughout the city.

Chapter 3, Land Use and Planning
The following change is made to the description of the Planning Area Boundary on page 3-2 to be consistent with the description provided in Chapter 2, Project Description.

The Planning Area covers an area in which the City of Sacramento (City) has formally adopted policies, and areas for which the proposed 2040 General Plan designates specific land uses. The proposed 2040 General Plan Planning Area is approximately 103 square miles and includes essentially the same area (previously identified as “Policy Area”) as the 2035 General Plan, shown on Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description. The Planning Area is generally contiguous with the city limits, but also 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-17
includes additional areas within the City’s sphere of influence (SOI) and five special study areas for which the general plan designates land use.

The 2040 General Plan Planning Area is defined as the land area addressed by the 2040 General Plan, including land within the city limits and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (outside the city limits), including five special study areas, as shown on Figure 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description. The Planning Area comprises approximately 113,572 acres (197 square miles) of incorporated and unincorporated land.

After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed policies in the Land Use and Placemaking Element. In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public, City staff added eight new policies (LUP-3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.14, 4-15, 4-16, 6-12, 8.15). The following policies are revised under the 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 3-3.
3 Land Use and Placemaking Element
Policy LUP-1.5: Surplus Land Disposition. The City shall periodically audit municipal land holdings and assess opportunities for more efficient use and management, using criteria including the provision of affordable housing and emergency shelter space, economic development and revitalization objectives, business operations, opportunities to create more park space or park connections, and applicable federal and State law to identify surplus properties and disposition strategies where appropriate.

Policy LUP-2.7: Evolving Office Needs. The City shall support office developments that align with the evolving needs of target industry sectors, including but not limited to the following:
• Headquarter and business services;
• Health and life sciences;
• The cClean economy;
• The creative economy;
• Advanced technology; and
• Future mobility.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-18
LUP-3.1: Maximum FAR. The City shall regulate maximum building intensity using floor area ratio (FAR) standards consistent with Map LUP-6 and Figure LUP-5, which applies to residential uses in the single-unit and duplex zones. Maximum FAR standards shown in Map LUP-6 apply to both residential and non-residential uses.

Policy LUP-3.2: Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale. Additional building area may increase proportionally to the number of units proposed on a lot, consistent with Figure LUP-5 up to the maximum FAR established by Map LUP-6.

Policy LUP-3.3: Allowed Net Building Area. The City shall permit up to 2,000 square feet of net building area per lot or the maximum allowed by the Sliding FAR Scale (Figure LUP-5), whichever is greater.

Policy LUP-3.4: Exemption from Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale for Remodels and Additions.

Remodels and additions to existing single-unit, duplex, and neighborhood-scale multi-unit dwellings are exempt from the limits established by the Sliding Floor Area Ratio Scale (Figure LUP-5).

Policy 3.911: Interim Zoning Inconsistency. Zoning is consistent with the General Plan if it is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan. (Cal. Gov’t Code, § 65860(a)(2).) Zoning is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. (See also Sacramento City Code, § 17.104.100.C, as may be amended.) If zoning becomes inconsistent with the general plan due to amendment to the general plan and the City receives a development application, the City will proceed in accordance with applicable law.

In areas where zoning has not been brought into consistency with the General Plan, the City shall allow property owners to develop consistent with the existing zoning if only a ministerial/administrative permit is required. For property owners requiring a discretionary permit, the City shall allow property owners to do either of the following:

1. Develop consistent with the existing zoning, provided the City makes a finding that approval of the project would not interfere with the long-term development of the area consistent with the General Plan, or
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-19

2. Develop under the General Plan designation, in which case the City will facilitate rezoning consistent with the General Plan.

Policy LUP-4.1: Transit-Supportive Development. The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½-mile one-quarter mile of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and, commuter rail stations, and high-frequency bus stops to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

Policy LUP-4.12: Drive-Through Restaurants. The City shall prohibit new drive-through restaurants within ½-mile ¼-mile walking distance of existing and proposed light rail stations from the center of an existing or proposed light rail station platform and high-frequency transit stops.

Policy LUP-4.13: Future-Ready Gas Stations. The City shall prohibit the establishment of new gas stations or the expansion of new fossil fuel infrastructure at existing gas stations unless the project proponent provides high-speed 50kW or greater Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) electric vehicle charging stations on site at a ratio of at least 1 new charging station per 31 new gas fuel pumps nozzle.

Policy LUP-4.14: Elimination of Vehicle Parking Minimums. The City shall not require new or existing development to provide off-street vehicle parking spaces.

Policy LUP-4.1615: Vacant Parcel Activation Property. The City shall develop regulations, mechanisms, programs, or incentives to facilitate the development or temporary active use of vacant buildings and property. The City shall develop and implement regulations, mechanisms, programs, or incentives to facilitate the activation or development of privately owned vacant parcels citywide.

Policy LUP-4.1416: Compatibility Between Light Industrial and Residential Uses. The City shall develop appropriate design guidelines and development standards to promote compatibility between light industrial and larger employment uses and surrounding residential uses.

Policy LUP-6.3: Variety of Housing Types. The City shall promote the development of a greater variety of housing types and sizes in all existing and new growth communities to meet the needs of future demographics and changing household sizes, including the following:
• Single-unit homes on small lots,
• Accessory dwelling units,
• Tiny homes,
• Alley-facing units,
• Townhomes,
• Lofts,
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-20
• Live-work spaces,
• Duplexes,
• Triplexes,
• Fourplexes,
• Cottage/Bungalow courts,
• Neighborhood-scale multi-unit buildings, and
• Senior and student housing.

Policy LUP-7.5: Industrial Aesthetics. The City shall encourage the development and maintenance of well-designed industrial and light industrial properties and structures that meet adopted standards for visual quality and design, especially where interfacing with other uses.

Policy LUP-8.2: River as Signature Feature. The City shall require new development along the Sacramento and American Rivers to use the natural river environment as a key feature to guide the scale, design, and intensity of development, and to maximize visual and physical access to the rivers, subject to the public safety requirements of local, state, and federal agencies and plans, including the American River Parkway Plan, the Local Maintaining Agencies (LMA) and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB).

Policy LUP-8.3: River Access and Ecology. The City shall strive to balance the provision of river access and continued recreational and tourist-oriented activities with efforts to protect, restore, and enhance the ecological setting along the Sacramento and American Rivers.

Policy LUP-8.12: Design of Privately-Developed Public Spaces. The City should encourage public spaces in private development, where feasible, to include the following features:
• Lined with active uses at-grade and located near building entrances, windows, outdoor seating, patios, or balconies that overlook park spaces, and other areas with strong pedestrian activity;
• Completely visible from at least one street frontage and as feasible, be at least 50 percent visible from a secondary street frontage;
• Primarily defined by adjacent buildings, which will contribute to the unity and environmental quality of the space;
• Located at the same grade level as the public sidewalk when possible. Where changes in grade are an important element of the overall design and programming, clear and direct access from the public sidewalk should be accommodated, and universal accessibility provided;
• Reflective of the design and placemaking elements of the surrounding area using architectural styles, signage, colors, textures, materials, and other elements; • Constructed with low impact and permeable paving materials to efficiently manage the stormwater and minimize the area’s heat island effect;
• Connected to bike and pedestrian facilities and be a part of an interconnected shared pathway or parkway system where feasible;
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-21
• Site furnishing that allows for resting;
• Wayfinding signage; and
• Tree canopy covering at least equivalent to 50 percent of the public space.

Policy LUP-8.15: Setbacks from Rivers and Creeks. The City shall ensure adequate building setbacks from rivers and creeks, increasing them where possible to protect natural resources.

Policy LUP-9.7: Anti-Displacement Strategies. The City shall strive to prevent displacement and pursue placekeeping consider anti-displacement strategies for artists and creative businesses along with special incentives that drive consumer engagement within arts districts.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Implementing Actions in the Land Use and Placemaking Element. In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public, City staff added two new implementing actions (LUP-A.2, A.6). The following Implementing Actions on page 3-15 have been added and also revised.

LUP-A-2: Local Bonus Program. The City shall amend the Planning and Development Code to establish a local bonus program for development projects providing regulated affordable housing, including those with less than 5 units that would not qualify under the state density bonus law (CA Govt Code Sections 65915-65918).

LUP-A-6: Future High-Frequency Transit Routes. Every 5 years to coincide with updates of the General Plan, the City shall review and update land use designations and development intensities where new high-frequency transit routes and bus rapid transit routes have been adopted by transit agencies.

LUP-A-5A-7: Sustainability and DeCcarbonization Standards. The City shall evaluate best practices to guide the development of more prescriptive sustainability and carbonization standards for City buildings, infrastructure, and facilities.

LUP-A-7A-9: Net-Zero Energy or Net-Positive Design. The City shall assess the feasibility of requiring or incentivizing net-zero energy (NZE) or net-positive design for new buildings and significant retrofitting of existing privately-owned buildings and identify incentives for NZE and netpositive design in adaptive reuse projects.

LUP-A-8A-10:Planning and Development Code Update. The City shall update the Planning and Development Code to implement the 2040 General Plan, including amendments to:
• Rezone parcels for consistency with the 2040 General Plan land use, intensity, and density diagrams;
• Remove maximum residential density standards from single-unit, duplex dwelling, multi-unit, commercial, and industrial zones and replace them with floor area ratiobased intensity standards and minimum residential density standards; • Broaden the range of housing types allowed by-right within single-unit and duplex dwelling residential zones;
• Update development standards for missing-middle housing types, such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts; • Require new residential development of a certain size to include a variety of housing unit types and sizes;
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-22
• Establish requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in new and expanded gas stations citywide;
• Establish incentives to promote efficient parcel utilization and consolidation, particularly in transit-oriented development (TOD) areas; • Prohibit new drive-through restaurants in areas where a strong pedestrian and transit orientation is desired;
• Allow for flexibility of new commercial uses in neighborhood-oriented commercial centers; and
• Establish incentives to facilitate the retrofit of existing shopping centers with pedestrian amenities, EV charging, bike parking traffic-calming features, plazas and public areas, shade trees, lighting, public art, farmers markets, retail and other services that provide for everyday needs, and community events.

After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed policies in the Environmental Justice Element. In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public, City staff added one new implementation action (EJ-A.4). The following policies are revised under the 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 3-16. 7 Environmental Justice Element
Policy EJ-1.1 Air Quality Monitoring. The City shall collaborate with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) to support the expansion of air quality monitoring efforts in Sacramento, prioritizing locations in the north and south of the city that have been identified with community input as a high priority for air pollution control initiatives.

Policy EJ-1.2 Community Air Protection. On an ongoing basis, the City shall support the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), community members, businesses, and other stakeholders in implementation of AB 617 and other Community Emissions Reduction Programs (CERPs), which may include developing and implementing community air monitoring plans, community emissions reduction plans, and other air pollution control initiatives. Supportive City actions may include the following:
• Participation on steering committees and technical advisory committees; • Support or guidance for pilot programs; or
• Leveraging related City activities and grant programs to maximize the impact of actions in disadvantaged communities.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined, based on comments received from various stakeholders to add one new implementing action (EJ-A.4).

EJ-A-4: Community-Led Planning. Pilot a community-led planning grant program focused on addressing the needs of people within disadvantaged and/or historically underserved communities. The planning process would include documenting community vision for a specific neighborhood, concerns keeping the people in that neighborhood from thriving, and potential actions to increase community resiliency, equity, and/or inclusive economic development. These actions could include regulatory fixes to City ordinances, education and training on City programs and opportunities, infrastructure improvements, or others.

Pending funding and staff availability, the planning effort should be accompanied by funding and staff time to address some near-term implementation as well as include a final document (or action plan) with a list of short and longer-term actions that can be used to support grant applications, advocacy to government officials, and guide ongoing community collaborations.

The following information on the Delta Plan is added on page 3-20 after Community Plans.

Delta Plan
The Delta Reform Act created the Delta Stewardship Council (Council) with a primary responsibility to develop and implement a legally enforceable, long-term management plan for the Delta. The Legislature required the Delta Plan to advance the coequal goals of protecting and enhancing the Delta ecosystem and providing for a more reliable water supply for California, and to do so in a manner that protects and enhances the Delta as an evolving place. The Delta Plan provides a foundational document that prioritizes actions and strategies in support of key objectives such as the State’s requirement to reduce reliance on the Delta to meet future water supply needs. It also restricts actions that may cause harm; serves as a guidebook for all plans, projects, and programs that affect the Delta; and calls for further investigation and focused study of specific issues.

The following policy is provided:

Locate New Urban Development Wisely.
(a) New residential, commercial, and industrial development must be limited to the following areas, as shown in Appendix 6 and Appendix 7:
(1) Areas that city or county general plans, as of May 16, 2013, designate for residential, commercial, and industrial development in cities or their spheres of influence; (2) Areas within Contra Costa County's 2006 voter approved urban limit line, except no new residential, commercial, and industrial development may occur on Bethel Island unless it is consistent with the Contra Costa County general plan effective as of May 16, 2013; (3) Areas within the Mountain House General Plan Community Boundary in San Joaquin County; or 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-24
(4) The unincorporated Delta towns of Clarksburg, Courtland, Hood, Locke, Ryde, and Walnut Grove. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), new residential, commercial, and industrial development is permitted outside the areas described in subsection (a) if it is consistent with the land uses designated in county general plans as of May 16, 2013, and is otherwise consistent with this Chapter. (c) For purposes of Water Code section 85057.5(a)(3) and section 5001(j)(1)(E) of this Chapter, this policy covers proposed actions that involve new residential, commercial, and industrial development that is not located within the areas described in subsection (a). In addition, this policy covers any such action on Bethel Island that is inconsistent with the Contra Costa County general plan effective as of May 16, 2013. This policy does not cover commercial recreational visitorserving uses or facilities for processing of local crops or that provide essential services to local farms, which are otherwise consistent with this Chapter. (d) This policy is not intended in any way to alter the concurrent authority of the Delta Protection Commission to separately regulate development in the Delta's Primary Zone.

The following analysis is added to page 3-22 following the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan.

Delta Plan
A portion of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) south of the city limits falls within the boundaries of the Delta and is subject to the policies within the Delta Plan. The policy that would apply to future development within this area is policy DP P1, which applies to development of lands designated agricultural and open space to new residential, commercial, or industrial development. The draft 2040 General Plan does not propose any land use designations within its SOI or within the Town of Freeport Special Study Area, as shown on Map LUP-5, General Plan Land Use Diagram in the draft 2040 General Plan. The City has no plans to annex the Town of Freeport currently but has indicated a potential interest in meeting with the County and community stakeholders to discuss the possibility of annexation.

In the event the City initiated annexation of lands within their SOI that are within the boundaries of the Delta (Town of Freeport) and were to propose new land use designations and zoning, compliance with Delta Plan policy DP P1 would be reviewed to ensure new residential, commercial, and industrial development would comply with the requirements set forth in the Delta Plan. The 2040 General Plan does not propose any new land use designations in areas covered by the Delta Plan and the Delta Plan identifies the “planned land use” of these areas as “Areas Designated for Development.” Therefore, the 2040 General Plan land use designations are consistent with the Delta Plan.

4.2 Agricultural Resources
Figure 4.2-3, Williamson Act Lands on page 4.2-9 has been updated to remove the policy area. The updated figure is included at the end of this chapter.

4.1 Aesthetics
After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Land Use and Placemaking policies relevant to aesthetics. The following policies are revised 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-25
under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.1-3. Additionally, the one Implementing Action on page 4.1-9 has been revised.
3 Land Use and Placemaking Element
Policy LUP-4.1: Transit-Supportive Development. The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½-mile one-quarter mile of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and, commuter rail stations, and high-frequency bus stops to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

Policy LUP-8.12: Design of Privately-Developed Public Spaces. The City should encourage public spaces in private development, where feasible, to include the following features:
• Lined with active uses at-grade and located near building entrances, windows, outdoor seating, patios, or balconies that overlook park spaces, and other areas with strong pedestrian activity;
• Completely visible from at least one street frontage and as feasible, be at least 50 percent visible from a secondary street frontage;
• Primarily defined by adjacent buildings, which will contribute to the unity and environmental quality of the space;
• Located at the same grade level as the public sidewalk when possible. Where changes in grade are an important element of the overall design and programming, clear and direct access from the public sidewalk should be accommodated, and universal accessibility provided; • Reflective of the design and placemaking elements of the surrounding area using architectural styles, signage, colors, textures, materials, and other elements; • Constructed with low impact and permeable paving materials to efficiently manage the stormwater and minimize the area’s heat island effect;
• Connected to bike and pedestrian facilities and be a part of an interconnected shared pathway or parkway system where feasible;
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-26
• Site furnishing that allows for resting;
• Wayfinding signage; and
• Tree canopy covering at least equivalent to 50 percent of the public space.

Implementing Action
LUP-A-810: Planning and Development Code Update. The City shall update the Planning and Development Code to implement the 2040 General Plan, including amendments to:
• Rezone parcels for consistency with the 2040 General Plan land use, intensity, and density diagrams;
• Remove maximum residential density standards from single-unit, duplex dwelling, multiunit, commercial, and industrial zones and replace them with floor area ratio-based intensity standards and minimum residential density standards; • Broaden the range of housing types allowed by-right within single-unit and duplex dwelling residential zones;
• Update development standards for missing-middle housing types, such as accessory dwelling units, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts; • Require new residential development of a certain size to include a variety of housing unit types and sizes;
• Establish requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in new and expanded gas stations citywide;
• Establish incentives to promote efficient parcel utilization and consolidation, particularly in transit-oriented development (TOD) areas;
• Prohibit new drive-through restaurants in areas where a strong pedestrian and transit orientation is desired;
• Allow for flexibility of new commercial uses in neighborhood-oriented commercial centers; and • Establish incentives to facilitate the retrofit of existing shopping centers with pedestrian amenities, EV charging, bike parking traffic-calming features, plazas and public areas, shade trees, lighting, public art, farmers markets, retail and other services that provide for everyday needs, and community events.

4.3. Air Quality
After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Land Use and Placemaking policies relevant to air quality. In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public, City staff added two new Land Use and Placemaking Element policies (LUP-4.14, 4.16). The following policies are revised and two new policies added under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.3-5. 3 Land Use and Placemaking Element
Policy LUP-4.1: Transit-Supportive Development. The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½-mile one-quarter mile of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and, commuter rail stations, and high-frequency bus stops to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-27
Policy LUP-4.13: Future-Ready Gas Stations. The City shall prohibit the establishment of new gas stations or the expansion of new fossil fuel infrastructure at existing gas stations unless the project proponent provides high-speed 50kW or greater Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) electric vehicle charging stations on site at a ratio of at least 1 new charging station per 31 new gas fuel pumps nozzle.

Policy LUP-4.14: Elimination of Vehicle Parking Minimums. The City shall not require new or existing development to provide off-street vehicle parking spaces.

Policy LUP-8.12: Design of Privately-Developed Public Spaces. The City should encourage public spaces in private development, where feasible, to include the following features:
• Lined with active uses at-grade and located near building entrances, windows, outdoor seating, patios, or balconies that overlook park spaces, and other areas with strong pedestrian activity;
• Completely visible from at least one street frontage and as feasible, be at least 50% visible from a secondary street frontage;
• Primarily defined by adjacent buildings, which will contribute to the unity and environmental quality of the space;
• Located at the same grade level as the public sidewalk when possible. Where changes in grade are an important element of the overall design and programming, clear and direct access from the public sidewalk should be accommodated, and universal accessibility provided; • Reflective of the design and placemaking elements of the surrounding area using architectural styles, signage, colors, textures, materials, and other elements; • Constructed with low impact and permeable paving materials to efficiently manage the stormwater and minimize the area’s heat island effect;
• Connected to bike and pedestrian facilities and be a part of an interconnected shared pathway or parkway system where feasible;
• Site furnishing that allows for resting;
• Wayfinding signage; and
• Tree canopy covering at least equivalent to 50 percent of the public space.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff added a new Environmental Resources and Constraints Element policy relevant to air quality (ERC-4.7). ERC-4.7 was carried over to the 2040 General Plan from the 2035 General Plan based on public comment. The following policy has been added to page 4.3-9. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-28
6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Policy ERC-4.7 Operation Emissions. The City shall require development projects that exceed Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) operational thresholds to incorporate design or operational features that reduce emissions equal to 15 percent from the level that would be produced by an unmitigated project.

After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Environmental Justice Element policies relevant to air quality. The following policies are revised starting on page 4.3-11.
7 Environmental Justice Element
Policy EJ-1.1: Air Quality Monitoring. The City shall collaborate with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) to support the expansion of air quality monitoring efforts in Sacramento, prioritizing locations in the north and south of the city that have been identified with community input as a high priority for air pollution control initiatives.

Policy EJ-1.2: Community Air Protection. On an ongoing basis, the City shall support the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), community members, businesses, and other stakeholders in implementation of AB 617 and other Community Emissions Reduction Programs (CERPs), which may include developing and implementing community air monitoring plans, community emissions reduction plans, and other air pollution control initiatives.

Supportive City actions may include the following:
• Participation on steering committees and technical advisory committees; • Support or guidance for pilot programs; or
• Leveraging related City activities and grant programs to maximize the impact of actions in disadvantaged communities.

Policy EJ-1.3: Data-Informed Efforts. The City shall collaborate with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), community organizations, and other stakeholders, and use air quality monitoring data to inform area-specific improvement actions outside of AB 617- related efforts and other Community Emissions Reduction Programs (CERPs). Such actions may include the following:
• Prioritizing areas for the installation of indoor air filtration rated MERV 13 or greater in existing buildings containing sensitive populations;
• Prioritizing areas for capital investments with co-benefits for air quality, such as planting trees, planting vegetation barriers along high-volume roadways, and installing tree planting and installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure; • Integrating air quality improvement actions into planning efforts, such as new specific plans, master plans, or area plans that will guide development in impacted areas; or • Limiting the establishment of new sources of air pollutants in areas with elevated levels of pollutant concentrations unless appropriate mitigation is implemented. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-29
After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Mobility Element policies relevant to air quality. The following policies are revised starting on page 4.3-12. Additionally, the one Implementing Action on page 4.1-17 has been revised. 8 Mobility Element
Policy M-1.1: Street Classification System. The City shall maintain a street classification system that considers the role of streets as corridors for movement but also reflects prioritizes a contextsensitive Complete Streets concept that enables connected, comfortable, and convenient travel for those walking, rolling and taking transit.

Policy M-1.3: Healthy Transportation System Options. The City shall plan and make investments to foster a transportation system that improves the health of Sacramento residents through actions that make active transportation, non-motorized modes, high-occupancy, and zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) viable, attractive alternatives to the private automobiles that use internal combustion engines.

Policy M-1.5: Street Design Standards. The City shall maintain street design and operations standards that manage prioritize comfort and travel time for walking, bicycling, and transit, while managing vehicle speeds and traffic volumes and provide for comfortable walking and bicycling travel, updating them as best practices evolve.

Policy M-1.6: Transit Integration. Wherever feasible, the City shall design buildings, the public realm, streets, and pedestrian access to integrate transit into existing neighborhoods and proposed developments and destinations such as schools, employment centers, commercial centers, major attractions, and public walking spaces to improve access for users by transit.

Policy M-1.12: Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station Access Improvements. Through the development approval process and public and private investments, the City shall foster additional walking and bicycling connections to light rail stations and strengthen existing connections to enhance first/last-mile connectivity and make it easier to travel between the station and surrounding neighborhoods and destinations. As feasible, connections should include pedestrian-level streetlighting and tree shading.

Policy M-1.13: Walkability. The City shall design streets to promote prioritize walking by including design elements such as the following:
• Grid networks that provide high levels of connectivity; • Closely spaced intersections;
• Frequent and low-stress crossings;
• Wide, unobstructed walkable sidewalks;
• Separation from vehicle traffic;
• Street trees that provide shading; and
• Minimal curb cuts.

Policy M-1.14: Walking Facilities. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible, through development project improvements and grant funding to by building new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-30
high injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near high-ridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.

Policy M-1.21: Extension of Transit Service. The City shall coordinate with the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to plan for the extension of frequent transit service and other related transit improvements that are comfortable, convenient, and interconnected to from the Greater Land Park, North Natomas, Pocket/Greenhaven, South Area, and South Natomas Community Plan Areas, to and areas with concentrated employment. This may include frequent bus service provided by SacRT as an interim solution along routes ultimately planned for light rail service.

Policy M-1.24: Transit-Only Lanes. Where appropriate, the City shall support implementation of transit-only lanes to facilitate high-frequency reliable bus and/or light rail service to and between major destinations, job centers, residential areas, and intermodal facilities in Sacramento.

Policy M-1.25: First/Last-Mile Solutions. The City shall support “first-mile, last-mile solutions” such as e-bike/e-scooter as well as multimodal transportation services, public realm improvements (e.g., bicycle parking infrastructure), and other innovations in the areas around transit stations and major bus stops (transit stops) to maximize multimodal connectivity and access for transit riders.

Policy M-1.26: Bus Stop Design. The City shall encourage the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to implement bus shelter design that encourages transit use, informed by ADAcompliance, bus stop placement, and passenger safety best practices. Where feasible, the City should collaborate with SacRT on bus stop designs for major corridor improvement projects.

Policy M-1.29: Shared Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). The City shall promote shared ZEV options, especially for local trips, that can reduce vehicle trips and the need for personal vehicle ownership, prioritizing low-income and high-need neighborhoods lacking transit and other transportation options.

Implementing Action
M-A-5: Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation. The City shall complete a study, with input from regional and state partners, to assess the feasibility of regional VMT mitigation measures, including banks, exchanges, and impact fees.

After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element policies relevant to air quality. The following policy is revised on page 4.3-17.
10 Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element
Policy YPRO-1.21: Climate-Resilient Design. The City shall ensure that the design of parks and open spaces balances sunlight access with trees climate adaptive design, such as resilient landscaping in place of impervious surfaces, climate-adaptive tree canopy, shade structures, drinking fountains, and cooling amenities, such as water spray areas, that provide respite from higher temperatures to reduce urban heat islands and overexposure to heat.

The following sentence is revised in the last paragraph, last sentence on page 4.3-23. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-31
The 2040 General Plan would also reduce area, energy, and mobile emissions through compliance with the following policies, ERC-4.7 (Operation Emissions), ERC-8.1 (Cooling Design Techniques), LUP-4.1 (Transit-Supportive Development), M-1.20 (High-Frequency Transit Service), M-1.28 (ZEV Capital), M-1.30 (Public EV Infrastructure Deployment), M-1.33 (EV Car Share and Electric Bike Share), M-1.35 (ZEV First), M-1.13 (Walkability), and M-5.8 (Zero-Emission Delivery).

4.4. Biological Resources
After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Environmental Resources and Constraints Element policies relevant to biological resources.

In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public, City staff added 9 new policies (ERC-2.6 through ERC-2.14) from the 2035 General Plan which were inadvertently omitted. The following policies are revised, and new policies added under the 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.4-5.
6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Policy ERC-1.4: Construction Site Impacts. The City shall require new development to protect the quality of water bodies and natural drainage systems through site design (e.g., cluster development), source controls, stormwater treatment, runoff reduction measures, best management practices (BMPs), Low Impact Development (LID), and hydromodification strategies to avoid or to minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development, implement measures to protect areas from erosion and sediment loss, and continue to require construction contractors to comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control ordinance and stormwater management and discharge control ordinance.

Policy ERC-2.1: Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas. The City shall continue to preserve, protect, and provide appropriate access to designated open space areas along the American and Sacramento Rivers, floodways, and undevelopable floodplains, provided access would not disturb sensitive habitats or species The City and shall support efforts to conserve and, where feasible, create or restore areas that provide important water quality and habitat benefits such as creeks, riparian corridors, buffer zones, wetlands, undeveloped open space areas, levees, and drainage canals for the purpose of protecting water resources and habitats in the city’s watersheds, creeks, and the Sacramento and American Rivers.

Policy ERC-2.3: Onsite Preservation. The City shall encourage new development to preserve and restore onsite natural elements that contribute to the community’s native plant and wildlife species value. For sites that lack existing natural elements, encourage planting of native species in preserved areas to establish or re-establish these values and aesthetic character.

Policy ERC-2.6: Wetland Protection. The City shall preserve and protect wetland resources including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands, to the extent feasible. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on wetland resources shall be required in compliance with State and Federal regulations protecting wetland resources, and if applicable, threatened or endangered species. Additionally, the City shall require either on- or offsite permanent preservation of an equivalent amount of wetland habitat to ensure no-net loss of value and/or function.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-32
Policy ERC-2.7: Annual Grasslands. The City shall preserve and protect native grasslands and vernal pools that provide habitat for rare and endangered species. If not feasible, the mitigation of all adverse impacts on annual grasslands shall comply with State and Federal regulations protecting foraging habitat for those species known to utilize this habitat.

Policy ERC-2.8: Wildlife Corridors. The City shall preserve, protect, and avoid impacts to natural, undisturbed habitats that provides movement corridors for sensitive wildlife species. If corridors are adversely affected, damaged habitat shall, be replaced with habitat of equivalent value or enhanced to enable the continued movement of species.

Policy ERC-2.9: Habitat Assessments. The City shall consider the potential impact on sensitive plants and wildlife for each project requiring discretionary approval. If site conditions are such that potential habitat for sensitive plant and/or wildlife species may be present, the City shall require habitat assessments, prepared by a qualified biologist, for sensitive plant and wildlife species. If the habitat assessment determines that suitable habitat for sensitive plant and/or wildlife species is present, then either:
(1) protocol-level surveys shall be conducted (where survey protocol has been established by a resource agency), or, in the absence of established survey protocol, a focused survey shall be conducted consistent with industry-recognized best practices; or (2) suitable habitat and presence of the species shall be assumed to occur within all potential habitat locations identified on the project site. Survey Reports shall be prepared and submitted to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (depending on the species) for further consultation and development of avoidance and/ or mitigation measures consistent with state and federal law.

Policy ERC-2.13: Climate Change-related Habitat Shifts. The City shall support the efforts of The Natomas Basin Conservancy and other habitat preserve managers to adaptively manage wildlife preserves to ensure adequate connectivity, habitat range, and diversity of topographic and climatic conditions are provided for species to move as climate shifts. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-33
Policy ERC-2.14: Climate Change-related Habitat Restoration and Enhancement. The City shall support active habitat restoration and enhancement to reduce impact of climate change stressors and improve overall resilience of habitat within existing parks and open space in the city. The City shall support the efforts of Sacramento County to improve the resilience of habitat areas in the American River Parkway.

Policy ERC-3.2: Tree Canopy Expansion. The City should strive to achieve a 25 percent urban tree canopy cover by 2030 and 35 percent by 2045. Prioritize tree planting and tree maintenance in areas with the lowest average canopy cover and explore strategies to reduce barriers to tree planting in disadvantaged communities and improve tree health.

Policy ERC-3.5: Tree List. The City shall maintain and update a list of desirable trees that suit soil and climate conditions in specific areas of Sacramento. Consider carbon sequestration of selected species. Continue to explore and promote Select tree species that demonstrate greater adaptiveness to projected climate change impacts including the ability to thrive:
• In higher temperatures;,
• With reduced water use;,
• With grey and recycled water;, and
• With increased pest and disease prevalence resistance.

Policy ERC-3.6: Urban Forest Maintenance. The City shall continue to plant, manage, and care for all trees on City property and within the public right-of-way to maximize their safe and useful life expectancy and continue to explore prioritize the selection of tree species that are adapted to future climate conditions.

Policy ERC-3.11: Planting. The City should shall encourage development to provide trees with appropriate irrigation methods and adequate growing space; site trees to reduce building heat and provide shade to public walkways to the extent feasible; and include appropriate soil treatment methods to promote healthy thriving trees.

Policy ERC-6.3: Floodplain Floodway Capacity. The City shall preserve urban creeks and rivers to maintain, and where feasible, expand existing floodplain floodway capacity while enhancing environmental and habitat quality and recreational opportunities.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed policies in the North Natomas, Fruitridge/Broadway, and South Area Community Plans relevant to biological resources. The following policies are revised under the North Natomas, Fruitridge/Broadway, and South Area Community Plans starting on page 4.4-9.

North Natomas Community Plan
Policy NN-LUP-69: Easements in Buffer Areas. The City shall pursue easements or other mechanisms with property owners in greenbelt and buffer areas to provide:
• Open space opportunities for trails and wildlife viewing; • Shared use paths to link community plan areas, neighborhood, school/park, and community park sites, and widen other buffer areas as part of habitat conservation or other useable open space; and
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-34
• Buffers around Witter Ranch and Fisherman’s Lake from proposed development adjacent to those sites.

Policy NN-ERC-1: Fisherman’s Lake Buffer. The City shall ensure that the buffer along the east side of Fisherman’s Lake from Del Paso Road to El Centro Road is designed to optimize the value of the buffer and its features for special-status species:
• Buffer Area. A buffer minimum of 300 feet in radius around each Swainson’s hawk nesting tree will be provided (known nesting trees as of 2004). The width of the buffer outside the 300-foot radius around the nesting trees shall be a minimum of 300 feet wide in the northern section and 200 feet wide in the southern section measured from the eastern boundary of RD 1000 property (see Figure NN-1 for a general map of the buffer). Pursuant to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, the buffer will be a minimum of 250 feet wide, measured from the eastern edge of the lake, along the entire length of the lake from Del Paso Road to El Centro Road.
• Buffer Uses. The buffer shall include two areas: the nesting tree buffer area around the Swainson’s hawk nesting trees; and the rest of the buffer area. Uses allowed in the buffer will be guided by Table 13.1, entitled 350-foot-wide buffer option. • Nesting Tree Buffer Area. The uses allowed in the nesting tree buffer area shall be those that provide the conditions to support the likely success of the Swainson’s hawk in continuing to use the existing nesting trees, as well as providing open space for other special-status species.
• Other Buffer Area. The allowable uses in the other buffer area shall provide open space for special status species, as well as other purposes. The uses include all those uses allowed in the nesting tree buffer area; pedestrian trails and bikeways not subject to closure; public and maintenance roadways; and other public uses, (e.g., detention basin, fire station). The other buffer area is defined as the open space buffer extending from El Centro Road north to the southernmost nesting tree radius on the east side of Fisherman’s Lake.

Fruitridge/Broadway Community Plan
Policy FB-YPRO-1: Granite Regional Park Expansion. The City shall evaluate the expansion of Granite Regional Park, including the possible acquisition of the east basin or the dedication of land in the west basin to parkland. The City shall expand Granite Regional Park by either acquiring the east basin and planning for a nature preserve with open space and trails or working with a non-profit to develop it as an open space or botanical garden.

South Area Community Plan
Policy SA-YPRO-5: Laguna Floodplain Open Space. The City shall preserve open space, maintain passive recreational facilities with designated multi-use paths, and enhance the natural features of Laguna Creek, making floodplain improvements within Laguna’s floodplain areas that include natural vegetation of the interior, planting of trees along the floodway or just inside or outside the berm, locating a park node adjacent to the floodway, development of the existing park node adjacent to the floodway, maintaining suitable habitat for the giant garter snake protected wildlife species, and planting an unlined low-flow channel with emergent vegetation. Any vegetation to be planted along and within the floodway will need to be reviewed and accepted by the Department of Utilities.

The fourth paragraph on page 4.4-12 under Impact 4.4-1 is revised and a new paragraph added. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-35
The 2040 General Plan includes new policies as well as continuation of existing policies from the 2035 General Plan that would ensure impacts to special-status plants are avoided, minimized, or otherwise mitigated as development and operations occur within the Planning Area. New policies that would accomplish this include: Policy ERC-2.2 (Biological Resources), which directs the City to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on sensitive biological resources, including special-status species from development activities to the greatest extent feasible; Policy ERC-2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas), which directs the City to support efforts to conserve and, where feasible, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands, undeveloped open space areas, levees, and drainage canals; and Policy ERC-6.3 (Floodplain Floodway Capacity), which directs the City to protect urban creeks and rivers. These riparian areas, creeks and rivers support remaining habitat for special-status plant species.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to special-status plant species.

These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of wetland resource value or function, including those supporting special-status plant species; Policy ERC-2.7 (Annual Grasslands) which requires protection of native grasslands and vernal pools; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify any potential for special-status plant species to occur. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources including special-status plants in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC-2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

The third complete paragraph on page 4.4-14 under Impact 4.4-2 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes new goals and policies designed to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to special-status invertebrates and their habitats, including elderberry shrubs, seasonal wetlands and vernal pools. This includes Policy ERC-2.2 (Biological Resources), which directs the City to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts of development on biological resources including special-status species, sensitive natural communities, sensitive habitat, and wetlands to the greatest extent feasible.

The 2040 General Plan also includes Policy ERC-2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas) and Policy ERC-6.3 (Floodplain Floodway Capacity) which direct the City to conserve and restore riparian areas, creeks and rivers where elderberry shrubs and bumblebee habitat may be present.

Lastly, Policy LUP-1.11 (Coordinate to Protect Farmland) directs the City to work with Sacramento County and other adjacent jurisdictions to implement conservation plans, preserve farmland and protect critical habitat to the benefit of special-status species, including invertebrates.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to special-status invertebrate species. These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of wetland resource value or function, including those supporting special-status invertebrate species; Policy ERC-2.7 (Annual Grasslands) which requires protection of native grasslands and vernal pools critical to specialstatus invertebrate species; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify any potential for special-status wildlife species to occur. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-36
including special-status invertebrate species in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC-2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

The second complete paragraph on page 4.4-16 under Impact 4.4-3 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes new policies that would avoid and minimize potential impacts from development on special-status fish species and their habitat within the Planning Area. Various policies under Goal ERC-1, Responsible management of water resources that preserves and enhances water quality and availability, including ERC-1.1 (Clean Water Programs), ERC-1.2 (Clean Watershed) and ERC1.3 (Runoff Contamination) would provide protections for special-status fish species by directing the City to preserve and enhance water quality. Policy ERC-6.3 (Floodplain Floodway Capacity) directs the City to preserve urban creeks and rivers to maintain and potentially expand existing floodplain capacity and to enhance environmental quality. Policy PFS-4.2 (Water Supply Sustainability) directs the City to uses more surface water when it is available and more groundwater when surface water is limited, which may result in protection to special-status fish by maintaining sufficient freshwater in river systems and maintaining natural salinity levels. Policy ERC-2.2 (Biological Resources) directs the City to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to biological resources to the maximum extent feasible. Policy ERC-2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas) provides protections to special-status fish species and their habitat by directing the City to conserve, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands, levees, and drainage canals for the purpose of protecting water resources in the city’s watersheds, creeks, and rivers. Finally, North Sacramento Community Plan policies NS-PFS-4 and NS-PFS-5 directs enhancement of historic Magpie Creek, including replacement of concrete channels with natural materials and enhancement of other natural creek features that may benefit special-status fish species.

The fourth paragraph on page 4.4-17 under Impact 4.4-4 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes new goals and policies designed to protect biological resources and natural habitats including special-status amphibians and reptiles. These include Policy ERC-2.2 (Biological Resources) which directs the City to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts to biological resources to the maximum extent feasible, and Policy ERC-2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas) that directs the City to conserve, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands, and undeveloped open space areas, which may provide habitat for special-status amphibian and reptile species. The South Area Community Plan Policy SA-YPRO-5 (Laguna Floodplain Open Space) also includes a requirement that the giant gartersnake habitat protected wildlife species in Laguna Creek floodplain be maintained.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to special-status amphibian and reptile species. These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-37
wetland resource value or function, including those supporting special-status amphibian and reptile species; Policy ERC-2.7 (Annual Grasslands) which requires protection of native grasslands and vernal pools; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify any potential for special-status wildlife species to occur. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources including special-status amphibians and reptiles in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC-2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

The first sentence in the fifth paragraph on page 4.4-19 under Impact 4.4-5 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes goals and new policies designed to protect biological resources and natural habitats.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to special-status bird species. These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of wetland resource value or function, including those supporting special-status bird species; Policy ERC-2.7 (Annual Grasslands) which requires protection of native grasslands and vernal pools used by special-status bird species for foraging and some nesting; Policy ERC-2.8 (Wildlife Corridors) requiring that movement corridors for wildlife including special-status bird species be protected and impact mitigated; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify any potential for special-status bird species to occur. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources including special-status birds such as Swainson’s hawk in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC-2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

A new paragraph is added under Impact 4.4-6 on the top of page 4.4-21.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to special-status mammal species. These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) and Policy ERC-2.7 (Annual Grasslands) that require protection and mitigation of potential special-status mammal habitat; Policy ERC-2.8 (Wildlife Corridors) requiring that movement corridors for wildlife including special-status mammal species be protected and impact mitigated; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify any potential for special-status mammal species to occur.

The second paragraph on page 4.4-22 under Impact 4.4-7 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes policies that would avoid and minimize potential impacts from development on loss or modification of riparian habitat within the Planning Area. These include Policy ERC-2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas) which directs the City to conserve, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands, undeveloped open space areas, levees, and drainage canals for the purpose of protecting water resources in the city’s watersheds, creeks, and the Sacramento and American Rivers. Policy 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-38
ERC-2.2 (Biological Resources) directs the City to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to biological resources, including riparian habitat, to the greatest extent feasible. Policy ERC-6.3 (Floodplain Floodway Capacity) directs the City to preserve urban creeks and rivers to maintain and potentially expand existing floodplain capacity while enhancing environmental quality.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to riparian habitat. These include Policy ERC2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of wetland resource value or function, including riparian resources; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify protected resources including riparian areas. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources including riparian areas in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC-2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

The first two sentences in the third paragraph on page 4.4-23 under Impact 4.4-8 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes a variety of new policies that would avoid and minimize impacts to state or federally protected wetlands. These include Policy ERC-2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas) which directs the City to conserve, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits such as creeks, riparian corridors, wetlands, undeveloped open space areas, levees, and drainage canals for the purpose of protecting water resources in the city’s watersheds, creeks, and the Sacramento and American Rivers.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to protected wetland habitat. These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of wetland resource value or function; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify protected resources including wetlands. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources including wetlands in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC-2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

The second sentence in the second paragraph on page 4.4-24 under Impact 4.4-9 is revised and a new paragraph added.

The 2040 General Plan includes policies that would require avoidance, minimization and mitigation for impacts to sensitive natural communities. For example, preservation of riparian open space under ERC2.1 (Conservation of Water Resources in Open Space Areas) would prevent development from occurring in most areas where elderberry bushes occur.

Existing policies from the 2035 General Plan would be carried forth to the 2040 General Plan and would continue to avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to these sensitive natural communities.

These include Policy ERC-2.6 (Wetland Protection) that directs the City to achieve no net loss of wetland resource value or function; and Policy ERC-2.9 (Habitat Assessments) requiring any project with 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-39
discretionary approval to conduct a habitat assessment and identify protected resources including wetlands. The 2040 General Plan also continues policies directing the City to participate in and support the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan for the protection of biological resources including wetlands in the Natomas Basin (Policies ERC-2.11 [Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan] and ERC2.12 [Support Habitat Conservation Plan Efforts]).

The first sentence in the second paragraph on page 4.4-25 under Additional Cumulative Impacts is revised.

Within the Natomas Basin, current City-approved development within the Planning Area includes two projects; Greenbriar (approximately 500 acres of grassland and giant garter snake habitat) and the Panhandle (approximately 589 acres of mostly grassland), as well as potential future development within unincorporated Sacramento County of larger areas such as the Grand Park Specific Plan Area (approximately 5,000 acres of mostly rice agriculture) and the Upper Westside Specific Plan Area (approximately 2,000 acres of primarily agricultural land east of the Sacramento River, approximately 500 acres would be left undeveloped as a buffer).

4.5. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for one of the proposed Historic and Cultural Resources Element policies relevant to cultural and tribal resources.

In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public City staff added one new policy (HCR-1.19). The following policy is revised and new policy added under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.5-4:
4 Historic and Cultural Resources Element
Policy HCR-1.1: Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources, Landscapes, and Site Features and Landscaping. The City shall continue to promote the preservation, restoration, enhancement, and recognition of historic and cultural resources throughout the city.

Policy HCR-1.19: Access to Energy Retrofits. The City shall continue to work with federal, State, and regional agencies and partners to seek funding opportunities for economically disadvantaged property owners to pursue climate-adaptive energy retrofit and electrification of existing historic buildings.

4.6. Energy
After release of the Draft Master EIR City staff determined that minor edits and clarifications were needed for some proposed Land Use and Placemaking policies relevant to energy. The following policies are revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.6-7. Land Use and Placemaking Implementing Actions on pages 4.6-8 and 4.6-9 have also been revised and are listed below. 3 Land Use and Placemaking Element
Policy LUP-4.1: Transit-Supportive Development. The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½-mile one-quarter mile of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and, commuter rail stations, and high-frequency bus stops to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-40
Policy LUP-4.13 Future-Ready Gas Stations. The City shall prohibit the establishment of new gas stations or the expansion of new fossil fuel infrastructure at existing gas stations unless the project proponent provides high-speed 50kW or greater Direct Current Fast Charger (DCFC) electric vehicle charging stations on site at a ratio of at least 1 new charging station per 31 new gas fuel pumps nozzle.

Policy LUP-8.12: Design of Privately-Developed Public Spaces. The City should encourage public spaces in private development, where feasible, to include the following features:
• Lined with active uses at-grade and located near building entrances, windows, outdoor seating, patios, or balconies that overlook park spaces, and other areas with strong pedestrian activity;
• Completely visible from at least one street frontage and as feasible, be at least 50 percent visible from a secondary street frontage;
• Primarily defined by adjacent buildings, which will contribute to the unity and environmental quality of the space;
• Located at the same grade level as the public sidewalk when possible. Where changes in grade are an important element of the overall design and programming, clear and direct access from the public sidewalk should be accommodated, and universal accessibility provided; • Reflective of the design and placemaking elements of the surrounding area using architectural styles, signage, colors, textures, materials, and other elements; • Constructed with low impact and permeable paving materials to efficiently manage the stormwater and minimize the area’s heat island effect;
• Connected to bike and pedestrian facilities and be a part of an interconnected shared pathway or parkway system where feasible;
• Site furnishing that allows for resting;
• Wayfinding signage; and
• Tree canopy covering at least equivalent to 50 percent of the public space.

Implementing Actions
LUP-A-5A-7: Sustainability and DeCcarbonization Standards. The City shall evaluate best practices to guide the development of more prescriptive sustainability and carbonization standards for City buildings, infrastructure, and facilities.

LUP-A-7: Net-Zero Energy or Net-Positive Design. The City shall assess the feasibility of requiring or incentivizing net-zero energy (NZE) or net-positive design for new buildings and significant retrofitting of existing privately-owned buildings and identify incentives for NZE and net-positive design in adaptive reuse projects.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined that some Environmental Resources and Constraints Element Implementing Actions (ERC-A-4, ERC-A-8) were omitted from the Draft Master EIR. They are added to page 4.6.11 as proposed Implementing Actions that are relevant to energy. 6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
ERC-A-4: Heat Reduction in the Public Realm. The City should explore opportunities to amend development standards and guidelines so as to promote the use of heat mitigation strategies 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-41
to reduce temperatures in the public realm, particularly on active transportation networks, commercial corridors, near light rail transit (LRT) stations and along transit corridors.

Requirements may include the incorporation of the following:
• Building design strategies (varied building heights; setbacks from sidewalks; vertical and horizontal shade features);
• Cooling building and pavement materials, treatments, and coatings; • Multiple layers of shading to maximize coverage throughout the day; • Street trees, and landscaping.

ERC-A-8: Heat Resilient Design Techniques. The City shall evaluate the feasibility of updating design guidelines, standards, and the municipal code to require building materials and site design techniques that provide passive cooling and reduce energy demand.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the Mobility Element proposed policies relevant to energy. The following policies are revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.6-11. Additionally, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for one of the proposed Mobility Element Implementing Actions. One Mobility Element Implementing Action on page 4.6-16 has been revised. 8 Mobility Element
Policy M-1.1: Street Classification System. The City shall maintain a street classification system that considers the role of streets as corridors for movement but also reflects prioritizes a contextsensitive Complete Streets concept that enables connected, comfortable and convenient travel for those walking, rolling and taking transit.

Policy M-1.13: Walkability. The City shall design streets to promote prioritize walking by including design elements such as the following:
• Grid networks that provide high levels of connectivity; • Closely spaced intersections;
• Frequent and low-stress crossings;
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-42
• Wide, unobstructed walkable sidewalks;
• Separation from vehicle traffic;
• Street trees that provide shading; and
• Minimal curb cuts.

Policy M-1.14: Walking Facilities. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible, through development project improvements and grant funding to by building new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the high-injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near high-ridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.

Policy M-1.16: Barrier Removal. The City shall remove barriers to walking, where feasible, and work with utility companies to remove barriers to allow people of all abilities to move with comfort and convenience throughout the city, including through the following:
• Provision of curb ramps, crosswalks, and overpasses;
• Relocation of infrastructure or street furniture that impedes travel pathways; • Reducing or consolidating driveways and curb cuts; and • Providing long and short-term bicycle and scooter parking to minimize sidewalk obstructions; and
• Creation of additional walking entrances to important destinations like schools, parks, and commercial areas.

Policy M-1.25: First/Last-Mile Solutions. The City shall support “first-mile, last-mile solutions” such as such as e-bike/e-scooter as well as multimodal transportation services, public realm improvements (e.g., bicycle parking infrastructure), and other innovations in the areas around transit stations and major bus stops (transit stops) to maximize multimodal connectivity and access for transit riders.

Policy M-1.29: Shared Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). The City shall promote shared ZEV options, especially for local trips, that can reduce vehicle trips and the need for personal vehicle 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-43
ownership, prioritizing low-income and high-need neighborhoods lacking transit and other transportation options.

Implementing Actions
M-A-5: Regional Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mitigation. The City shall complete a study, with input from regional and state partners, to assess the feasibility of regional VMT mitigation measures, including banks, exchanges, and impact fees.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element proposed policies relevant to energy. The following revised policy is added under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies on page 4.6-16. 10 Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element
Policy YPRO-1.21: Climate-Resilient Design. The City shall ensure that the design of parks and open spaces balances sunlight access with trees, climate-adaptive design, such as resilient landscaping in place of impervious surfaces, climate-adaptive tree canopy, shade structures, drinking fountains, and cooling amenities, such as water spray areas, that provide respite from higher temperatures to reduce urban heat islands and overexposure to heat.

4.8. Greenhouse Gases
After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the Land Use and Placemaking proposed policies relevant to greenhouse gases. The following policies are revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.8-10. City staff also determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Implementing Actions. The Implementing Actions on page 4.8-14 have been revised.
3 Land Use and Placemaking Element
Policy LUP-4.1: Transit-Supportive Development. The City shall encourage increased residential and commercial development intensity within ½-mile one-quarter mile of existing high-frequency bus stops and existing and planned light rail stations, bus rapid transit stations, and, commuter rail stations, and high-frequency bus stops to support more frequent, reliable transit service and vibrant, walkable neighborhoods.

Policy LUP-5.1: Evolving Regional Commercial Centers. The City shall promote housing and employment uses at existing regional commercial centers to enhance retail viability, establish pedestrian-oriented shopping districts, create more attractive buildings and public spaces, support transit viability, and reduce vehicle trips. The City shall facilitate the redevelopment replacement of surface parking, drive aisles, and shared parking facilities, and existing buildings to accomplish further this policy.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-44
Policy LUP-8.12: Design of Privately-Developed Public Spaces. The City should encourage public spaces in private development, where feasible, to include the following features:
• Lined with active uses at-grade and located near building entrances, windows, outdoor seating, patios, or balconies that overlook park spaces, and other areas with strong pedestrian activity;
• Completely visible from at least one street frontage and as feasible, be at least 50 percent visible from a secondary street frontage;
• Primarily defined by adjacent buildings, which will contribute to the unity and environmental quality of the space;
• Located at the same grade level as the public sidewalk when possible. Where changes in grade are an important element of the overall design and programming, clear and direct access from the public sidewalk should be accommodated, and universal accessibility provided; • Reflective of the design and placemaking elements of the surrounding area using architectural styles, signage, colors, textures, materials, and other elements; • Constructed with low impact and permeable paving materials to efficiently manage the stormwater and minimize the area’s heat island effect;
• Connected to bike and pedestrian facilities and be a part of an interconnected shared pathway or parkway system where feasible;
• Site furnishing that allows for resting;
• Wayfinding signage; and
• Tree canopy covering at least equivalent to 50 percent of the public space.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public, added a new Environmental Resources and Constraints Element policy (ERC-9.12) relevant to greenhouse gases. The following new policy is added under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.8-16. City staff also determined that some proposed implementing actions relevant to greenhouse gases were omitted from the Draft Master EIR (ERC-A-4, ERC-A-8). These Implementing Actions have been added to page 4.8.16.
6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Policy ERC-9.12: Regenerative Food System. The City shall encourage regenerative agriculture practices in urban agriculture uses, including carbon-sequestering practices. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-45
Implementing Actions
ERC-A-4: Heat Reduction in the Public Realm. The City should explore opportunities to amend development standards and guidelines so as to promote the use of heat mitigation strategies to reduce temperatures in the public realm, particularly on active transportation networks, commercial corridors, near light rail transit (LRT) stations and along transit corridors.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Mobility Element policies relevant to greenhouse gases. The following policies are revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.8-16. City staff also determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for one of the proposed Mobility Element Implementing Actions relevant to greenhouse gases. One Implementing Action on page 4.8-22 has been revised. 8 Mobility Element
Policy M-1.1: Street Classification System. The City shall maintain a street classification system that considers the role of streets as corridors for movement but also reflects prioritizes a contextsensitive Complete Streets concept that enables connected, comfortable and convenient travel for those walking, rolling and taking transit.

Policy M-1.3: Healthy Transportation System Options. The City shall plan and make investments to foster a transportation system that improves the health of Sacramento residents through actions that make active transportation, non-motorized modes, high-occupancy, and zeroemission vehicles (ZEVs) viable, attractive alternatives to the private automobiles that use internal combustion engines.

Policy M-1.12: Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station Access Improvements. Through the development approval process and public and private investments, the City shall foster additional walking and bicycling connections to light rail stations and strengthen existing connections to enhance 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-46
first/last-mile connectivity and make it easier to travel between the station and surrounding neighborhoods and destinations. As feasible, connections should include pedestrian-level streetlighting and tree shading.

Policy M-1.14: Walking Facilities. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible, through development project improvements and grant funding to by building new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the high-injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near high-ridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.

Policy M-1.16: Barrier Removal. The City shall remove barriers to walking, where feasible, and work with utility companies to remove barriers to allow people of all abilities to move with comfort and convenience throughout the city, including through the following:
• Provision of curb ramps, crosswalks, and overpasses;
• Relocation of infrastructure or street furniture that impedes travel pathways; • Reducing or consolidating driveways and curb cuts;
• Providing long and short-term bicycle and scooter parking to minimize sidewalk obstructions; and
• Creation of additional walking entrances to important destinations like schools, parks, and commercial areas.

Policy M-1.25: First/Last-Mile Solutions. The City shall support “first-mile, last-mile solutions” such as such as e-bike/e-scooter as well as multimodal transportation services, public realm improvements (e.g., bicycle parking infrastructure), and other innovations in the areas around 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-47
transit stations and major bus stops (transit stops) to maximize multimodal connectivity and access for transit riders.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element policies relevant to greenhouse gases. The following policy on page 4.8-22 has been revised.

Policy YPRO-1.21: Climate-Resilient Design. The City shall ensure that the design of parks and open spaces balances sunlight access with trees, climate-adaptive design, such as resilient landscaping in place of impervious surfaces, climate-adaptive tree canopy, shade structures, drinking fountains, and cooling amenities, such as water spray areas, that provide respite from higher temperatures to reduce urban heat islands and overexposure to heat.

4.10. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding
After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Environmental Resources and Constraints Element policies relevant to hydrology, water quality, and flooding. The following policies are revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.10-4.
6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Policy ERC-1.4: Construction Site Impacts. The City shall require new development to protect the quality of water bodies and natural drainage systems through site design (e.g., cluster development), source controls, stormwater treatment, runoff reduction measures, best management practices (BMPs), Low Impact Development (LID), and hydromodification strategies to avoid or to minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development, implement measures to protect areas from erosion and sediment loss, and continue to require construction contractors to comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control ordinance and stormwater management and discharge control ordinance.

Policy ERC-5.7: Onsite Water Reuse. The City shall explore the feasibility of requiring onsite reuse of greywater and blackwater for end uses such as toilet flushing and irrigation to offset supplies of potable water and support more resilient and sustainable water management. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-48
Policy ERC-6.3: Floodplain Floodway Capacity. The City shall preserve urban creeks and rivers to maintain, and where feasible, expand existing floodplain floodway capacity while enhancing environmental and habitat quality and recreational opportunities.

4.12. Public Services and Recreation
After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element policies relevant to public services and recreation. The following policies are revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page

4.12-6. City staff also determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Implementing Actions. The Implementing Actions starting on page 4.12-15 have been revised. 8 Youth, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Element
Policy YPRO-1.3: Parkland Service Standard. The City shall evaluate, as needed, the equitable increase of public park acreage to serve the needs of the current and future residents with highquality facilities. The City shall continue to strive to achieve a parkland service standard of 8.5 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents, which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, regional parks, open space, and parkways.

Policy YPRO-1.4: Parkland Dedication Requirements. The City shall continue to require that new residential development projects contribute toward the provision of adequate parks and recreational facilities to serve the new residents, either through the dedication of parkland, the construction of public and/or private recreation facilities, or the payment of parkland in-lieu fees, consistent with the Quimby Ordinance. To achieve the level of service for all parkland in all areas of the city, the City shall seek other funding resources to prioritize park needs in park deficit areas.

Policy YPRO-1.6: Underutilized Land. As feasible, the City shall acquire, lease, or otherwise obtain rights to the use of odd-shaped or underutilized vacant parcels for park or open space, focusing efforts first in underserved disadvantaged park deficient communities.

Policy YPRO-1.7: Co-Located Joint-Use Facilities. The City shall continue to facilitate the development of new parks or expansion of existing parks and recreational facilities by co-locating with and joint use of new or existing public and institutional facilities (e.g., schools, libraries, cultural facilities, and stormwater detention basins) in order to efficiently provide for community needs and offset operations and maintenance costs, prioritizing disadvantaged communities with an existing deficit of park or recreation facilities.

Policy YPRO-1.8: Non-Conventional Park Solutions. In densely built out urban areas of the city where the provision of large park spaces is not feasible, the City shall explore creative solutions to provide neighborhood park and recreation facilities that serve the needs of local residents and employees. Such solutions may include the following:
• Publicly accessible, privately-owned open spaces and plazas; • Rooftop play courts and gardens;
• Freeway underpass, and utility corridor, and wide landscape medians; • Conversion of rails to rails with trails;
• Pocket parks/small public places and pedestrian areas in the public right-of-way; and • The provision of neighborhood and community-serving recreational facilities in regional parks. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-49
Policy YPRO-1.9: Timing of Services. The City shall monitor the pace and location of new development through the development review process and long-range planning efforts to strive to ensure that development of parks, and community and recreation programming, and communityserving facilities and services keeps pace with growth.

Policy YPRO-1.10: Parkland Access Standard. The City shall strive to provide accessible public park or recreational open space within 10-minute walk of all residences in Sacramento In residential areas that do not have an accessible park or recreational open space within a 10-minute walk, the City shall evaluate the equitable increase of public park acreage, prioritizing communities with an existing deficit of high-quality facilities.

Policy YPRO-1.12: Parks Programming. The City shall continue to create high-quality, inclusive equitable programming that encourages the use of the park facilities by a variety of users, including older adults, youth, and people with disabilities throughout the day and evenings.

Programming should include the following:
• Organized sports,
• Fitness,
• Youth leadership and workforce development,
• Volunteer activities, and
• Arts and cultural activities catering to the interests of the community that the park facilities serve.

Opportunities should be taken to incorporate local Native American heritage and culture.

Policy YPRO-1.13: Park Safety. The City shall continue to use Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) landscaping and lighting, among other techniques and efforts that support the Park Ranger program, to ensure that parks and open spaces are designed and maintained with safety as a priority without compromising accessible and inclusionary design to maximize the personal safety of users and maintain the visibility of play areas.

Policy YPRO-1.14: Collaborative Efforts. The City shall implement community-based crime prevention strategies and recreation programming in coordination with the City’s Park Ranger program, neighborhood groups, local residents, and Property and Business Improvement Districts (PBIDs), concurrent with the City’s Public Safety Services resolution to help improve safety and encourage positive use activation of parks and facilities.

Policy YPRO-1.15: Path Connections. The City shall preserve maintain existing and pursue new connections to local, and regional, and state shared-use paths, especially when connecting to public parkland.

Policy YPRO-1.16: River Parkways. The City shall coordinate collaborate with the Park Ranger program, with the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks and other agencies and organizations to secure funding to increase ranger patrols and maintain and enhance the American River and Sacramento River parkways and multi-use shared path corridors.

Policy YPRO-1.17: Waterway Recreation and Access. The City shall work with regional partners, State agencies, non-profit and community groups, private landowners, and land developers to manage, preserve, improve, and enhance use and access to the Sacramento and American River Parkways, urban waterways and riparian corridors to increase public access for active and passive recreation and habitat values.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-50
Policy YPRO-1.18: Miller Regional Park/Sacramento Marina. The City shall implement the West Broadway Specific Plan proposed improvements to Miller Regional Park and support long-term goals for enhancement of the Miller Regional Park/Sacramento Marina as a recreational connection to the Sacramento River waterfront and Sacramento Parkway.

Policy YPRO-1.19: Integrated Parks and Recreation System. The City shall continue to provide an integrated system of parks, open space areas, and recreational facilities that are safe, connect diverse communities, acknowledge neighborhood context, protect and provide access to nature, integrate with adjacent developments, and make efficient use of land and open space.

Policy YPRO-1.22: Community Input. The City shall provide ongoing opportunities for public engagement and input into the parks and recreation planning process, including priorities for amenities, facilities, programming, and improvements, using tools such as the Park Project Programming Guide.

Policy YPRO-1.23: Organized Sports and Recreational Facilities. The City shall develop and maintain quality facilities (e.g., multi-field and multi-court sports complexes, skateparks, pump tracks, and challenge courses) for a variety of organized and recreational sports, prioritizing the needs of youth between the ages of 10 and 24, and particularly for youth in disadvantaged communities, in order to ensure opportunities for youth development, recreation, social development, and life and wellness skill building.

Policy YPRO-1.24: Welcoming Amenities. In its parks and recreational facilities, the City shall incorporate amenities that invite the use of park facilities by all community members, including benches, accessible park paths and facilities, shaded seating, pathway lighting, and restrooms that make it easier for older adults and families to enjoy the facilities.

Policy YPRO-1.27: Volunteer Programs. The City shall continue to engage local residents, businesses, and community-based organizations in the stewardship and maintenance of parks and facilities through the Park Volunteer Program, Earth Day, Adopt-a-Park, Creek Week programs, and other collaborative partnerships and initiatives.

Policy YPRO-1.28: Fee Benchmarking. The City shall periodically review Quimby in-lieu parkland dedication fees, park development impact fees, application review fees, and user fees and charges to ensure they are adequately providing for community needs and are competitive within the region.

Policy YPRO-1.29: Leveraging Grant Funds. The City shall leverage municipal funds to access grants for the acquisition of parkland in park deficient areas, planning, construction and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities in underserved, disadvantaged communities from federal and state government agencies, philanthropic organizations, and private partners.

Policy YPRO-2.2: Co-Location of Community-Serving Facilities. Whenever feasible, the City shall co-locate City facilities with other public facilities (schools, post offices, hospitals/clinics 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-51
libraries, drainage facilities, utility providers) so that multiple services may be delivered from a single location.

Policy YPRO-3.1: Health Data and Programming. The City shall collaborate with the Sacramento County Department of Public Health and Health Services to monitor and maintain data related to health outcomes and risk factors, and to use this data to inform new programs to serve the local community.

Policy YPRO-3.2: Health Information. The City should provide and promote courses, seminars, and informational resources about health and healthy lifestyles at City facilities, including libraries, community centers, centers for older adults, parks, and recreational facilities. Prioritize resources for efforts in disadvantaged communities.

Policy YPRO-3.8: Cooling Centers. The City shall continue to activate cooling centers at the community centers, aquatic centers, and water spray parks to help residents cope with higher temperatures. City parks shall be designed with materials and other strategies that offer cooling benefits to the residents.

Implementing Actions
YPRO-A.1: Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment (YPCE) Parks Plan Update. The City shall update the YPCE Parks Plan to identify locations for new neighborhood and community parks as needed to satisfy community needs; incorporate standards for new non-conventional park facilities; and strengthen access to parks and recreational facilities by transit. The update should incorporate priorities, phasing, and funding mechanisms and be undertaken with robust community engagement. The Parks Plan 2040 shall provide policy recommendations toward meeting the city’s parkland and facility level of service goals; incorporate design guideline standards for park and recreation facilities; and strengthen access to parks and recreational facilities. The update should incorporate key priorities, implementation actions, and funding mechanisms and be undertaken with robust community engagement.

YPRO-A.2: Park Audits. The City shall collaborate and support community-based organizations and neighborhood groups to conduct safety, maintenance, and access audits in City parks and recreational facilities. The community park audits should be conducted in neighborhoods throughout the city with the participation of Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment (YPCE), Police Department, and other relevant City staff to identify and prioritize park safety and access improvements.

YPRO-A.7: Performance-Based Prioritization. The Department of Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment (YPCE) shall update the park project programming guide to incorporate a performance-based system for equitably prioritizing parks and recreation investments that links facility improvement priorities to safety standards, funding availability, disadvantaged communities, public health, and recreational goals through a ranking scale that includes measured public health outcomes.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed policies in the Central City, East Sacramento, Fruitridge/Broadway, North Sacramento, Pocket/Greenhaven, and South Natomas Community Plans relevant to public services and recreation. The following policies are revised under the Central City, East Sacramento, Fruitridge/Broadway, North 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-52
Sacramento, Pocket/Greenhaven, and South Natomas Community Plans starting on page 4.12-16. City staff also determined that one policy should be deleted (NN-YPRO-1) due to its redundancy with other City processes, and that two new policies relevant to public services and recreation from the North Natomas and South Natomas Community Plans should be added (NN-YPRO-2, SN-YPRO-6), which support the provision of public services and recreation in these respective areas.

Central City Community Plan
Policy CC-YPRO-2: Activate Existing Parks. The City shall continue developing the Sutter’s Landing Regional Park as active with recreation uses and enhancing existing neighborhood parks serving the R Street Corridor (Southside, Roosevelt, Fremont, Winn) with recreation amenities and facilities to serve future residents.

Policy CC-YPRO-3: Sacramento River Waterfront Recreation and Access. The City shall continue to collaborate with regional partners, State agencies, private landowners, business districts, civic institutions, and other stakeholders to manage, preserve, improve, and enhance recreation and access along the Sacramento River waterfront from Tiscornia Park to Frederick Miller Regional Park.

Policy CC-YPRO-5: Organized Sports and Recreational Facilities. The City shall develop and maintain quality facilities (including multi-use sports courts and fields) for a variety of organized sports to ensure active recreation opportunities are met for the growing community needs in the Central City.

East Sacramento Community Plan
Policy ES-YPRO-1: Improve Park Access. The City shall explore opportunities to improve park access for the disadvantaged College/Glen neighborhood, such as identifying a new park site or a strategy to improve open space access, such as through redevelopment of vacant lots, joint-use agreements, with pocket parks or better connectivity to existing parks.

North Natomas Community Plan
Policy NN-YPRO-1: Innovation Park. When redeveloping the Sleep Train Area site, the City should work with the developer to include a centrally located community and neighborhood park to develop parkland concurrent with development phases that serve new residents and the wider community.

Policy NN-YPRO-21: Ninos Parkway. The City shall implement the Nnorthern Ssection above Interstate 80 of the Ninos Parkway as part of the Panhandle Planned Unit Development (PUD) and connecting the Ninos Parkway to the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal and Hansen Ranch Steelhead Creek and Walter S. Ueda Parkway.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-53
NN-YPRO-2: Organized Sports and Recreational Facilities. The City shall develop and maintain quality facilities (including sports courts and fields) for a variety of organized sports to ensure active recreation opportunities are met for the growing community needs in North Natomas.

North Sacramento Community Plan
Policy NS-YPRO-1: Walter S. Ueda Parkway Access. The City shall work with local landowners to create new pedestrian access points and improve access to Walter S. Ueda Parkway from adjacent neighborhoods.

Policy NS-YPRO-2: Hagginwood Park Access. When planning pedestrian improvements or in the event of adjacent new development, the City shall recognize that completing the sidewalk network within a 10-minute walk of near Hagginwood Park to improve pedestrian access from nearby neighborhoods is a community priority.

Policy NS-YPRO-5: Joint-Use Agreement. The City shall pursue a joint-use agreement with the Twin Rivers Unified School District that allows for community use of Castori Elementary School select school fields and playgrounds during non-school hours to improve park access to surrounding neighborhoods.

Pocket/Greenhaven Community Plan
Policy PG-YPRO-2: Parkways/Greenways. The City shall continue to improve and maintain the parkway/greenbelt network and public open spaces, including removing fencing and gates and adding access points where feasible, and by exploring strategies to improve connections between greenways and to the Sacramento River Parkway.

Policy PG-YPRO-3: Joint-Use Agreement. The City shall pursue a joint-use agreement with Sacramento City Unified School District that allows for community use of select school fields and playgrounds during non-school hours to improve park access in the Pocket/Greenhaven Community Plan Area.

Policy PG-YPRO-4: Pool and Neighborhood Center Access. The City shall explore ways to facilitate swimming pool and neighborhood center access for Pocket/Greenhaven residents, especially for youth, through joint-use agreements with the school districts or expanded access to Pannell Meadowview Community Center or North Natomas Community Center and Aquatic Center.

South Area Community Plan
Policy SA-YPRO-2: Franklin Boyce Park Access. As part of the Parks Plan 2040, tThe City shall explore options to expand pedestrian access to Franklin Boyce Park from adjacent neighborhoods such as by creating a pedestrian entrance on the west side over the drainage canal.

Policy SA-YPRO-3: Joint-Use Agreements. The City shall pursue joint-use agreements with the Sacramento City and Elk Grove Unified School Districts (USDs) that allow for community use of the Union House and John D. Sloat select elementary school fields and playgrounds during non-school hours to improve park access in the South Area.

Policy SA-YPRO-5: Laguna Floodplain Open Space. The City shall preserve open space, maintain passive recreational facilities with designated multi-use paths, and enhance the natural features of Laguna Creek, making floodplain improvements within Laguna’s floodplain areas that include natural 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-54
vegetation of the interior, planting of trees along the floodway or just inside or outside the berm, locating a park node adjacent to the floodway, development of the existing park node adjacent to the floodway, maintaining suitable habitat for the giant garter snake protected wildlife species, and planting an unlined low-flow channel with emergent vegetation. Any vegetation to be planted along and within the floodway will need to be reviewed and accepted by the Department of Utilities.

South Natomas Community Plan
Policy SN-YPRO-1: Gardenland Park Access. The City shall explore the feasibility of collaborating with Reclamation District 1000 and Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency to create shared multi-use trails paths and a new access point to Gardenland Park from Indiana Avenue to expand park access for nearby residents.

Policy SN-YPRO-2: Walter S. Ueda Parkway Access. The City shall explore options to create new accessible access points to the Walter S. Ueda Parkway throughout the Gardenland neighborhood.

Policy SN-YPRO-4: River Access Points. The City shall encourage collaborate with the Sacramento County Department of Parks and Recreation to improve access to the American rRiver Parkway from South Natomas by updating the American River Parkway Plan to incorporateing new river access points and improved bicycle and pedestrian entrances, as feasible where consistent with the American River Parkway Plan, Natural Resources Element.

Policy SN-YPRO-6: Connections to East Levee Road Trails. The City shall explore options to improve connectivity to the East Levee Road trails.

The following text beginning on page 4.12-4 has been revised to reflect an update to the City parks inventory in Appendix C. The updated Appendix C is included as an attachment at the end of this chapter.

Since preparation of the TBR, the City parks inventory has been updated. The information in this section is based on the current (2018) City parks inventory therefore, based on the updated City-owned parks inventory (included as Appendix C) rather than the inventory presented in the TBR.

The City’s Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment (YPCE) Department maintains over 3,790 4,330.92 acres of parkland across 224 236parks and recreation facilities. The parks include regional parks, community and neighborhood parks, parkways, and open space. Several facilities within the city are owned or operated by other jurisdictions, such as the County of Sacramento, the State of California, and SCUSD, which do not count toward the total park acreage.

The City has established a standard of providing 5 acres of neighborhood and community park and open space land per thousand residents city-wide. For the purpose of determining park development impact fees (PIF), different areas of the city are evaluated for their contribution to the City’s parkland standard and fees are set in accordance with the determined fair share burden. Park Development Impact Fees (PIF) are fees required of new development for the purpose of funding new or expanded parks or recreation facilities to serve that development.

According to the City’s parks inventory included as Appendix C, neighborhood- and community-serving park acreage comprises approximately 1,355.76 acres (35.77% of the total parks inventory). 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-55
Pursuant to Chapter 17.512 of the City Code, the Quimby Ordinance, as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map, subdividers must dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu thereof, or both (at the City’s option), for park or recreational purposes. Where a recreational or park facility is designated in the general plan or a specific plan, or the subdivider proposes to locate a recreational or park facility in whole or in part within the proposed subdivision to serve the immediate and future needs of the residents of the subdivision, the subdivider shall dedicate land for a local recreation or park facility sufficient in size to serve the residents of the subdivision, based on the number dwelling units and the area of the City in which the development would occur.

For the purpose of funding park improvements, the City has established Park Development Impact Fees (PIF), required by new development for the purpose of providing funds for new or expanded parks or recreation facilities required to serve their development. New residents and employees create the need for additional parks and facilities. The Park Impact Fee (PIF) Nexus Study Update, pursuant to the “Mitigation Fee Act” (California Government Code 66000), established the legal and policy basis to allow the City to impose a fee on new residential and non-residential development within the City.

Parkland acquisition for Neighborhood and Community parks is not included in the current PIF because it is instead addressed through the City’s Quimby Ordinance and the City’s Quimby in-lieu fee program.

The PIF Nexus Study (2017) relies on a level of service (LOS) approach. It has established a lower LOS for new development in the Central City than throughout the remaining areas of the City. The PIF LOS standard results in lower PIF rates for development of Neighborhood and Community parks throughout the city and created a fund for Citywide parks and facilities.

The following text beginning on page 4.12-6 has been revised to reflect an update to the City parks inventory.

The 2040 General Plan would maintain the goal of city neighborhood and community parkland at 5 acres per 1,000 residents, the same as in the 2035 General Plan. strives to achieve the goal of providing neighborhood and community parks, regional parks, parkways, and open space at 8.50 acres per 1,000 residents. The analysis in this Master EIR assumes that buildout of the 2040 General Plan would result in a total of 638,433 residents in 2040, from a baseline population of 472,693 in 2018 (see Chapter 2, Table 2-3). Service level calculations are based on the City’s updated parks inventory included as Appendix C to this document. Not meeting the service level goal is not considered a CEQA impact but may suggest the need for new or expanded parks so that physical deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities would not be accelerated. According to Appendix C, neighborhood- and community-serving park acreage comprises approximately 1,355.76 1,380.23 acres (35.77 32.80% of the total parks inventory). Based on the baseline population of 472,693, the current service level is 2.87 8.90. The anticipated 2040 service level is also calculated using the information in Appendix C, which includes the acreage of future proposed parks. Based on the anticipated 2040 population of 638,433 and including 137.36 613 acres of all proposed neighborhood and community parks, the future service level would be 2.34 7.74 park acreage dedicated to the City for new parks as part of the development process contributes toward meeting the minimum service level goals for neighborhood and community parkland; however, to achieve the

8.50 acre per 1,000 resident level of service goal for all parkland, which includes neighborhood, community, and regional parks, parkways and open space, the City will need to evaluate the update to the PIF Nexus Study and continue to seek sources of funding in addition to the development process. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-56
parks. Land that may be developed in the future for parks and recreation uses, but not under the City’s jurisdiction, would not be considered a contribution towards meeting the service level goals.

The following corrections are made to the text beginning on page 4.12-23 to reflect an update to the City parks inventory.

The 2040 General Plan includes Policy YPRO-1.3 (Parkland Service Standard), which states that the City shall strive to achieve 5 acres of neighborhood and community parkland the proposed level of service of

8.50 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents citywide. The proposed level of service citywide, includes

3.0 acres per 1,000 residents for regional parks; 1.75 acres per 1,000 residents for community parks;

1.40 acres per 1,000 residents for neighborhood parks; 1.60 acres per 1,000 residents for parkways; and 0.75 acres per 1,000 residents for open space. The existing (2023) park acres for all parkland is 4,330.92 acres. The level of service for all parkland at 2018 population rate is currently at 9.16 acres per 1,000 residents. The proposed level of service is 8.50 acre per 1,000 residents to account for the adjusted level of service required for all park types citywide. The 2040 General Plan proposes 1,095.76 acres of new parkland (see Table 4.12-8) to meet the proposed level of service goal for public parkland for the projected 2040 population. The 2040 General Plan also proposes 137.36 acres of new neighborhood and community parkland (see Appendix C) for a total of 1,493.12 acres of neighborhood and community parkland in 2040. This would result in a service level of approximately

2.34 acres of neighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents in the city in 2040. Therefore, development under the 2040 General Plan would not meet the established goal of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Not counted toward the parkland service standard but serving residents of the city, are parks owned or operated by other jurisdictions, such as the County of Sacramento, the State of California, and area school districts, which are not counted within the City’s park inventory, but serve residents of the city. In total, there are approximately 6,200 additional acres of parks that are at least partially located within the city limits and serve city residents.

Table 4.12-8 on page 4.12-24 is removed and replaced with the new table below.

Table 4.12-8. Parks Level of Service Standards
Park Type
2023 Existing Park
Acreage
2023 Existing
LOS
Proposed
LOS
Standards
Net Future Need
(Acreage) for
Proposed LOS
Regional Parks 1,626.13 3.44 3.0 289.17
Community Parks 948.68 2.01 1.75 168.58
Neighborhood Parks 451.98 0.96 1.40 441.82
Parkways 854.14 1.81 1.60 167.35
Open Space 450.00 0.95 0.75 28.82
Total 4,330.92 9.16 8.50 1,095.76
The following text on page 4.12-25 has been added to reflect the new parks inventory and parks level of service calculations.

The proposed Community Plans also include policies regarding the maintenance, access, and provision of local parks that serve each community.
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-57
As shown in Table 4.12-8, the City would require an additional 1,095.76 acres of parkland in order to meet all park type service level standards of 8.50 acres per 1,000 residents. However, this would not be a substantial change from current conditions of 9.16 acres per 1,000 residents. Several park facilities within the City are owned or operated by other jurisdictions, such as the County of Sacramento, the State of California, and area school districts, which are not counted within the City’s park inventory, but serve residents of the City.

Funding for acquisition of new park acreage, and generation of funds committed to maintenance and operation of parks and recreational facilities, are ongoing activities of the City.

4.13. Public Utilities
The third and fourth sentences in the first paragraph under Sewer on page 4.13-1 are revised.

Thirteen separated basins flow directly into the downtown area’s combined sewer system basin, where separated sewer flows join the combined wastewater flows before being conveyed to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility (Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility) for treatment. The other 40 separated basins flow into the Regional San interceptors, which also conveys flows to the Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility, via individually pumped basins (32 pumped basins) or by gravity flow (8 gravity basins). Local and trunk wastewater collection in the Planning Area is provided by the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) and the City.

To provide the detail related to the sump and interceptor system, the following text is added after the second sentence under Wastewater Treatment on page 4.13-2.

Wastewater treatment within the Planning Area is provided by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San). Regional San operates all regional interceptors and wastewater treatment plants serving the city except for the combined sewer and storm drain treatment facilities discussed above, which are operated by the City. Local and trunk wastewater collection in the Planning Area is provided by SacSewer (formerly known as the Sacramento Area Sewer District) and the City.

Wastewater collected by SacSewer would be conveyed to the EchoWater Facility (formerly Regional San WWTP) via Sump 2/2A and the Regional San City Interceptor system.

The following text and revisions are added to the second and third paragraphs on page 4.13-3.

More recently Regional San completed the Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Project, the centerpiece of the plant expansion project known as the EchoWater Project, which was is a substantial upgrade to the facility. The BNR Project removes more than 99% of ammonia from the Sacramento region’s wastewater by releasing oxygen into the wastewater to support bacteria which remove most of the organic matter and nearly all of the ammonia. Spring of 2023 marked the completion of the entire EchoWater Project, that upgrades the treatment process to also remove 89% of nitrogen from wastewater. With the upgrade, the treatment plant has been renamed the EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility.

The Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility, which is located approximately five miles south of the City in Elk Grove just south of the city limits in the unincorporated County, is owned and operated by Regional San and provides sewage treatment for the entire Planning Area. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-58
The following revision is added to the second sentence in the paragraph under Reclaimed Water on page 4.13-5.

In April 2016, following completion of this study, the City and Regional San executed a Principles of Agreement for a Water Recycling Program which serves as an interim document that describes the proposed institutional structure for Regional San and the City Water Recycling Program. Regional San and the SPA, in coordination with the City, cooperated in the development of a Phase 1 water recycling project that will initially deliver recycled water via a new transmission pipeline from the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant EchoWater Facility to the Cogen Facility.

The following revision is added to the last sentence in the first paragraph under Wastewater on page 4.13-18.

The City’s separated system and SASD’s system, as well as the dry-weather flow from the City’s combined system, and a majority of the wet weather flow from the City’s CSS drain into interceptors owned and operated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San) which in turn convey all flows to the Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility also owned and operated by RegionalSan.

The following revision is added to the first sentence in the second paragraph under Wastewater on page 4.13-18.

The older Central City area is served by a system in which both sanitary sewage and storm drainage are collected and conveyed in the same system of pipelines, referred to as the CSS. The agreement with the Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility is to treat up to 60 million gallons per day (mgd) where current dry weather sewer flows are approximately 12 mgd.

The following revisions are added to the first and second sentences in the last paragraph under Wastewater on page 4.13-18.

The Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility provides service for the cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Folsom; unincorporated Sacramento County; and the communities of Courtland and Walnut Grove. Approximately 1.4 million people are currently located within the District’s service area. The Sacramento Regional WWTP EchoWater Facility treats wastewater for the entire Planning Area and has a total capacity of 400 mgd.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for one of the proposed Environmental Resources and Constraints Element policies relevant to public utilities. The following policy is revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.13-8. 6 Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Policy ERC-5.7: Onsite Water Reuse. The City shall explore the feasibility of requiring onsite reuse of greywater and blackwater for end uses such as toilet flushing and irrigation to offset supplies of potable water and support more resilient and sustainable water management.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for one of the proposed Public Services and Safety Element policies relevant to public utilities. The following policy is revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.13-9. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-59
9 Public Services and Safety Element
Policy PFS-6.5: Broadband Access. The City shall work to expand broadband internet access throughout Sacramento, prioritizing efforts to improve access for students, residents, and businesses in disadvantaged communities. Strategies may include the following:
• Expanding the City’s middle-mile conduit and fiber optic network to provide opportunities for broadband service providers to leverage City infrastructure in underserved areas; • Expanding the availability of free Wi-Fi in City parks, libraries, community centers, transit stops, and other publicly accessible facilities;
• Establishing a microwave network consisting of radios mounted on top of City structures to provide backhaul for public Wi-Fi and city infrastructure connectivity; • Pursuing funding opportunities, including but not limited to federal grants; • Leveraging the Citizen Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) band of the wireless spectrum to establish high-speed wireless networks when necessary; and • Partnering with telecommunications and cable providers to offer discounted wireless and broadband plans to low-income customers.

4.14. Transportation and Circulation
Figures 4.14-4a and 4b have been revised to reflect the lane configurations for the street system. Three (3) out of the four (4) changes in the analysis are already coded in the transportation model used by the city and as directed by Public Works. The exception is Elkhorn Boulevard (west of SR 99). The circulation diagram has been updated for consistency with the city’s preferences for these segments and this change has no effect on the traffic modeling, and no changes to the analysis or conclusions in the Master EIR.

Elkhorn Boulevard is coded as two lanes in the transportation (SACSIM) model consistent with the circulation diagram. This segment is also designated as an arterial so there would be no difference in right-of-way expectations since those are not tied to lanes but to the functional classification. The model traffic volumes were checked to better understand how a change in the number lanes could affect the forecasts. Elkhorn Boulevard is a short segment with a daily volume forecast of about 21,500 vehicles. Parallel roads carry about 5,300 and 3,500 vehicles. With this level of demand, increasing the roadway segment to four lanes consistent with existing conditions would not likely to meaningfully change forecasting. Note that the SACSIM model has a ‘stochastic’ component that produces some level of variation between model runs without making any other changes to land use or the roadway network. The level of variation would likely be greater than the change that might be produced from a lane change of two lanes to four lanes on a short segment. The updated Figures are provided at the end of this chapter.

The following policies were omitted from the list of Mobility Element policies relevant to transportation and circulation and are added under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.14-21. 8 Mobility Element
Policy M-1.13: Walkability. The City shall design streets to prioritize walking by including design elements such as the following:
• Grid networks that provide high levels of connectivity; 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-60
• Closely spaced intersections;
• Frequent and low-stress crossings;
• Wide, unobstructed walkable sidewalks;
• Separation from vehicle traffic;
• Street trees that provide shading; and
• Minimal curb cuts.

Policy M-1.14: Walking Facilities. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible, by building new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the high-injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near high ridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.

Policy M-1.15: Improve Walking Connectivity. The City shall require new subdivisions, new multiunit dwelling developments, and new developments along commercial corridors to include well-lit, treeshaded walkways where feasible, that provide direct links to the public realm or adjacent public destinations such as transit stops and stations, schools, parks, and shopping centers.

Policy M-1.16: Barrier Removal. The City shall remove barriers to walking, where feasible, and work with utility companies to remove barriers to allow people of all abilities to move with comfort and convenience throughout the city, including through the following:
• Provision of curb ramps, crosswalks, and overpasses;
• Relocation of infrastructure or street furniture that impedes travel pathways; • Reducing or consolidating driveways and curb cuts;
• Provide long and short-term bicycle and scooter parking to minimize sidewalk obstructions; and
• Creation of additional walking entrances to important destinations like schools, parks, and commercial areas.

Policy M-1.17: Improve Bicycling Connectivity. The City shall plan and seek funding for a continuous, low-stress bikeway network consisting of bicycling-friendly facilities that connect neighborhoods with destinations and activity centers throughout the city.

Policy M-1.18: Bicycling Safety. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that strengthen the protection of people bicycling such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists, increase bikeway widths, raise bikeways, design safer intersection crossings and turns, and separate bikeways from driving traffic wherever feasible.

Policy M-1.19: Walking Safety. When designing projects, the City shall prioritize designs that encourage walking and improve walking safety best practice designs and considerations for efficiencies in walking.

After release of the Draft Master EIR, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for some of the proposed Mobility Element policies relevant to transportation and circulation. In addition, based on comments received from various stakeholders and the public City staff added a new policy (M-4.9). The following policy is revised and new policy added under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-61

4.14-22. Additionally, City staff determined minor edits and clarifications were needed for one of the proposed Implementing Actions. The Implementing Action on page 4.14-23 has been revised. 8 Mobility Element
Policy M-2.17: Parking Management Strategy. The City shall continue to deploy a parking management strategy that optimizes the use of existing supply, minimizes the need for the construction of new parking facilities, and promotes the use of active modes of transportation, public transit, and high occupancy vehicles. Program components could include the following:
• Adjusting parking management strategies based on goals and needs; • Adjusting parking meter hours and pricing for effective management; • Eliminating City-mandated parking minimums;
• Implementing parking maximums along established transit corridors; • Allowing unbundled parking in conjunction with strategies to reduce the need for private automobiles;
• Incorporating or facilitating technology such as smart-phone apps and wayfinding signage that direct drivers to open parking spaces in real-time, automated and/ or stacked parking systems, or parking technologies that improve parking efficiency in mixed-use centers and corridors;
• Supporting the use of alternative modes by providing alternative programs in lieu of monthly parking passes and discounts; and
• Improving branding, communications, and wayfinding signage.

Policy M-4.9: Safe Routes to School. The City shall assess opportunities to develop and support Safe Routes to School programming.

4.15. Tribal Cultural Resources
The following policy is revised under 2040 General Plan Goals and Policies starting on page 4.15-3.

Policy HCR-1.1: Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources, Landscapes, and Site Features and Landscaping. The City shall continue to promote the preservation, restoration, enhancement, and recognition of historic and cultural resources throughout the city. 3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-62

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
,t,----,-----�-----J __ _
Sacramento
International
Airport
0 0
0 Sacramento City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Special Study Areas
,----, L_ ___ , County Boundary
•
0 Airports
Existing Light Rail Station
Proposed Light Rail Station
Existing Light Rail Line
0 0 • • Proposed Light Rail Extension
Highways
Major Roads
Railroads
Water
Source: City of Sacramento GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023 Natomas Basin
Study Area
(
,,_ ____ ,.,,,,,,,
\ \
\\
\
I
I l ,/
/
J I
---------:-------------
----
..., -
$. cl
8k-Grove·Blvd ---t--------\1-------l------1-----___,-
Airport
kGrove ffi'CI7
0 --===---
½ 2Mile
Figure 2-1
General Plan Planning Area
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-64

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Pocket/Greenhaven
South Area
Fruitridge/Broadway
Greater
Land Park
East
Sacramento
Central City
South Natomas
Arden Arcade
North
Sacramento
North Natomas
Community Plan Area
Arden Arcade
Central City
East Sacramento
Fruitridge/Broadway
Greater Land Park
North Natomas
North Sacramento
Pocket/Greenhaven
South Area
South Natomas
Sacramento City Limit
Sphere of Influence within Planning Area
County Boundary
Water
Source: City of Sacramento Community Development Department, 2018; Sacramento County, 2020 Z:\Projects\j1149901\MAPDOC\EIR\Figure2-3_CommunityPlanAreas.mxd 012 0.5 Mile
Figure 2-3
Community Plan Areas
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-66

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tr bi u te Rd
Land ParkDr
dvl B yel a R
Grand Ave
CollegeTown Dr
Capitol Ave
Fair Oaks Blvd
Northborough Dr
8Th Ave
Jackson Rd
dR nirol F evor Gkl E
Leisure Ln
N 16Th St
Del Paso Blvd
Northgate B vl d
21St Ave
N St
Sutterville Rd
ArdenWay
Seamas Ave
Stockton Blvd
Rush River Dr
35Th Ave
59Th St
E Levee Rd
Q St
K St
Broadway
El Camino Ave
Richards Blvd
Calvine Rd
Riverside Blvd
Folsom Blvd
Power Line Rd
Elder Creek Rd
Club Center Dr
Rio Linda Blvd
Windbridge Dr
Valley Hi Dr
24Th St
Alta Arden Expy
Marconi Ave
Ha ve nside Dr
Azevedo Dr
39Th St
Mck inley Blvd
Don Julio Blvd
Bond Rd
21St St
Longview Dr
Freeport Blvd
ev Anotl uF
Power Inn Rd
ev Adoowr o N
SWatt Ave
Cen ter Pkwy
Y St
Danbrook D r
19Th St
Watt Ave
65Th St
16Th St
10Th St 9Th St
14Th St
18Th St 17Th St
12Th St
Green h aven Dr
Alhambra Blvd
8Th St
29Th St
26Th St
15Th St
7Th St
30Th St
Florin Rd
H St
Hov nanian Dr
Hillsdale Blvd
48Th St
Marysville Blvd
ya Wnaht E
A St
WindingWay
E St
G St
Roseville Rd
Brookfield Dr
La Riviera Dr
Regency ParkCir
W El Camino Ave
Edison Ave
Engle Rd
47Th Ave
HurleyWay
CottageWay Walnut Av e
VallejoWay
1 3Th St
Pocket Rd
Silver Eagle Rd
43Rd Ave
ev AnretsaE
J St
Bell Ave
L St
La Sierra Dr
Fruitridge Rd
Auburn Blvd
T St
Mi ss ion Ave
N 7Th St
dR hcnerF
D St
V St
N B St
R St
C St
I St
P St
S St
X St
W St
F St
Main Ave
5Th St
3Rd St
Bridgecross Dr
N Park Dr
Northrop Ave
Univ ersity Ave
37Th St
14Th Ave
E CommerceWay
Exposition Blvd
Sims Rd
Bercut Dr
ElsieAve
Laguna Blvd
Sheldon Rd
G a tewayOaks Dr
Gloria Dr
Cosumnes River Blvd
dR ort ne Cl E
Railyards Blvd
Redding Ave
U St
W Elkhorn Blvd
24Th Ave
N 12Th St
Dayton St
tS nreK
vI y St
Truxel Rd
dR keer Cyr D
t Sll eni P
Del Paso Rd
Elvas Ave
Madison Ave
6Th Ave
46Th St
Natomas Centra l Dr
W StocktonBlvd
American River Dr
Kiefer Blvd
N Market Blvd
N 10Th St
KarbetWay
San Juan Rd
S Land P ark Dr
Garden Hwy
Orange Grove Ave
40Th St
42Nd St
45Th St
Tri Stations Rd
Gerber Rd
Florin Perk ni s Rd
Mack Rd
55Th St
47Th St
Vine St
Macon Dr
Brucevi lle Rd
Pasa dena A ve
Howe Ave
53Rd Ave
Elkhorn Blvd
Westlake Pkwy
Front St
57Th St
Airbase Dr
Big Horn Blvd
7Th Ave
Arena Blvd
N
Claire Ave atomas B vl d
Dwight Rd
Meadowview Rd
Arden Garden
Franklin Blvd
CucamongaAve
6Th St
49Th St
t S hT88
t S tS17
Duckhorn Dr
Bayou Rd
Heritag e Ln
65Th Street Expy
Harv a rd St
34Th Ave
m
yL
a n Cir
Fee Dr
N Ben d Dr
dReerTenoL
Cedr o
ri C
AscotAve
Vinci Ave
Jib boom St
Terracina Dr
Pell Dr
Waterman Rd
Sorento Rd
ev Aegde H
Land Use Designations
Rural Residential
Neighborhood
Residential Mixed-Use
Office Mixed-Use
Commercial Mixed-Use
Employment Mixed-Use
Industrial Mixed-Use
Public/Quasi-Public
Parks and Recreation
Open Space
Light Rail Station: Existing
Light Rail Station: Proposed
Light Rail Transit: Existing
Light Rail Transit: Proposed
Sacramento City Limit
Special Study Area
Sphere of Influence
Water
Figure 2-4
General Plan Land Use Map
/0¦2
!"c$ I½
Ad
Source: City of Sacramento, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023
J:\GISData\563_Sacramento\GIS\Projects\General Plan Maps\Map LUP-5 General Plan Land Use.mxd A½
I½
!"^$
!"c$
/0¦2
AÎ
!"^$
A½
!"c$
0 ½ 1 2 Miles
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-68

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Williamson Act Parcels
Nonrenewal
Sacramento City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Water
Source: City of Sacramento Community Development Department, 2018; Sacramento County, 2020 Z:\Projects\j1149901\MAPDOC\EIR\Figure4.2-3_WilliamsonAct.mxd 012 0.5 Mile
Figure 4.2-3
Williamson Act Lands
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-70

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
" " " "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
" " "
" "
"
" " "
" " " " " " " " "
" "
"
" " " " " " " " " " " " " "
" "
" " " "
" "
" "
" " " " "
"
" "
" " " " " " "
"
" " "
"
" " " " " " " "
" " " "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" " " " " " " " " "
" " " "
" "
" "
" " "
"
" " "
" "
" " " " "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" ""
" "
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
" "
" "
"
" " " " "
" " "
" " " ""
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
" " "
" "
"
"
" " "
"
"
" "
" "
" " " "
" " " "
" " " " " "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" " " "
"
" " "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" ""
"
" "
"
" "
"
" "
" " " " "
"
" " "
" " " " "
"
"
" " "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
" "
"
"
" "
" " " " "
" " "
"
"
" " "
" "
"
" " " "
" "
"
" "
"
"
""
"
"
"
" " "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" " "
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
" " "
"
" " "
"
" "
"
" "
"
" " " "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
" " "
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
" " " " "
" " " "
" "
" "
" " " "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" " " "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
" "
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
""
"
" " " "
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
" " " "
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" " " " " "
" "
" "
" " " "
" " " " " ""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" "
" "
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" " " "
" "
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" " "
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
" " "
" "
"
"
" "
" " " "
"
"
" "
" "
" " "
" "
"
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
" " "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" " "
"
"
" " "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
""
"
"
" "
" "
" " " " " "
" "
"
" " "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
"
" "
" " "
"
" "
" " " " " "
" "
"
"
" " " "
" "
" "
" " " "
" "
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
" " " "
" "
" "
" "
" " " " " "
" "" "
" "
"
""
"
" " " "
" " " "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
"
"
" " " "
" "
"
"
" "
" "
" "
" " " " " "
" "
"
"
" " " ""
"
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
" "
"
"
"
"" "
" "" "
" " " "
" "
"
"
" ""
"
""
"
"
"
" "
" "
DelPa so Blvd
Ra el yBvl d
La ndPa rkDr
Gra ndAve
N ro htb o ro ugh Dr
JSt
Sheldo n Rd
N16Th St
KSt
No rthga te Blvd
39Th St
43RdAve
NSt
Sutterville Rd
Arden Wa y
Sto c kto n Blvd
Rush RiverDr
Co sum nesRiverBlvd
QSt
Ric ha rdsBlvd
Ma rc o niAve
Na to m a sCe n tra lDr
Riverside Blvd
Bruc eville Rd
ElderCreek Rd
Fra nklin Blvd
Club CenterDr
Aub urn Blvd
Rio Linda Blvd
Windb ridge Dr
Ja c kso n Rd
Va lleyHiDr
24Th St
ElCa m ino Ave
59Th St
Ha venside Dr
La Riviera Dr
Fa irO a ksBlvd
XSt
Am eric a n RiverDr
Mc kinley Blvd
ElvasAve
21StSt
Futlo n Aev
Po werInnRd
N ro wo o dAve
Ea tse nrAve
Gro ve Ave
IStreetBrg
CenterPkwy
Freep o rtBlvd
Da nb ro o k Dr
Bro a dwa y
19Th St
45Th St
Wa ttAve
65Th St
16Th St
29Th St
12Th St
9Th St
10Th St
30Th St
15Th St
Alha m b ra Blvd
Gre enha venDr
Flo rin Rd
HSt
Ho vna nia n Dr
TruxelRd
Ma rysville Blvd
Ma in Ave
Ehta n Wa y
W ElCa m ino Ave
Co llege To wn Dr
Bro o kfieldDr
Regenc yPa rk Cir
Engle Rd
13Th St
Glo ria Dr
47Th Ave
Sea m a sAve
Co tta ge Wa y
Ha rva rdSt
Po c ketRd
Ro seville Rd
Wa lnutAve
ESto c kto n Blvd
LSt
To werBrg
Westla k e Pkw y
Ca p ito lMa ll
Arena Blvd
Ediso n Ave
KieferBlvd
Missio n Ave
Fernc h Rd
W St
Televisio n Cir
CSt
ISt
PSt
5Th St
3RdSt
Bridgec ro ssDr
65Th StreetExp y
Sa n Jua n Rd
Azevedo Dr
Alta Arden Exp y
SWa ttAve
No rthro p Ave
Ho we Ave
Mea do wview Rd
SilverEa gle Rd
Exp o sitio n Blvd
DelPa so Rd
CurtisDr
Ekl Gor ev Fol irn Rd
Elsie Ave
Fruitridge Rd
Munro e St
NBendDr
N12Th St
Ga tewa yPa rk Blvd
Na to m a sBlvd
BellAve
Ca lvine Rd
Ma c k Rd
46Th St
W Elkho rn Blvd
NMa rketBlvd
Elkho rn Blvd
Gerb erRd
SLa ndPa rk Dr
14Th St
Flo rin PerkinsRd
Am eric a n River
E
Co m m erc e Wa y
Fo lso m Blvd
Big Ho rn Blvd
Levee Rd
HurleyWa y
35Th Ave
Arden Ga rden
NPa rk Dr
ELevee Rd
La guna Blvd
o Lne Tere Rd
Metro AirPkwy
Po werLni e Rd
ElCentro Rd
H de ge Aev
Ga rden Hwy
Herita ge Pa rk Ln
Ne w Ma rketDr
Duc kho rn Dr
No rth Ave
So uth Ave
Arc a de Blvd
Elea no rAve
Roi Lni da Bvl d
Be ll St
51stSt
14th Ave
Va llejo Wa y
2ndAve
21stAve
Lem o n HillAve
Ma trni LuhterKni g rJ.Bvl d
Jo hn StillDr
29th St
21stSt
Ehrha rdtDr
Ca rlin Ave
Ja c into Ave
2 2
2 (ID-1018) (ID-1177)
(ID-1015)
(ID-1012)
(ID-1014)
(ID-1010)
2 (ID-1005)
2 (ID-1009)
2 (ID-1004)
2 6
4 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
1 2
2 4
(ID-1002)
2 (ID-157)
2 4
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 4
2 2
2 2
4 2 2
5 8
4 3
6 2
4 2
2 4
4 4
2 6
6 8
2 2
4 4
2 6
2 4
4 4
2 6 4
4 2
4 4
4 4
2 4
4 4
4 2
4 4
2 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
2 2
2 2
4 4
4 4
2 4
2 6
6 4
4 2
4 2
2 4
4 2
2 2
2 2
2 4
6 2
2 2
2 4
2 2
2 2 4
4 4
2 4
4 2
4 4
2 6
4 4
2 4
6 6
4 4
2 2
4 4
6 2
4 2
2 2
2 2
6 2
4 2
4 2
4 4
4 2
6 2
6 6
2 2
4 4
8 2
4 4
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 4
4 4
6 6
2 4
4 2
4 2
6 4
2 6
4 2
4 2
4 2
6 4
4 4
2 2
4 4
4 4 2
2 4
2 2
2 4
4 (ID-45)
(ID-4)
(ID-40)
(ID-44)
(ID-117)
(ID-198)
(ID-55)
(ID-175)
(ID-164)
(ID-190)
(ID-11)
(ID-174)
(ID-1)
(ID-88)
(ID-206)
(ID-14)
(ID-287)
(ID-116)
(ID-23)
(ID-172)
(ID-183)
(ID-155)
(ID-58)
(ID-2)
(ID-8)
(ID-3)
(ID-204)
(ID-17)
(ID-93)
(ID-121)
(ID-144)
(ID-170)
(ID-180)
(ID-5)
(ID-182)
(ID-30)
(ID-102)
(ID-208)
(ID-203)
(ID-158)
(ID-51)
(ID-26)
(ID-50)
(ID-146)
(ID-32)
(ID-133)
(ID-285)
(ID-168)
(ID-123)
(ID-37)
(ID-212)
(ID-7)
(ID-211)
(ID-289)
(ID-90)
(ID-139)
(ID-61)
(ID-105)
(ID-147)
(ID-108)
(ID-271)
(ID-156)
(ID-19)
(ID-188)
(ID-85)
(ID-29)
(ID-162)
(ID-114)
(ID-178)
(ID-101)
(ID-54)
(ID-148)
(ID-193)
(ID-189)
(ID-196)
(ID-24)
(ID-48)
( DI -161)
(ID-284)
(ID-177)
(ID-16)
(ID-194)
(ID-153)
(ID-163)
(ID-46)
(ID-9)
(ID-200)
(ID-13)
(ID-130)
(ID-86)
(ID-207)
(ID-31)
(ID-91)
(ID-151)
(ID-84)
(ID-27)
(ID-53)
(ID-89)
(ID-286)
(ID-12)
(ID-36)
(ID-15)
(ID-143)
(ID-49)
(ID-110)
(ID-201)
(ID-260)
(ID-142)
(ID-192)
(ID-150)
(ID-107)
(ID-181)
(ID-171)
(ID-22)
(ID-173)
(ID-141)
(ID-277)
(ID-119)
(ID-103)
(ID-129)
(ID-52)
( DI -205)
(ID-115)
(ID-199)
(ID-34)
(ID-57)
(ID-113)
(ID-167)
(ID-18)
(ID-169)
(ID-21)
(ID-25)
(ID-87)
(ID-278)
(ID-154)
(ID-290)
(ID-132)
(ID-128)
(ID-106)
(ID-137)
(ID-39)
(ID-127)
(ID-195)
(ID-185)
(ID-42)
(ID-6)
(ID-35)
(ID-28)
(ID-166)
(ID-33)
(ID-136)
(ID-131)
(ID-165)
(ID-43)
(ID-184)
(ID-38)
(ID-118)
(ID-276)
(ID-152)
(ID-288)
(ID-10)
(ID-197)
(ID-202)
(ID-112)
(ID-92)
(ID-62)
(ID-258)
(ID-83)
(ID-149)
(ID-187)
(ID-176)
(ID-47)
(ID-124)
(ID-264)
(ID-186)
(ID-191) (ID-210)
(ID-254)
(ID-60)
(ID-268)
(ID-160)
(ID-134)
(ID-257)
(ID-126)
(ID-125)
Num b ero fLa nes
Freewa y
" " Arteria l;Arteria l;Arteria l– Mo dera te Ac c essCo ntro l " " Ma jo rCo llec to r;Ma jo rCo llec to r
" " Mino rCo llec to r
Pla nnedRo a dwa ys
Lo c a lRo a d
Arteria l
Ma jo rCo llec to r
Mino rCo llec to r
Sa c ra m ento CityLim it
Sp here o fInfluenc e
Wa ter
Figure 4.14-4a
2040 General Plan
Circulation Diagram
(Functional Classification
and Number of Lanes)
/0¦2
!"c$ I½
Ad
So urc e:Cityo fSa c ra m ento ,2021;Fehr&Peers,2021
N:\2018Pro jec ts\3726_Sa c ra m ento _Genera l_Pla n_Up da te\Gra p hic s\GIS\MXD\Up da tedVersio n\05252021\Fig04_14-1a _GP_Circ Dia gra m _Num La nes_v5.m xd A½
!"^$
!"c$
AÎ
A½
0 ½ 1 2Mile
I½
/0¦2
!"^$
!"c$
x
See
Figure 4.14-4b
(ID-1015)
3 – Changes to the Draft Master EIR
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 3-72

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Updated Appendix C
Parks Inventory

Table: Parkland LOS
2018 Population1 : 472,693
2040 Projected Population2 : 638,433

PARK TYPE
2023
Existing Park
Acreage3
2023
Existing LOS
Proposed LOS
Standards
Net Future Need
(Acreage) for
Proposed LOS
(based on 2040
pop)
1,626.13 3.44 3.00 289.17
Community Parks 948.68 2.01 1.75 168.58
Neighborhood Parks 451.98 0.96 1.40 441.82
Parkways 854.14 1.81 1.60 167.35
Open Space 450.00 0.95 0.75 28.82
Grand Total 4,330.92 9.16 8.50 1,095.76
Regional Parks
Notes:

1. The 2018 adjusted population numbers for the City of Sacramento are taken from U.S. Census Bureau 2018, as modified by Dyett & Bhatia and SACOG 2019, Table 14-1, Population, Housing Units, and Employees by Jurisdiction (2016) developed for Sacramento 2040 Plan.

2. The 2040 population number are from SACOG 2021.

3. Park acreage includes the total existing acreage for each site, including developed, undeveloped, and natural areas.

4. In the 2017 PIF Study, standards were identified for Citywide Parks, which included YPCE Regional Parks, YPCE Parkways and extensive acreage for Citywide parks not owned by the City. 4 YPCE Existing and Future Planned Parks Park Category Park Type Ownership Agreement State of Existence Planning Area District
Council
Does the park
span multiple
districts?
Developed
Acreage
Undeveloped
Acreage
Natural
Acreage Total Acreage
7th Street Promenade Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 1.06 - - 1.06 Airfield Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 9.20 - - 9.20 Airport Little League Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 10.01 - - 10.01 Ali Youssefi Square Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 0.51 - - 0.51 Army Depot Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 19.50 - - 19.50 Belle Cooledge Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no 18.86 - - 18.86 Bill Conlin Youth Sports Complex Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 7 no 21.64 - - 21.64 Blackbird Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 10.18 - - 10.18 Brooks Truitt Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 0.89 - - 0.89 Burberry Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 11.76 - - 11.76 C.K. McClatchy Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 5 no 15.42 - - 15.42 Carl Johnston Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 24.80 - - 24.80 Cesar E. Chavez Plaza Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.54 - - 2.54 Charles Robertson Park/Del Paso Heights Sports Complex Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 9.06 - - 9.06 Coloma Community Center Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 3.03 - - 3.03 Cosumnes River College Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 8.08 - - 8.08 Danny Nunn Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 12.34 - - 12.34 East Portal Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 7.35 - - 7.35 Evelyn Moore Community Center Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 0.14 - - 0.14 Frank Seymour Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 43.60 - - 43.60 Franklin Boyce Community Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 9.80 - - 9.80 Fremont Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 0.45 - - 0.45 Garcia Bend Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 18.66 - - 18.66 George Sim Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 13.92 - - 13.92 Glenbrook Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 6 no 17.64 - - 17.64 Glenn Hall Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 8.13 - - 8.13 Hagginwood Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 15.43 - - 15.43 Healthy Roots Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Land Park 4 no 2.38 - - 2.38 Jacinto Creek Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 11.74 - - 11.74 James Mangan Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area, Land Park 5 no 8.03 - - 8.03 James W. Marshall Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.51 - - 2.51 John Mackey Memorial Park At Kenwood Oaks Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 11.56 - - 11.56 John Strauch Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 3.25 - - 3.25 Joseph Reichmuth Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 24.31 - 19.16 43.47 Magoichi Oki Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 6 no 9.04 - 5.96 15.00 Manuel Barandas Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 13.03 - - 13.03 Martin Luther King Jr Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 5 no 0.30 - - 0.30 Matsui Waterfront Park (Robert T.) Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.12 - - 2.12 Meadows Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 11.14 - - 11.14 Mirasol Village Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 0.71 - - 0.71 North Laguna Creek Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 21.45 - - 21.45 North Natomas Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 35.33 - - 35.33 Northgate Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 15.88 - - 15.88 Northlake Community Park (Lot B) Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 12.40 - - 12.40 Oak Park Community Center Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 5 no 10.39 - - 10.39 Orchard Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 11.91 - - 11.91 Pannell/Meadowview Community Center Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 11.92 - - 11.92 Pioneer Landing Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.29 - - 2.29 Ray and Judy Tretheway Oaks Preserve Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 13.02 - - 13.02 Regency Community Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 42.06 - - 42.06 River Birch Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no - 20.57 - 20.57 Robla Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 9.74 - 8.07 17.81 San Juan Reservoir Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no 32.85 - - 32.85 Shasta Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 18.67 - - 18.67 Shore Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 2.37 - - 2.37 Sierra 2 Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no 2.67 - - 2.67 South Natomas Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 24.19 - - 24.19 Southside Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 0.78 - - 0.78 Southside Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 19.50 - - 19.50 Sparrow Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no 0.13 - - 0.13 Tahoe Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 17.92 - - 17.92 Tahoe Tallac Park Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 6.81 - - 6.81 Tanzanite Community Park (Basin 6A) Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no 25.43 6.50 - 31.93 UCD Elmhurst Community Garden Community Park Special-use Community Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 5 no 0.10 - - 0.10 Valley Hi Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 16.19 - - 16.19 Valley Oak Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 4.20 - - 4.20 Westlake Community Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 10.35 - - 10.35 Wild Rose Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 9.50 - - 9.50 William Chorley Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 4.89 - 26.28 31.17 William Curtis Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no 18.80 - - 18.80 William McKinley Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento, Central City 4 no 31.10 - - 31.10 Witter Ranch Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no 9.01 - - 9.01 Woodlake Park Community Park Multi-use Community Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 6.17 - - 6.17 24th Street Bypass Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 4.03 3.37 - 7.40 Alan And Helen Post Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 0.69 - - 0.69 Albert Winn Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.56 - - 2.56 Alder Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 2.04 - - 2.04 Argonaut Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park Long term joint-use Existing South Area 5 no 8.56 - - 8.56 Artivio Guerrero Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 2.50 - - 2.50 Autumn Meadow Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 6.07 - - 6.07
Bertha Henschel Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento4 no 2.55 - - 2.55 Billy Bean Jr Memorial Park At Colonial Manor Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 4.33 - - 4.33 Blue Oak Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 0.98 - - 0.98 Brockway Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Land Park7 no 0.93 - - 0.93 California Lilac Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 3.23 - - 3.23 Camellia Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park Long term joint-use Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 2.01 - - 2.01 Cannery Plaza Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 0.22 - - 0.22 Charlie Jensen Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area5 no 2.81 - - 2.81 Charter Pointe Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 4.89 - - 4.89 Chuckwagon Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas3 no 4.80 - - 4.80 Colonial Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 2.16 - - 2.16 Cool Wind Way Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 1.16 - - 1.16 Cottonwood Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 4.99 - - 4.99 Cove Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas3 no 1.83 - - 1.83 Crocker Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 2.58 - - 2.58 Dixieanne Tot Lot Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing North Sacramento2 no 0.15 - - 0.15 Dogwood Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 3.03 - - 3.03 Earl Warren Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 5.03 - - 5.03 East Lawn Childrens Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing East Sacramento4 no 0.33 - - 0.33 Edward Kemble Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing South Area8 no 1.74 - - 1.74 Edwin Z'Berg Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 2.52 - - 2.52 Egret Park and Open Space Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 4.93 7.68- 12.61 Eileen Dutra Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 0.41 - - 0.41 Elderberry Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 2.19 - - 2.19 Emil Bahnfleth Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Land Park7 no 6.33 - - 6.33 Emiliano Zapata Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 0.95 - - 0.95 Eventide Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 2.12 - - 2.12 Five Star Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing North Sacramento2 no 0.36 - - 0.36 Fong Ranch Park (In progress) Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas3 no 3.83 4.65- 8.48 Fourth Avenue Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway5 no 1.08 - - 1.08 Franklin D. Roosevelt Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 2.55 - - 2.55 Freeport Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 3.96 - - 3.96 Gardenland Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas3 no 6.03 - - 6.03 Gateway Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento2 no 5.02 - - 5.02 Golden Poppy Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 2.03 - - 2.03 Greenfair Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway5 no 0.61 - - 0.61 Hampton Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 4.00 2.20- 6.20 Harrier Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 0.74 - - 0.74 Heron Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 3.95 - - 3.95 Hite Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area5 no 4.99 - - 4.99 Hummingbird Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas3 no 4.32 - - 4.32 J. Neely Johnson Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 0.96 - - 0.96 Jack Rea Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing North Sacramento2 no 0.34 - - 0.34 John Cabrillo Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 5.63 - - 5.63 John Fremont Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing Central City4 no 2.56 - - 2.56 John Muir Children'S Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 2.51 - - 2.51 John Reith Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park Long term joint-use Existing South Area8 no 1.28 - - 1.28 Kokomo Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 7.00 - - 7.00 Lawrence Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 5.08 - - 5.08 Leland Stanford Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 2.76 - - 2.76 Levar Burton Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 3.15 - - 3.15 Lewis Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 3.28 - - 3.28 Linden Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas3 no 4.92 - - 4.92 Mae Fong Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 1.70 6.61- 8.31 Magnolia Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 6.43 - - 6.43 Manuel E. Silva Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 3.15 - - 3.15 Margarette "Mama" Marks Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento2 no 4.66 - - 4.66 Mark Hopkins Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 6.37 - - 6.37 Martin Luther King, Jr. Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 1.51 - - 1.51 Max Baer Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway6 no 4.11 - - 4.11 Meadowview Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area8 no 8.26 - - 8.26 Michael Himovitz Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento4 no 0.09 - - 0.09 Mirasol Village Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 1.15 - - 1.15 Ninos Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas3 no 4.18 - - 4.18 North 6th /Victory Promenade Dog Parks in progress Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City3 no 0.49 0.49 North Pointe Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento1 no 1.73 - - 1.73 Northborough Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 4.01 - - 4.01 Oakbrook Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas3 no 4.75 - - 4.75 Olympians Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Land Park4 no 3.40 - - 3.40 O'Neil Field Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City4 no 4.71 - - 4.71 Parkway Oaks Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 9.50 - - 9.50 Peregrine Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas3 no 8.22 - - 8.22 Phoenix Green Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area5 no 1.77 - - 1.77 Plaza Cervantes Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Land Park7 no 0.64 - - 0.64 Plover School Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park Long term joint-use Existing North Sacramento2 no 0.5100 0.51 Pollack Ranch Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area5 no 7.17 - - 7.17 Portuguese Community Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket7 no 3.19 - - 3.19 Quail Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas1 no 5.21 - - 5.21 R. Burnett Miller Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento4 no 1.01 - - 1.01 Ray Eames Park at Crocker Village in progress Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Land Park7 6.5 Red Tail Hawk Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no 5.00 - - 5.00 Redbud Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 1.37 - - 1.37 Redwood Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 3.62 - - 3.62 Reginald Renfree Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 6.69 - - 6.69 Ricardo Favela Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 0.13 - - 0.13 Richard Marriott Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 7.58 - - 7.58 Richardson Village Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 8.88 - - 8.88 River District Basketball Court Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 0.42 - - 0.42 River Otter Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 1.88 - - 1.88 River Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 1.58 - - 1.58 River View Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 3 no 5.19 - - 5.19 Robert Brookins Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 6.82 - - 6.82 Roy Nielsen Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 8.09 - - 8.09 Russ Solomon Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 0.68 - - 0.68 Sally Hudson Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 0.62 - - 0.62 Shorebird Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 2.35 - - 2.35 Sojourner Truth Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park Long term joint-use Existing Pocket 7 no 6.01 - - 6.01 Sparrow Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 1.77 - - 1.77 Steve Jones Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 6.73 - - 6.73 Strawberry Manor Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 1.30 - - 1.30 Sundance Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 2.00 - - 2.00 Susan B. Anthony Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park Long term joint-use Existing South Area 8 no 7.14 0 0 7.14 Sutter Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing East Sacramento 4 no 0.64 - - 0.64 Swainson's Hawk Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 5.72 - - 5.72 Sycamore Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 5.30 - - 5.30 Temple Avenue Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 5 no 1.06 - - 1.06 Thomas Jefferson Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 5.67 - - 5.67 Tony Court Park Neighborhood Park Pocket Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 0.85 - - 0.85 Triangle Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 1.20 - - 1.20 Two Rivers Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 3.03 - - 3.03 Ulysses S. Grant Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.37 - - 2.37 University Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Arden Arcade 6 no 3.72 - - 3.72 Vine/Central (formerly Victory Park) in progress Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Central City 3 no 0.83 0.83 Washington Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Play Lot City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 1.56 - - 1.56 Westhampton Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 4.34 - - 4.34 Willie Caston Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 6.27 - - 6.27 Willow Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 2.50 - - 2.50 Winner's Circle Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing North Sacramento 2 no 1.89 - - 1.89 Wood Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 5.58 - - 5.58 Woodbine Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 6.48 - - 6.48 Zacharias Park Neighborhood Park Multi-use Neighborhood Park City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 6.12 - - 6.12 Bannon Creek Preserve Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no - - 5.52 5.52 Chicory Bend Park Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no - - 11.01 11.01 Hansen Ranch Regional Park Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing North Sacramento 1 no - - 265.93 265.93 Longview Oaks Nature Preserve Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing Arden Arcade 2 no - - 8.03 8.03 Meadowview Estates Open Space East/West Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing South Area 8 no - - 21.86 21.86 North Laguna Creek Wildlife Area and Parkway Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing South Area 8 no - - 120.95 120.95 North Natomas Park Nature Area Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 1.55 - 5.49 7.04 Park Site Sn2 Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no - - 0.24 0.24 Sand Cove Park Open Space Open Space City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no - - 9.42 9.42 Bannon Creek Park & Parkway Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 18.94 - - 18.94 Del Rio Trail (in progress) Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing Land Park, Pocket 7 no - 60.51 - 60.51 Fisherman's Lake Parkway & Open Space Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 10.02 - 25.39 35.41 Glenbrook River Access Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing East Sacramento 6 no 4.03 - - 4.03 Jacinto Creek Parkway Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing South Area 8 no 14.62 - - 14.62 Lot 48 Railyards bike trail Parkway Parkway Exclusive Recreational Easement Existing Central City 4 NO 0.48 0.48 Ninos Parkway Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing South Natomas 3 no 46.73 - - 46.73 North Point Way River Access Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no - 5.10 - 5.10 Pocket Canal Parkway Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 52.04 - - 52.04 Sacramento Northern Parkway Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing South Natomas, North Sacramento 2 no 62.09 - - 62.09 Sacramento River Parkway (Central Area) Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 2.84 - 9.60 12.44 Sacramento River Parkway (Land Park Area) Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no 7.75 - 32.80 40.55 Sacramento River Parkway (Pocket Area) Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing Pocket 7 no 7.70 - - 7.70 Walter S.Ueda Parkway Parkway Parkway City-owned Existing N. Sac, S. Natomas 1,3 yes 493.50 - - 493.50 Bartley Cavanaugh Golf Course Regional Park Regional Recreation and Cultural Attraction City-owned Existing South Area 7 no 98.10 - - 98.10 Bing Maloney Golf Course Regional Park Regional Recreation and Cultural Attraction City-owned Existing South Area 5 no 175.31 - - 175.31 Camp Sacramento Regional Park Regional Recreation and Cultural Attraction City-owned Existing El Dorado County N/A no 19.00 - - 19.00 Del Paso Regional Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing Arden Arcade 2 no 38.43 4.26 107.93 150.62 Fredrick Miller Regional Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing Land Park, Central City 4 no 38.68 - - 38.68 Granite Regional Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing Fruitridge/Broadway 6 no 74.39 - 9.25 83.64 Haggin Oaks Golf Course Regional Park Regional Recreation and Cultural Attraction City-owned Existing Arden Arcade 2 no 406.42 - - 406.42 North Natomas Regional Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing North Natomas 1 no 56.92 155.90 - 212.82 Sacramento Historic Old City Cemetery Regional Park Regional Recreation and Cultural Attraction City-owned Existing Land Park, Central City 7 no 31.28 - - 31.28 Sutter's Landing Regional Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing Central City 4 no 32.39 157.18 - 189.57 Tiscornia Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing Central City, South Natomas 4 no 14.36 - - 14.36 William Land Golf Course Regional Park Regional Recreation and Cultural Attraction City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no 91.06 - - 91.06 William Land Regional Park Regional Park Multi-use Regional Park City-owned Existing Land Park 7 no 115.27 - - 115.27 **YPCE manages/maintains other Class 1 bike trails, not listed here. The City provides other bikeways and trail corridors, not managed by YPCE. *All pickleball courts are overlays (jointly striped tennis courts) except those at R. Burnett Miller Park. 4,320.66
Sites that are noted as "In Progress" are under development. These parks are anticipated to be open to the public by the time the Master Plan is completed.

YPCE Existing and Future Planned Parks Park Type
If TBD, potential park
category State of Existence Planning Area
District
Council
Total
Acreage
Neighborhood Park Community Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park School Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future
Parkway Parkway Proposed Future
Parkway Parkway Proposed Future
Parkway PARKWAY Proposed Future
Parkway Parkway Proposed Future
Parkway Parkway Proposed Future
Parkway Parkway Proposed Future
Open Space Open Space Proposed Future
Regional Park Regional Park Proposed Future
Parkway Parkway Proposed Future
Community Park Community Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future
Regional Park Regional Park Proposed Future
Community Park Community Park Proposed Future
Open Space Open Space Proposed Future
Non-city Long term joint use Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park Pocket Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park School Park Proposed Future
Neighborhood Park Pocket Park Proposed Future
Parkway Proposed Future
Parkway
Parkway
Parkway Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
Proposed Future
4-Way Parklets at the Railyards
Babcock School Park
Bercut Richards Plaza Site
Civic Plaza Park
Commerce Station Park Site
Delta Shores 0S7
Delta Shores OS1
Delta Shores OS2
Delta Shores OS3
Delta Shores OS4
Delta Shores OS6
Delta Shores OS9
Delta Shores Regional Park
Delta Shors OS5
Fifth Street Plaza
Fong Ranch Phase 2
Granite Reg Park East Basin
Innovation Park Parcel A
Innovation Park Parcel B
Innovation Park Parcel D
Innovation Park Parcel D1
Innovation Park Parcel E
Innovation Park Parcel E1
Innovation Parkway Lot 32 Museum Plaza
Meadow view Regional Sports Complex
Michael J. Castori School Park
MLS Promenade
Morrison Creek Parkway
Museum Plaza at the Railyards
Ninos Parkway at the Panhandle
Northlake Phase 2Parks - Lot E
Northlake Phase 2 Parks - Lot C
Northlake Phase 2 Parks - Lot D
P10 Delta Shores Future Community Park
Panhandle Future Park Site 1
Panhandle Future Park Site 2
Park Site 2D (Basin 8B) "Westshore"
Park Site Ns2
Park Site P1 Delta Shores Future
Park Site P11 Delta Shores Future
Park Site P3 Delta Shores Future
Park Site P4 Delta Shores Future

2.65 5.00

0.21 3.50

4.02 0.52

1.83 1.72

3.21 1.23

0.43 0.52
100.50

0.39 0.78

4.65 100.00

0.65 4.57

35.89 0.25

4.77 0.21

4.57 0.88
102.00

3.24 0.69 4.12 5.65

48.00 2.20 2.40 1.89

10.98 6.00

12.40 5.08 5.00 2.96 8.68 6.02 1.32
4244188888888843611111114824641111811117878
Central City
Arden Arcade
Central City
Central City
North Natomas
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
Central City
South Natomas
Fruitridge/Broadway
North Natomas
North Natomas
North Natomas
North Natomas
North Natomas
North Natomas
North Natomas
Central City
South Area
South Natomas
Central City
South Area
Central City North Natomas North Natomas North Natomas North Natomas South Area North Natomas
North Natomas North Natomas North Sacramento
South Area
South Area
South Area
South Area
Regional Park
Neighborhood Park
Regional Park
Parkway
Community Park
Parkway
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Regional Park
School Park
Community Park
Parkway
Community Park
Parkway
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Community Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Park Site P5 Delta Shores Future Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Area 8 0.66 Park Site P6 Delta Shores Future Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Area 8 4.64 Park Site P7 Delta Shores Future Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Area 8 1.76 Park Site P9 Delta Shores Future Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Area 8 6.08 Park Site Sn4 Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Natomas 3 0.23 Paseo Parkway Parkway Proposed Future Central City 4 0.25 Regenerative Garden Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 1.66 Riverfront Park Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 1.11 Sacramento River Connection Bicycle Easement Parkway Proposed Future Central City 4 0.55 Sacramento River Parkway Parkway Parkway Proposed Future Pocket, South Area, Land Park, Central City 4, 7 100.00 Setzer Run at the Mills Parkway Parkway Proposed Future Land Park 4 0.06 Skylark Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future North Natomas 3 2.56 Stone Beeltand Open Space Open Space Open Space Proposed Future South Area 8 8.64 Stone Beeltand Park 1 Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Area 8 3.84 Stone Beeltand Park 2 Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Proposed Future South Area 8 3.28 Township 9 Park Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 15.26 Transit Plaza and paseo Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 1.91 Two Rivers Trail Park Regional Park Regional Park Proposed Future Central City 4 3.01 Under I-5 Experience at the Railyards Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 2.70 Viaduct Park Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 4.48 Vista Connector To 4-Way at the Railyards Parkway Parkway Proposed Future Central City 4 0.42 Vista Park at the Railyards Community Park Community Park Proposed Future Central City 4 9.28 684.73
"In Progress" parks, where development is underway, are included in Table 1.

Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-1
4 Comments and Responses
This chapter contains the comment letters received in response to the Draft Master EIR during the 45-day public review period from August 24 through October 10, 2023. Each comment letter is numbered, each comment is bracketed, and responses are provided to each comment. To assist the reader, a brief summary of the comment has been provided; however, it is only a summary and does not repeat the comment verbatim. Please refer back to the letter for the specific comment. The responses amplify or clarify information provided in the Draft Master EIR and/or refer the reader to the appropriate place in the document where the requested information may be found.

Comments that are not directly related to environmental issues (e.g., opinions regarding the merits of the plan, or goals and policies contained in the 2040 General Plan or the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan unrelated to its environmental impacts) are noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. Where text changes in the Draft Master EIR are warranted based on comments received, updated project information, or other information provided by City of Sacramento (City) staff, those changes are noted in the response to comment, and are listed in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR, of this Final Master EIR.

The changes to the analysis contained in the Draft Master EIR, provided in Chapter 3, represent only minor clarifications/amplifications primarily to the general plan policies and do not constitute significant new information.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft Master EIR is not required. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-3

4.1 Response to State and Local Agency Comments
Comment Letter 1

4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-4
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-5
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-6

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-7
Response to Letter 1
Caltrans, District 3 (Gary Arnold, Branch Chief)
1-1 The comment mentions that the Draft Master EIR analysis provides “High Level VMT Analysis for the entire city, and Transportation Circulation Performance Analysis-LOS for local corridor only and state highways/freeways within the city limits are not included.” As a result, the VMT analysis, Traffic Safety analysis, and Traffic Operation analysis for an individual project or location is not covered in the Master EIR. This is correct and is consistent with the technical guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the purpose of the Master EIR, which is to address the cumulative effects of adoption of the 2040 General Plan. These cumulative effects include consideration of future projects that are consistent with the general plan. While the City will consider whether any future projects or actions would result in effects that undermine the environmental analysis in the Master EIR (see, e.g., Public Resources Code section 21166), the City anticipates that projects consistent with the 2040 general plan land use designations and circulation element may rely on the VMT analysis in the Master EIR to resolve and avoid project-specific impact analysis relating to VMT.

The City appreciates the acknowledgement of common interests of the agencies in addressing climate change, air quality effects, and VMT. The City agrees that ongoing cooperation and coordination is desirable.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
1-2 The comment identifies the need to plan pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings separate from freeway interchanges in areas proximate to commercial and residential uses to address potential safety concerns. The City agrees with the tenor of the general comment that providing safe, effective and meaningful physical improvements for people walking and bicycling near freeway interchanges is a sound policy. The 2040 General Plan includes Mobility Policy M-1-2, for example, that calls for prioritizing the mobility, comfort, health, safety, and convenience of pedestrian, bicycling, and public transit uses over design and operations of those driving. The commenter’s suggestions are consistent with Mobility Policy M-1.2-11 that calls for increasing walking and biking. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
1-3 The comment notes a general plan is a high-level policy document and as future projects are proposed the Modeling and Forecasting staff of Caltrans will review the VMT analysis as appropriate. The City agrees the general plan is a high-level policy document. The Master EIR evaluates impacts of adoption of the general plan and will be a key tool for the City in evaluating the potential significant effects of subsequent projects consistent with the general plan.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. See also Response to Comment 1-1. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-8

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-9
Comment Letter 2
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-10
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-11
Response to Letter 2
Caltrans, Division of Transportation Planning/Aeronautics (Tiffany Martinez, Transportation Planner, Manager, Aeronautics Program) 2-1 The comment provides background on airport land use compatibility plans which include addressing airport noise and references Public Utilities Code Section 21001 et seq. that oversees the State Aeronautics Act as it relates to safety criteria and restrictions for airport land use plans.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
2-2 The comment notes that the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan should address land use compatibility standards for future development near airports because future projects within an airport land use plan would be required to be reviewed for consistency by the Airport Land Use Commission. All projects in the City located within an airport land use plan are presently reviewed for consistency with the applicable airport land use plan including building height, safety, and noise. This practice will continue for development proposed under the 2040 General Plan. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-12

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-13
Comment Letter 3

4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-14

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-15
Response to Letter 3
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Local Mitigation Planning/Recovery Directorate (Constantin Raether, Environmental Planner)
3-1 The comment notes that the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services has reviewed the 2040 General Plan Safety Element for consistency with the adopted Sacramento County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and has no comments at this time. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-16

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-17
Comment Letter 4
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-18
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-19
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-20
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-21
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-23
Response to Letter 4
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Peter Minkel, Engineering Geologist)
4-1 The comment refers to the requirement that wastewater discharge must comply with the state’s Antidegradation Policy which is a required element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Waste Discharge permit process. The City acknowledges this requirement.

As described on page 4.10-8 of the Draft Master EIR, all future construction projects within the City that disturb more than 50 cubic yards of soil would be required to adhere to the City’s Grading Ordinance (Title 15 Buildings and Construction, Chapter 15.88 Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control). The Grading Ordinance regulates site operations and conditions in accordance with the City’s NPDES requirements, issued by the California Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
4-2 The comment outlines permitting requirements for future development under the purview of the CVRWQCB.

The City requires all construction projects to comply with the CVRWQCB requirements, which would include future development under the 2040 General Plan. The Technical Background Report (TBR - available online at: www.sac2040gpu.org) and the updated Regulatory Setting starting on page 4.10-3 of the Draft Master EIR includes the relevant state permitting requirements as outlined in the comment. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-24

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-25
Comment Letter 5
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-26
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-27
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-28
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-29
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-30

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-31
Response to Letter 5
Delta Stewardship Council
(Jeff Henderson, AICP Deputy Executive Officer)
5-1 The comment references the Delta Plan and the need for a Certification of Consistency for any covered actions within the boundaries of the Delta or Suisun Marsh to determine if the covered action is consistent with the Delta Plan. The City acknowledges this requirement.

The City will ensure early consultation with the Council for any project that occurs within the boundaries of the Delta and Suisun Marsh and is within the Delta Plan. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 5-2 The comment identifies the process for projects that meet the definition of a covered action under the Delta Plan and notes the portions of the boundaries of the Sacramento 2040 Project are within the boundaries of the Delta or Suisun Marsh and meet the definition of a covered action.

Based on a review of Exhibit 6.4, Primary/Secondary Zones – Legal Delta Map of the Delta Plan it appears a small portion of the southwest portion of the Planning Area (primarily the Pocket and Delta Shores) and the Town of Freeport Special Study Area is within the Secondary Zone.

If the City proposes to annex lands in its Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the Town of Freeport, and proposes changes to any land use designations, the Delta Plan would be reviewed to ensure consistency. The City is currently not contemplating annexing the Town of Freeport as part of the Sacramento 2040 Project. The 2040 General Plan does not change any land use designations within its SOI (that includes the Town of Freeport) to commercial, residential or industrial, as compared to the 2035 General Plan adopted in 2015. However, the City has indicated they may be interested in meeting with the County and community stakeholders to discuss the possibility of annexation of the Town of Freeport in the future. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 5-3 The comment describes and lists the Delta Plan regulatory policies and mitigation measures that may apply to future projects under the 2040 General Plan that meet the definition of covered actions.

As noted in Response to Comment 6-2, the 2040 General Plan is not proposing to change any land uses within areas covered by the Delta Plan. If this were to change in the future the City would coordinate with the Delta Stewardship Council to ensure any plans or projects considered to be covered actions are consistent with the Delta Plan.
5-4 The comment refers to a Delta Plan policy that addresses use of best available science when making policy decisions and when preparing a Certificate of Consistency. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 5-5 The comment is addressing land use assumptions for the Town of Freeport Special Study Area and requests the City indicate any proposed land use changes to those areas of the Planning Area, including the SOI within the Delta, that have occurred since May 2013. The commenter is also requesting Delta Plan policy DP P1 be added to the Draft Master EIR and be included in the growth inducement discussion.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-32
As noted in the Draft Master EIR in Chapter 2, Project Description on page 2-2, “[t]he 2040 General Plan does not propose expanding the existing SOI boundaries, nor make any changes to the existing land use designations within the SOI.” As shown on Map LUP-5, General Plan Land Use Diagram in the draft 2040 General Plan no land uses are proposed for the SOI, which includes the Town of Freeport Special Study Area. The City has not made any changes to the land use designations in of the Town of Freeport Special Study Area since 2013.

In response to the comment and request, Delta Plan policy DP P1 has been added to Chapter 3 of the Draft Master EIR and is provided in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR of this Final Master EIR. A discussion of consistency with this policy has also been included in the Draft Master EIR, as shown in Chapter 3.
5-6 The comment notes that as future development occurs the Stewardship Council encourages early consultation prior to submittal of a certification of consistency to discuss plan policies and mitigation measures that promote consistency with the Delta Plan. As noted above, the City intends to cooperate fully with the Stewardship Council in the event relevant land use changes are proposed. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-33
Comment Letter 6
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-34
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-35
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-36
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-37
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-38
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-39
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-40

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-41
Response to Letter 6
RegionalSan
(Robb Armstrong, Regional San Development Services & Plan Check) 6-1 The comment notes that portions of the General Plan Planning Area are served by SacSewer, as noted in the Draft Master EIR in Section 4.13, Public Utilities and refers to plans adopted by both SacSewer and RegionalSan.

As the comment notes, future projects that would increase sewer flows are required to complete a sewer study or assess potential impacts to the system. The City will continue to coordinate with RegionalSan to ensure wastewater is adequately addressed for future projects under the 2040 General Plan. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
6-2 The comment notes areas of the city where the local sewer collection system provides wastewater service would be conveyed to the newly updated EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility (EchoWater Facility - formerly the Sacramento Regional WWTP), via the Sump 2/2A and Regional San City Interceptor system. The comment also requests a quantitative analysis for potential cumulative impacts related to the capacity of the Sump 2/2A and Interceptor system be provided.

The analysis of buildout of the city through 2040 on wastewater treatment has been evaluated in the Draft Master EIR based on the 2040 General Plan buildout assumptions, discussed under Impact 4.13-4 starting on page 4.13-18. Future projects under the 2040 General Plan requiring discretionary review would rely on this Master EIR to the extent possible although individual projects may have site-specific circumstances that could require additional evaluation to determine any capacity constraints on the Sump 2/2A and Regional San City Interceptor system.

The text of the Draft Master EIR has been updated to reflect this new information and is provided in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR.
6-3 The comment clarifies that RegionalSan and SacSewer do not have any land use authority but engineer and design their infrastructure based on City growth projections.

As noted in the comment, the City is required to notify RegionalSan when making changes to growth projections, which the City currently does. Impacts due to construction of sewer facilities for individual projects related to future development under the 2040 General Plan requiring discretionary review would rely on this Master EIR to the extent possible but may have site-specific circumstances that could require additional evaluation. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 6-4 The comment states all customers of RegionalSan and SacSewer are responsible for complying with the requirements for payment of fees for service and for new connection fees. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
6-5 The text of the Master EIR has been updated to reflect the edits provided in the comment. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for the revised text. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-42
6-6 The text of the Master EIR has been updated to reflect the edits provided in the comment. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for the revised text. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-43
Comment Letter 7
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-44
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-45
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-46

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-47
Response to Letter 7
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Molly Wright, Air Quality Planner/Analyst)
7-1 The comment asserts the Draft Master EIR’s findings of less-than-significant for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts relies on consistency with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).

Consistency with SMAQMD’s Sacramento Regional Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP) requires the 2040 General Plan to also be consistent with the MTP/SCS. The commenter goes on to note that the Master EIR’s growth projections are not entirely consistent with the MTP/SCS projections and Alternative 2 “assumes the intensity of planned commercial/industrial development including employment projections would be consistent with those of the 2020 MTP/SCS. This strategy would include reducing land use designated for infill commercial development within the city.” Finally, the comment states, it would be possible to support the 2040 General Plan’s consistency with the MTP/SCS based on consistency with MTP/SCS policy direction because the 2040 General Plan includes strategies to reduce motor vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through Smart Growth principles that prioritize housing choice and walking, biking, and transit over automobile use.

Regarding the commenters suggestion that the Draft Master EIR’s growth projections are not entirely consistent with the MTP/SCS projections, as discussed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, on page 6-8 of the Master EIR, Alternative 2 would result in an increase of approximately 51,770 jobs between 2018 and 2040. Table 6-1 compared this to the 2040 General Plan’s adjusted projections. As shown in the Table 6-1, there would be a reduction of approximately 24,850 jobs allocated to the city under the 2020 MTP/SCS, with infill commercial development concentrated along Freeport Boulevard, Northgate Boulevard, Broadway, Franklin Boulevard, Truxel Road, Del Paso Boulevard, Stockton Boulevard, Folsom Boulevard, and Florin Road. Further, Alternative 2 represents a more conservative estimate of growth within the city from 2018 to 2040. Alternative 2 would result in 16.6% growth compared to 24.3% growth assumed under the 2040 General Plan.

The 2040 General Plan includes policies consistent with the 2020 MTP/SCS that reduce air quality and GHG impacts, and reduce VMT, which is an important planning goal of the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The Draft Master EIRs finding of less than significant for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts includes compliance with a host of general plan goals, policies and actions in addition to the CAAP and does not rely solely on consistency with the MTP/SCS and OAP. For example, 2040 General Plan policies that would promote alternative transportation modes in lieu of single-occupant vehicle trips include Policies LUP-2.2 (Interconnected City), LUP-4.1 (Transit-Supportive Development), M-1.11 (Increase Bicycling and Walking), M-1.13 (Walkability), M-1.20 (High-Frequency Transit Service), M-1.14 (Walking Facilities), M-1.15 (Improved Walking Connectivity), M-1.17 (Improve Bicycling Connectivity), M-1.18 (Bicycling Safety), M-1.11 (Increase Bicycling and Walking), M-1.12 (LRT Station Access Improvements), M-1.22 (Increase Transit Ridership), M-2.4 (Shared Shuttles), and M-1.25 (First/Last-Mile Solutions). Some of these policies have been further revised and are included in Chapter 3, Change to the Draft Master EIR.

The Master EIR properly concludes that Alternative 2’s growth projections are consistent with the MTP/SCS projections and the Master EIR’s air quality and GHG impacts are less than significant. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-48
7-2 The commenter recommends the City consult with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) about any differences between the MTP/SCS growth projections and 2040 General Plan growth projections and the findings of this consultation included under Impact 4.3-1 in the Master EIR and assess how any differences might affect region-wide VMT.

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of the Master EIR, growth projections were developed for the proposed 2040 General Plan by applying SACOG growth projections, which were developed for the 2020 MTP/SCS and used as the initial projections. Job growth was then adjusted based on the Market Study prepared for the 2040 General Plan by BAE Urban Economics to understand historical trends. In addition, the MTP/SCS land use forecast assumes that most growth (84% of new jobs through 2040) would occur within established centers/corridor communities which is consistent with the Draft Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Measure E-5 to “Support infill growth with the goal that 90% of new growth is in the established center/corridor communities and 90% small-lot and attached homes by 2040, consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy. Project-level VMT should be 15% below (or 85% of) the regional average.” Therefore, the Master EIR properly concludes that the 2040 General Plan’s growth projections are consistent with the MTP/SCS projections. Further, as discussed in Section 4.14, Transportation, implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in a 17.2% reduction in passenger vehicle VMT per capita compared to the Citywide baseline. This exceeds the 16.8% reduction established as the City’s VMT impact threshold. 7-3 The commenter states that the City’s existing 2035 General Plan Policy ER 6.1.3 stipulates that “The City shall require development projects that exceed SMAQMD reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) operational thresholds to incorporate design or operational features that reduce emissions equal to 15 percent from the level that would be produced by an unmitigated project.” The 2040 General Plan does not include a comparable policy. The commenter recommends the 2040 General Plan include a similar policy to ensure consistency with the MTP/SCS.

In response, the City has included a new policy, ERC-4.7 that requires development projects that exceed ROG and NOx operational thresholds to incorporate design or operational features that reduce emissions equal to 15 percent from levels that would be produced by an unmitigated project. This is consistent with current City practice. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for the revised and new policies.
7-4 The comment notes there is the potential a future project consistent with the 2040 General Plan land use designation and development intensity may also have the potential to affect the District’s Regional Ozone Attainment Plan. If this were to occur, the District wishes to coordinate with City staff to require preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan.

City staff will continue to reach out to District staff and work collaboratively on implementation of future projects to ensure compliance with District plans and policies. 7-5 The commenter states that CAAP Policy E-5 measure is consistent with MTP/SCS policy direction; however, the 2040 General Plan is not aligned with this policy because the General Plan includes a minimum floor area ratio (FAR) as low as .15 along the Stockton Boulevard transit corridor and near some light rail stations. The commenter recommends the Master EIR analyze how FAR 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-49
standards are consistent with Policy E-5 growth stipulations and include mitigation measures to address any inconsistency between the two, for example raising maximum FAR standards and reducing minimum FAR standards as necessary to accommodate Policy E-5 growth stipulations.

The commentor is focused on the minimum FAR of 0.15 but the max FAR has been increased to

2.0 and 4.0 along Stockton Boulevard. Additionally, all areas along Stockton Boulevard and citywide, that are within a 1/2-mile walking distance of high frequency transit (further out from the corridor) also have a maximum FAR of 2.0. The proposed land use and development standards for Stockton Boulevard, all other commercial corridors, and key opportunity sites throughout the city will support infill growth consistent with measure E-5 from the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
7-6 The commenter recommends that the Master EIR include an analysis of health impacts that may result from the operational emissions associated with the 2040 General Plan implementation, pursuant to the “Friant Ranch” decision and to consult SMAQMD’s Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the SMAQMD (“SMAQMD Guidance document”).

In December 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case regarding the “Friant Ranch” project ((2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502). The Court determined that the air quality analysis should include a reasonable effort to connect a project's air quality impacts to likely health consequences or explain in meaningful detail why it is not feasible to do so.

An industry standard level of significance has not been adopted by the City or SMAQMD to reliably, meaningfully, and consistently translate the mass emission estimates for criteria air pollutants resulting from implementation of the Sacramento 2040 Project to specific health effects. While SMAQMD’s Guidance document does include guidance for individual projects (not large-scale plans) to use different methods such as Minor Project Health Effects Screening Tool, Strategic Area Project Health Effects Screening Tool, or project specific modeling, in order to assess an individual project’s health risk, it is not intended that these approaches would apply at a plan-level. Future individual development projects associated with buildout of the 2040 General Plan may be required to comply with the requirements in SMAQMD’s Guidance document at the time of environmental review.

Some EIRs have addressed the situation in which estimated criteria air pollutant emissions exceed applicable air district thresholds and have included a quantitative analysis of potential projectgenerated health effects using a combination of a regional photochemical grid model (PGM) and the EPA Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP or BenMAP–Community Edition [CE]).

The publicly available health impact assessments (HIAs) typically present results in terms of an increase in health incidences and/or the increase in background health incidence for various health outcomes resulting from the project’s estimated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5.

To date, the publicly available HIAs reviewed using SMAQMD’s screening tools have concluded that the subject project’s health effects associated with the estimated project-generated increase in concentrations of O3 and PM2.5 represent only a small increase in incidences and a very small percent of the number of background incidences, indicating that these health impacts are negligible and potentially within the models’ margin of error. The City notes that while the results of the HIAs conclude that project emissions do not result in a substantial increase in health 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-50
incidences, the estimated emissions and assumed toxicity is also conservatively inputted into the HIA and thus, overestimate health incidences, particularly for PM2.5.

Running the PGM model used for predicting O3 attainment with the emissions is not likely to yield valid information given the relative scale of the 2040 General Plan. The HIAs reviewed are all on individual projects and support the conclusion that consistent, reliable, and meaningful results may not be provided by methods applied at this time. Accordingly, additional work in the industry is needed to develop a more meaningful analysis to correlate project-level or larger plan-level mass criteria air pollutant emissions and health effects for decision makers and the public.

At the time of writing, no HIA prepared within any air district has evaluated plan-level project impacts. The HIAs prepared for individual projects have concluded that health effects estimated using the PGM and BenMAP approach would not be substantial provided that the estimated project-generated incidences represent a very small percent of the number of background incidences, potentially within the models’ margin of error. Further study and analysis will be required, and the City will cooperate in such efforts.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-51
Comment Letter 8
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-52
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-53
Response to Letter 8
Regional Transit
(Sarah Poe, Planner, SacRT)
8-1 The comment refers to decreasing ridership attributed, in part, to COVID-19 provided in the Technical Background Report and requests a clarification that the larger cause for declining ridership is loss of commuters. Many commuters are working from home and not relying on Regional Transit (RT) services. The comment, identifying travel characteristics within the expertise of the commenting agency, is acknowledged. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 8-2 The comment addresses Tables 4.14.-8 and 4.14-9 on page 4.14-19 and 4.14-10 of the Draft Master EIR regarding transit trips and questions why transit trips would decrease under the 2040 General Plan as compared to the 2040 No Project scenario. As described in Section 4.14, Transportation, of the Draft Master EIR starting on page 4.14-19, the 2040 General Plan shifts person trips from driving and transit to walking and bicycling. As shown in Table 4.14-8, walk and bike trips saw the most significant growth between the 2040 No Project scenario and the 2040 With Project scenario.

The decrease in transit trips between the 2040 No Project and 2040 Plus Project scenarios may be attributed to particular causes, including:
• The land use changes proposed in the 2040 Plus Project scenario include more high-density areas that are more conducive to walking or biking.
• The 2040 Plus Project scenario includes a higher amount of residential land use, which results in more single occupant vehicle (SOV) and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) trips. The added traffic volume and congestion may further encourage walk and bike trips and discourage transit trips.

Overall, the 2040 General Plan would reduce the share of auto use (i.e., SOV and HOV) and increase the share of non-auto use (i.e., walk, bike, transit), and this shift in mode is on track to meet the 23% active and transit mode share target by 2045 (Policy M-2.1, Transportation Demand Management). The 2040 General Plan contains policy support for additional actions such as parking management that could further support higher levels of walking, bicycling, and transit (see Policy M-2.14 and revised Policy M-2.17 in addition to new policies provided in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR).
8-3 The comment notes that SacRT supports the 2040 General Plan goals and policies and will work in partnership and coordinate with the City on implementation of the goals and policies. The City appreciates the comment and is committed to coordination in the future. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 8-4 See Response to Comment 8-3. The City looks forward to working with SacRT. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-54

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-55

4.2 Response to Organization Comments
Comment Letter 9
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-56
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-57
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-58

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-59
Response to Letter 9
House Sacramento
(Kevin Dumler, Director of House Sacramento)
9-1 The comment introduces House Sacramento and their members and proceeds to express disappointment with the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) because the commentor does not believe the CAAP proposes adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).

The City has made some updates to the CAAP based on public comments, and is available for review on the City’s website: www.sac2040gpu.org. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 9-2 The comment asserts the CAAP measures are not sufficient to meet carbon neutrality by 2045 and should be more ambitious. The commentor requests more current information be included in the Introduction chapter of the CAAP that addresses the increase in extreme heat in the region.

The data provided in the CAAP reflects the data as presented by Cal-Adapt, a partnership between the California Energy Commission, California Natural Resources Agency, and the Public Interest Energy Research Program, with data provided by several leading California universities and the U.S. Geological Survey, The default Cal-Adapt analysis uses 30-year averages for each of these time frames to allow for a stable trend analysis, which is generally accepted best practice in climate science. The City will consider this comment in relation to the City’s CAAP and the comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. 9-3 The comment questions the accuracy of the city’s GHG inventory and recommends updating the inventory using other sources provided in the comment.

The CAAP uses Sacramento’s community GHG inventory which in turn uses the methods established in the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Version

1.2), consistent with guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. 9-4 The comment acknowledges that the CAAP includes policies that require compliance with existing state requirements but believes the City can still do more to reduce GHG emissions. The comment suggests this can be achieved by requiring incentives for new housing to include a variety of conservation measures and upgrading older homes to enable a conversion to all-electric.

The City has adopted a New Building Electrification Ordinance, which requires certain new buildings be constructed all-electric and is completing the development of an Existing Building Electrification Strategy that will provide further City policy direction to support the transition of existing mixed-fuel buildings to carbon-neutral all-electric. However, after adoption of the New Building Electrification Ordinance, a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in California Restaurant Association vs. City of Berkeley (2023) made the New Building Electrification Ordinance unenforceable. Due to this decision, the City will pursue developing and adopting an ordinance that reduces energy use and GHG emissions in new construction that 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-60
complies with the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act requiring newly constructed buildings to exceed the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The analysis in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gases of the Draft Master EIR concluded, based on substantial evidence, that the 2040 General Plan and CAAP would not generate GHG emissions resulting in a significant impact on the environment. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
9-5 The comment requests that City vehicle fleets and buildings should be fully electric, if possible.

Chapter 10 of the CAAP includes nine Municipal Measures that will guide municipal decarbonization efforts. In particular, Municipal Measures 1, 2, and 7 will guide city efforts to electrify or decarbonize the municipal fleet and municipal buildings by 2045. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. 9-6 The comment states the City should be installing solar panels, energy storage and EV chargers at public buildings whenever feasible.

The City currently requires EV chargers be installed at all public buildings in the City. The CAAP also provides policy direction including measures MM-2.3 which requires EV charging infrastructure be installed across City-owned facilities for fleet, motor pool vehicles, and personal vehicle fueling; MM-1.7 requires expansion of on-site production of renewable power (i.e., solar) and development of energy storage technologies for critical operations; and MM-1.8 requires identifying a site to construct a battery storage pilot project as well as encourage pairing battery storage systems with all solar PV system installations. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 9-7 The comment requests the City install LED streetlights and other energy efficiency measures in city-owned facilities.

The CAAP includes Municipal Measure 1 which identifies actions that responds to this request, including MM-1.4 which requires streetlights be retrofitted to LED including existing streetlights, as feasible by 2030; and MM-1.2 that addresses building retrofits; and MM-1.5 Municipal Green Building Policy. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
9-8 The comment recommends the City partner with SacRT and school districts to electrify buses. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review.

School districts and SacRT are entities that are outside of the City’s jurisdiction; however, the City is requiring the installation of infrastructure supportive of future electrification. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 9-9 The comment recommends the City partner with SMUD to obtain renewable electricity in excess of state minimum requirements.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-61
The City has made progress in this regard, as about 35% of the City’s municipal power comes from on-site solar or community solar through SMUD’s SolarShares program. The CAAP provides further policy direction, including measures MM-1.3, which requires maintaining participation in SMUD’s SolarShares program for off-site solar photovoltaics to offset at least 35% of municipal power in 2030. Municipal Measure 7 calls for the City to obtain carbon-free electricity by 2030. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
9-10 The comment recommends city employees have a zero-carbon commute.

The CAAP includes Municipal Measure 8 which includes 8 actions to reduce City employee commuter VMT intended to help achieve this goal. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 9-11 The comment notes the University of California has plans for 100% zero-carbon electricity for all campuses by 2025 and full carbon neutrality by 2024 and suggests the City follow this example.

The City anticipates achieving 100% zero-carbon electricity by 2030. The CAAP identifies a pathway that approaches carbon neutrality by 2045; the remaining gap to carbon neutrality is expected to be closed by the 2030 CAAP update, based on technological and regulatory advances completed in the upcoming years. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
9-12 The comment notes the City’s GHG inventory does not include embodied carbon/lifecycle emissions and suggests the City could consider incentivizing use of low-carbon construction such as mass-timber resources.

The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review and consideration. However, embodied carbon/lifecycle emissions are not included in the state’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality and are not part of the legislated targets set by SB 32 and SB 1279. The state has not adopted a standardized way of quantifying embodied carbon/lifecycle emissions at this point. Legislative requirements included in AB 2446 direct the California Air Resources Board to develop a framework for measuring and reducing embodied carbon, which the City anticipates will enable consideration of including embodied carbon/lifecycle emissions as a quantified measure in the next CAAP update. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 9-13 The comment recommends not expanding development impact fees to pay for implementing CAAP measure in lieu of restricting impact fees to support more climate-friendly development proposals.

The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-62
9-14 The commentor believes that the CAAP measures are not adequate to reduce auto dependency and supports measures to eliminate parking minimums; dedicating traffic lanes to bus rapid service or bike lanes; imposing a tax on ride-sharing services; building more dedicated bike paths; raise parking fees; implement congestion pricing, etc.

Some of these recommendations are included in the 2040 General Plan goals, policies and implementing actions. Several of the requested actions are in process, through the Revisions to Automobile and Bicycle Parking Regulations project. Dedicated bike paths will be further considered through the Streets for People Plan and the Parks Plan 2040. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review and consideration in the ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 9-15 The comment urges the City to consider a more ambitious CAAP to address the urgency of climate change. The comment letter has been provided to the City’s CAAP project team for their review.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-63
Comment Letter 10
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-64
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-65
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-66
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-67
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-68
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-69
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-70
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-71
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-72
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-73
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-74
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-75
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-76
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-77
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-78
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-79
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-80
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-81
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-82
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-83
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-84
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-85
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-86
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-87
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-88
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-89
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-90
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-91
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-92
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-93
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-94
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-95
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-96
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-97
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-98
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-99
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-100
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-101
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-102
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-103
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-104
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-105
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-106
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-107
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-108
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-109
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-110
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-111
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-112
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-113
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-114
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-115
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-116
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-117
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-118
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-119
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-120
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-121
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-122
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-123
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-124
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-125
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-126
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-127
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-128
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-129
Response to Letter 10
ECOS Environmental Council of Sacramento
(Susan Herre, AIA, AICP, President of the Board of Directors and Judith Lamare, Founder, Friends of Swainson’s Hawks)
10-1 The comment lists six areas where it is asserted the Master EIR does not sufficiently address impacts in the Natomas area. Subsequent comments go into more detail relative to these six areas, please see responses below. The comment concludes that the Draft Master EIR should be updated and recirculated to fully disclose and mitigate potential impacts.

The responses provided to this letter address all of the concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft Master EIR raised by the commenter. Changes to the analysis contained in the Draft Master EIR (see Chapter 3 of this Final Master EIR) represent minor clarifications/amplifications and do not constitute substantial new information, and recirculation of the Draft Master EIR is not required. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.)
Under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but prior to certification of the Final EIR. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information.

New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5.)
Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The above standard is “not intend[ed] to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1132.) “Recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule.” (Ibid.) 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-130
The changes described in the Final EIR below clarify and amplify the existing language. Thus, none of these changes involves "significant new information" triggering recirculation because the changes did not result in any new significant environmental effects, any substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effects, or otherwise trigger recirculation. Instead, the modifications were either environmentally benign or negligible, and thus represent the kinds of changes that commonly occur as the environmental review process works towards its conclusion.

Under such circumstances, recirculation of a Draft EIR is not required. 10-2 The commenter asserts the Draft Master EIR fails to address impacts on the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and the Natomas Basin Conservancy (NBC) and consistency with the NBHCP Implementation Agreement.

The Draft Master EIR acknowledges that the City is a party to the NBHCP and complies with the provisions of the NBHCP, which includes the Implementation Agreement, and has considered impacts of the 2040 Draft General Plan on the NBHCP. The Draft Master EIR states in Section 4.4, Biological Resources on page 4.4-4 that the NBHCP was reviewed and considered in order to inform impacts and mitigation measures and was also reviewed for potential inconsistencies with the 2040 General Pan, as described in Chapter 3, Land Use, Housing and Population on page 3-1 of the Draft Master EIR. The analysis of the 2040 General Plan within Chapter 4 of the Draft Master EIR makes frequent references to the NBHCP in terms of compliance. The City is a party to the NBHCP, is committed to the success of the NBHCP, and continues to adhere to all requirements set forth within the plan.
10-3 The comment asserts that the Draft Master EIR fails to disclose the responsibilities of the City in regard to the NBHCP and NBC to avoid development outside of the City’s permit area and refers to the language of the Implementing Agreement that requires the City to support the conservation strategy for the Natomas Basin and not support development in the unincorporated area of the Basin.

The Draft Master EIR acknowledges that the City must abide by the NBHCP and frequently refers to the document – see Response to Comment 10-2, above. By acknowledging that the NBHCP is a policy document with which the City complies, compliance with the mandates within the NBHCP document, specifically listed in the Draft Master EIR or not, is included. Please see also Chapter 2, Project Description page 2-27. The Draft Master EIR confirms that the City designates the Natomas Basin Study Area (NBSA) as a proposed Area of Concern and acknowledges the County “is currently processing two large specific plans (Grand Park and Upper Westside) which call for development of lands in the NBSA and are not currently within the city’s SOI. Providing input and analysis of these development plans and influencing their outcome will help to lessen potential adverse effects to the City and its residents.”
10-4 The comment states the 2040 General Plan does not include as many biological resource protection policies, as compared to the 2035 General Pla.

The commenter is correct. Omission of several policies was inadvertent. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR that includes the addition of several goals and policies related to Biological Resources from the 2035 General Plan, including Policy ER 2.1.12. This policy pertaining 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-131
to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan will be included in the revised draft of the 2040 General Plan. The City remains committed to the NBHCP.
10-5 The comment asks why biological resource policies from the 2035 General Plan were removed from the 2040 General Plan.

Several goals and policies related to Biological Resources from the 2035 General Plan were inadvertently removed from the 2040 General Plan. Please see Response to Comment 10-4. 10-6 The comment questions why the Draft Master EIR does not address impacts to agricultural and biological resources within the Natomas Basin Study Area due to future urbanization.

As stated in Chapter 2, Project Description of the Draft Master EIR on page 2-1, “The 2040 General Plan Planning Area is defined as the land area addressed by the 2040 General Plan, including land within the city limits and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (outside the city limits), including five Special Study Areas. The Planning Area comprises approximately 113,572 acres (197 square miles) of incorporated and unincorporated land.” The Draft Master EIR Planning Area includes the Natomas Basin Study Area. However, please note that Figure 2-1 in the Draft Master EIR incorrectly highlights the Study Area as only the city limits and has been corrected in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft EIR for corrections.

The Draft Master EIR does address biological resources in the Natomas Basin Special Study Area.

For example, protections for rare plant species covered under the NBHCP, as well as a discussion of required mitigation measures, including land acquisition fees for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, are listed on pages 4.4-11 through 4.4-12 of the Draft Master EIR. The other technical sections included in Chapter 4 of the Draft Master EIR contain numerous references to the NBHCP in relation to various environmental issues areas analyzed. The Draft Master EIR does not ignore the NBHCP but rather indicates that it is a plan which would be applicable to any future development that could occur with approval of the 2040 General Plan (see Chapter 3, Land Use, Population and Housing section 3.3.2 starting on page 3.21 of the Draft Master EIR). The 2040 GPU acknowledges the NBHCP, as well as the balance of agriculture, development, and conservation that the NBHCP establishes (see page 11-SSA-5 of the 2040 General Plan). As stated previously in Response to Comment 10-4, policies from the 2035 General Plan have been added to the 2040 General Plan, as shown in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR.

The designation of a Study Area does not imply that the area is to be developed or will incur “massive future impacts.” Special Study Areas reflect land areas in which careful coordination between the City and County is required to protect natural resources and efficiently deliver services (see page 2-27 of the Draft Master EIR). The City has a responsibility to carry out the NBHCP, further justifying the need for the City to identify and designate the Natomas Basin as a Study Area and Area of Concern (as defined by Sacramento Local Area Formation Commission [LAFCo]).

Because the County is not a party to the NBHCP, it is particularly important for the City to confirm its vested interest in the future of the Natomas Basin including the potential development proposals that are in process with the County and how that development could potentially impact environmental resources or the successful completion of the NBHCP. The 2040 General Plan does not propose any land use changes or new land use designations in the Special Study Areas, as they are not in the jurisdictional purview of the City. Any request to the City to develop within the 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-132
Special Study Areas would require future annexation and full environmental review. Only Sacramento LAFCo has the statutory authority to change the city's boundary. 10-7 The comment asks if the Special Study Area and Area of Concern for the Natomas Basin would conflict with the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program and should be addressed in the Draft Master EIR.

A designation of a “Special Study Area” or an “Area of Concern” does not itself conflict with the NBHCP’s conservation strategy. The designation does not propose or imply any physical changes to the Natomas Basin. Therefore, the designation of a Study Area and proposed Area of Concern is not an unidentified impact associated with implementation of the 2040 General Plan. The five Special Study Areas including the Natomas Basin are clearly described as areas adjacent to the city limits that are of interest to the City.

The Natomas Basin has been of interest to the City for decades in regard to the preservation of open space, agricultural and habitat areas, transportation/circulation, water resources and planning for municipal services. The Natomas Basin Study Area is not located within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) but is located completely within the NBHCP. An Area of Concern is used for the purpose of identifying geographic areas which are presently beyond the city’s boundary (or SOI if applicable) in which land use decisions or other governmental actions of the County may be expected to impact indirectly or directly the City’s intermediate or long-range planning horizons.

This criterion is established in Sacramento LAFCo Policies and Procedures. An Area of Concern is a land use planning designation used to signify that the area is of importance and concern to the City, but the designated area is not currently located within the City’s SOI.

For over 25 years, the City has demonstrated its commitment to the NBHCP’s conservation strategy. The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) has acquired approximately 5,100 acres of land in the Natomas Basin and has received over $50 million dollars of HCP fees collected by the City as a result of planned and approved development in North Natomas and South Natomas (the City’s NBHCP Permit Area). The designation of the Natomas Basin in the 2040 General Plan as a Study Area and a proposed Area of Concern does not conflict with the NBHCP. Conversely, it highlights that the City has a vested interest in the Natomas Basin, wants to be aware of any proposed development by the County that may conflict with interests of the NBHCP, and supports proactive transregional planning of the area.
10-8 The comment asks if the Natomas Basin includes over 30,000 acres of agricultural and land for habitat.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. For information, page 11-SSA-5 of the 2040 General Plan notes the Natomas Basin Study Area is within an unincorporated portion of Sacramento County that encompasses approximately 18,424 acres of the approximately 53,000-acre Natomas Basin, which includes agricultural lands. Urban development has occurred in the Natomas Basin, and the City is a party to the NBHCP. Other agencies and plans affect the Natomas Basin (e.g., airport, Metro Air Park, Sacramento County), and there are other parties to the NBHCP. The exact acreage of remaining agricultural and land for habitat in the Natomas Basin is estimated to be less than 30,000.

Map I-2 of the 2040 General Plan depicts the boundary of the Natomas Basin Study Area. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-133
10-9 The comment alleges the Draft Master EIR does not analyze impacts to farmland or habitat in the Natomas Basin Study Area or include policies from the Sacramento County General Plan that protect farmland and habitat in the Basin.

The Draft Master EIR acknowledges all known proposed major developments within the Natomas Basin Special Study Area, as highlighted in the cumulative section analyses throughout the technical sections, are included in Chapter 4. The City has no authority to develop outside current city boundaries or outside the Permit Area designated by the NBHCP. The designation of the Natomas Basin as a Study Area does not imply that the City has plans to annex any land to convert farmland or accommodate development. However, the City acknowledges the need to have more influence over the Natomas Basin, as the City is responsible for carrying out the NBHCP. Therefore, the 2040 General Plan includes Policy LUP-A.1, which includes the goal to work with Sacramento LAFCo to designate the Natomas Basin Study Area as an Area of Concern to allow the City greater influence on land use decisions and other governmental actions that directly and indirectly affect the City in this area. The City takes cognizance of any proposed development by the County that may conflict with interests of the NBHCP and seeks to avoid disjointed transregional planning of the area.

Although the County General Plan has policies to protect farmland and habitat in the Natomas Basin, the City does not have authority to enforce these policies or any land in the unincorporated areas of the County. Recent development proposals by the County in the Natomas Basin, such as ones related to the Upper Westside and Grand Park Specific Plans, have highlighted the importance for increased City oversight of the Natomas Basin, as the City is responsible for the NBHCP successful completion. See also Response to Comment 10-7. 10-10 The comment indicates the Draft Master EIR refers to two development projects in the Natomas Basin currently being processed by the County that the City should be engaged with and goes on to note that these projects require amending the County’s Urban Services Boundary and obtaining required permits from the regulatory agencies.

The comment refers to the Grand Park Specific Plan and Upper Westside Specific Plan, projects that are within the jurisdiction of the County. The Draft Master EIR acknowledges these two projects as reasonably foreseeable under the analysis of “Additional Cumulative Impacts” in Chapter 4. The geographic area for many resources extends beyond the boundaries of the Planning Area and includes land within the larger region, air basin, or watershed area. Thus, the cumulative analysis acknowledges these two projects.

The City cannot make a determination to approve or deny these projects because they are outside of the City’s jurisdiction. The City can submit public comment and/or opposition during the public review process. The Natomas Basin has been designated as a Special Study Area by the City for over a decade. The 2040 General Plan includes a name change from the prior “Natomas Joint Vision Study Area” to the Natomas Basin Study Area, as the County indicated on their website that they have withdrawn the Natomas Joint Vision project in order to move forward with the Grand Park Specific Plan and Upper Westside Specific Plan projects. However, the geographical area of the study area remains the same; only a name change occurred. The City has continued to designate the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area in the 2040 General Plan and proposes 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-134
designation of an Area of Concern in order to have more influence on the buildout of the Natomas Basin by non-City entities. See also Response to Comment 10-7. 10-11 The comment references a figure showing the Urban Services Boundary within the Natomas Basin and notes the two projects in the County acknowledged in the Draft Master EIR are proximate to mitigation properties acquired for the City’s North Natomas Community Plan.

As explained in Response to Comment 10-10, the Grand Park and Upper Westside Specific Plan projects are in the jurisdiction of the County and the City has no land use authority over these projects. The City has designated the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area and an Area of Concern in the 2040 General Plan to signify that the future of the Basin is of great importance and concern to the City and to have more influence on land use decisions or other governmental actions of the County that may be expected to indirectly or directly impact the City. 10-12 The comment asserts the 2040 General Plan land use policies are internally inconsistent and therefore the Draft Master EIR is also internally inconsistent because the City is considering providing urban services to development in the Natomas Basin.

The 2040 General Plan Policy LUP-1 establishes the goal of a compact urban footprint to promote efficient development and delivery of public services. The designation of Special Study Areas or Areas of Concern does not imply that urban sprawl or non-compact growth would occur. Many of these areas, such as Arden Arcade, Fruitridge/Florin, East Study Special Study Area, and the Town of Freeport Special Study Areas are already developed and could potentially benefit from city services in the future. As noted previously, the City has designated these as Study Areas for many years.

The City designating the Natomas Basin as a Study Area and an Area of Concern does not imply that the City would directly provide urban services or develop outside the City’s Permit Area of the NBHCP. The City does not promote providing City services to areas outside the city’s boundary. The City has designated the Natomas Basin as a Study Area because it has a vested interest in the basin as a whole and has a duty to be aware of future transregional projects adjacent to the city limits that could potentially affect City services and goals, such as transportation networks, social/emergency services, environmental conservation, housing supply, and successful implementation of the NBHCP. See also Response to Comment 10-7.

As discussed above, the County is currently processing two large specific plans (Grand Park and Upper Westside) which call for development of lands in the Natomas Basin Study Area that are not currently within the city’s SOI. As stated in the Draft Master EIR (see p. 2-27), providing input and analysis of these development plans and influencing their outcome would help to potentially reduce potential adverse effects to the City and its residents. The fact that the County is not a party to the NBHCP and could potentially develop lands within the NBHCP boundary makes it especially important for the City to have more of an influence on development proposed within the Natomas Basin. 10-13 The comment states designating the Natomas Basin Study Area as an Area of Concern contradicts the City’s General Plan land use policies which should have been addressed in the Draft Master EIR.

The Special Study Areas identified in the 2040 General Plan reflect areas in which careful coordination between the City and County is required to protect natural resources and efficiently 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-135
deliver services. The Draft Master EIR evaluated the proposed policies and did not identify an internal inconsistency. The inclusion of the Natomas Basin as a Study Area and Area of Concern supports the City’s land use policies, as it allows the City to coordinate to protect farmland (Policy LUP-1.12), ensure regional planning and growth is sustainable and coordinated (Policy LUP-1.7) and remain proactively engaged in the future of the basin by adjacent jurisdictions to identify and avoid potential land use, circulation, or other conflicts (Policy LUP-1.10). See also Response to Comment 10-12.
10-14 The comment states the designation of the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area is growthinducing because it implies the City would consider annexing land for future development and the Draft Master EIR does not evaluate the impact of placing farmland and habitat within a Special Study Area or Area of Concern.

The City’s designation of the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area does not imply that the City is pursuing growth in the Natomas Basin. The City cannot annex areas outside of SOI or expand the SOI without review and approval from Sacramento LAFCo, and the Natomas Basin Study Area is not within the City’s SOI. Only Sacramento LAFCo has the authority to change the City’s boundary or SOI. See also Response to Comment 10-7.

The City does not seek to promote urbanization of farmland in the Natomas Basin. Rather, the City states its intention to protect farmland in the 2040 General Plan, specifically in policies LUP-1.11 “Coordinate to Protect Farmland” and LUP-1.12 “Development Adjacent to Agriculture”. 10-15 The comment asserts the Draft Master EIR creates the impression that the City supports future urbanization in the Natomas Basin and does not address growth-inducing impacts of the Special Study Area designations and fails to disclose all the NBHCP terms and conditions.

Proposals for urban development in the Natomas Basin are processed consistent with the land use regulations adopted by the relevant agency. The 2040 General Plan will establish policy guidance for development that occurs within the City land use jurisdiction and reflects the City’s focus on support of infill housing and its support, for example, for approaches to housing, such as missing middle housing policies, that promote livable, walkable, and affordable neighborhoods.

All new development within the Natomas Basin is subject to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP specifies avoidance measures and mitigation for loss of habitat, and incidental take coverage. Prior to new grading, development must ensure payment of HCP fees. Documents and additional information relating to the Plan are located online on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Planning/Natomas.

The City has treated and considered the Special Study Areas in the Master EIR to the extent of any direct or indirect effects on the environment that could occur in these areas during the general plan period. In the event the City considers policies or programs relating to any Special Study Area, the proposal would be subject to appropriate review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Please also see Responses to Comments 10-7 and 10-14. 10-16 The comment cites language from the Draft Master EIR addressing the analysis of growth inducement and asserts that the Draft Master EIR does not evaluate impacts to the Natomas Basin 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-136
Study Area, including growth inducement, and suggests that a separate analysis that addresses growth inducement should be included.

The comment quotes language from the Draft Master EIR (see p. 5-4) that explains to the reader that the analysis of impacts due to buildout assumed under the 2040 General Plan captures any growth inducing potential of the general plan. As further described in the Draft Master EIR in Chapter 5, CEQA Considerations on page 5-4, “a significant growth-inducement impact would occur if the 2040 General Plan, directly or indirectly removes physical or regulatory obstacles to growth such that the induced growth would significantly burden existing community services or impact the environment through economic expansion and population growth. A physical obstacle to population growth typically involves the lack of public service infrastructure. While most new development will be within areas already served by utilities and services, some new development may require the extension of public service infrastructure, including roadways, water mains, and sewer lines, into areas that currently do not have these services.” The discussion goes on to explain implementation of the 2040 General Plan is focused in areas where new land uses are proposed or redevelopment and reinvestment could intensify the uses over what currently exists in some areas.

The 2040 General Plan includes policies to ensure that capacities and functionality of existing public utilities (e.g., water, wastewater and drainage facilities) can accommodate future growth that could occur with approval of the 2040 General Plan. The General Plan includes buildout assumptions that could result in growth induced directly and indirectly that could adversely affect the greater Sacramento area through an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT); air quality deterioration; increase in greenhouse gases; loss of habitat and wildlife on vacant or underutilized land associated with development; increase in the amount of impervious area and stormwater runoff; increase in demand for utilities and services, such as fire and police protection, water supply, recycled water, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, energy, and natural gas; and increased demand for housing. These growth inducing effects have been identified and a separate analysis specific to the Special Study Areas is not required.

The 2040 General Plan remains focused on promoting infill development and reuse of underutilized properties, as well as on intensifying development near transit and mixed-use activity centers, as stated on page 3-9 of the General Plan “[a]s a largely built out city, new growth in Sacramento will be accommodated primarily through infill development on vacant and underutilized properties.” Please see Response to Comment 10-20. 10-17 The comment asks why the City is including the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area if there are no plans for annexation.

Special Study Areas are not a tool for pre-planning a request for annexation. The 2040 General Plan defines on page I-6 Special Study Areas as “unincorporated locations adjacent to city limits where careful coordination between the City and the County is required to plan for natural resource protection and the efficient delivery of services.” The City has an interest in transregional planning issues adjacent to the city limits such as housing supply, environmental conservation, transportation networks, social/emergency services, and economic development. Furthermore, the City has a responsibility to carry out the NBHCP. Therefore, the City has a vested interest in the future of the Natomas Basin as a whole and has designated it as a Special Study Area. Please also see Responses to Comments 10-12 and 10-13.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-137
10-18 The comment requests the City remove the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area and remove the growth inducement impact.

It is not clear from the comment what growth inducement impact the commentor is referencing.

The Draft Master EIR notes on page 5-6 under Impacts of Induced Growth, the 2040 General Plan would also provide residential and employment opportunities for existing and future residents of the city. In addition, it would help to prevent suburban sprawl in “greenfield” areas outside the city by planning for and providing increased employment and housing opportunities within the Planning Area. As noted in Responses to Comments 10-7, 10-14 and 10-17, the City has an interest in transregional planning issues and areas adjacent to the city limits; therefore, the City will retain the designation of the Natomas Basin as a Special Study Area. 10-19 The comment states since there is no feasible mitigation to address cumulative impacts on biological resources a recommendation is provided to remove the Natomas Basin Special Study Area from the 2040 General Plan as feasible mitigation.

The inclusion of the Natomas Basin Special Study Area in the 2040 General Plan does not represent a change from baseline conditions. This area was included under a different name “Natomas Joint Vision Study Area” in the 2035 General Plan and was analyzed in the associated Master EIR. Designation of this Special Study Area does not commit the City to any action or decision. Instead, this designation ensures that the City continues to carefully coordinate with the County to protect natural resources and efficiently deliver services. The City has an interest in transregional planning issues adjacent to city limits such as housing supply, environmental conservation, transportation networks, provision utilities (i.e., water supply and wastewater treatment), and economic development. Furthermore, the City has a responsibility to carry out the NBHCP. Therefore, the City has a vested interest in the future of the Natomas Basin as a whole and designates it as a Special Study Area. The inclusion of the Natomas Basin Special Study Area does not contribute to cumulative impacts to biological resources, and its elimination from the 2040 General Plan would not constitute mitigation. 10-20 The comment suggests the City include policies to prohibit greenfield development, similar to policies included in the Sacramento County General Plan and the County’s Urban Services boundary.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, as explained in the Introduction chapter of the 2040 General Plan (see p. 1-10), the City undertook a comprehensive update of the general plan in 2009 (2030 General Plan) which included a focus on promoting infill development and reuse of underutilized properties, as well as on intensifying development near transit and mixed-use activity centers. A technical update to the General Plan was adopted in 2015 (the 2035 General Plan), which incorporated these same themes. The 2040 General Plan is the most current iteration of this comprehensive planning document and reiterates the same concept noting on page 3-9 “[a]s a largely built out city, new growth in Sacramento will be accommodated primarily through infill development on vacant and underutilized properties.” Additionally, the Draft Climate Action & Adaptation Plan includes Measure E-5 to “Support infill growth with the goal that 90% of new growth is in the established and center/corridor communities and 90% small-lot and attached homes by 2040, consistent with the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy.” There is very little land that would constitute a “greenfield” remaining within the city limits that has not already 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-138
been planned for development. The 2040 General Plan includes five Special Study Areas that generally include lands within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). These Special Study Areas have been included since the 2030 General Plan and are locations adjacent to the city limits where careful coordination between the City and the County is required to plan for natural resource protection and the efficient delivery of services. The 2040 General Plan does not propose any changes to the existing land use designations or zoning within any of the Special Study Areas. If the City were to receive an application for development within any of these areas, it would be required to go through the Sacramento LAFCo review process to evaluate conversion of agricultural and open space and provision of services as well as the CEQA process to evaluate impacts. The commenter’s suggestion has been forwarded to the City’s long range planning team for their review and consideration.
10-21 The comment is requesting the City accelerate the implementation of studies to address the effects of heat islands.

The 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP) includes policies, Implementing Actions and timelines designed to address site design and building materials that have an effect on heat islands, see below. It is not clear from the comment what implementation schedule the commentor is referencing. However, the City has developed a multi-pronged approach to address heat islands and extreme heat events through various policies and programs that would be implemented starting in 2024 to address heat effects associated with new development. The commenter’s request to accelerate implementation is noted and forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
• The 2040 General Plan includes policies ERC-8.1 through ERC-8.6 that address heat islands through building design and materials along with policies ERC-3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6,

3.9, 3.10 and 3.11 (please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for some policy revisions) that address expanding the tree canopy and planting and maintaining the City’s urban forest.
• General Plan Implementing Action ERC-A-4: Heat Reduction in the Public Realm explores opportunities to promote heat mitigation strategies to reduce temperatures in the public realm using a variety of building design strategies. The timeframe to complete this action is 2024-2029. (Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for revisions to this action.)
• General Plan Implementing Action ERC-A-7: Cooling Landscape Standards establishes the City shall prepare a Landscape Manual or landscape standards to help address urban heat island effects. The timeframe to complete this action is 2030 – 2035. (Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for revisions to this action.) • General Plan Implementing Action ERC-A-8: Heat Resilient Design Techniques includes updating the city’s design guidelines, standards and the municipal code to promote building materials and site design techniques to provide passive cooling. The timeframe to complete this action is 2036 – 2040. (Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for revisions to this action.)
• CAAP measure CS-1 which sets forth a goal of increasing the City’s tree canopy cover to 25% by 2030 and 35% by 2045. The current tree canopy covers 19% of land in the city (CAAP p. 123). The CAAP also lists numerous implementing actions to achieve these goals and policies.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-139
10-22 The comment notes some of the effects of heat islands and extreme heat. Please see Response to Comment 10-21 above.
10-23 The comment requests that the impacts of urban heat islands be quantified by neighborhood as well as the health impacts on both housed and unhoused residents before the end of 2024.

Assembly Bill 296 (Chapter 667, Statutes of 2012) requires that CalEPA develop an Urban Heat Island Index (UHII) to quantify the extent and severity of an urban heat island for individual cities for the purpose of mapping where and how intensely heat attributed to heat islands are present at a local scale. In 2015, CalEPA released maps that show the scientifically assigned UHII scores based on atmospheric modeling for each census tract in and around most urban areas throughout the state, including Sacramento. Small urban areas may have average daily summer temperature increases up to 5°F while larger cities may have increases up to 9°F. Areas with greater temperature differentials over longer periods as compared to surrounding non-urban areas receive a higher Index score, demonstrating where the heat islands occur. Some areas have significantly higher temperatures, but these areas don’t necessarily have the most intense urban heat islands.

That is because in comparison to more rural areas, upwind of the urban area are also quite hot, so the differential between rural and urban may not be large.

Notably, the UHII does not measure the temperatures of an area, but rather it measures the average temperature difference between rural and urban in a specific area due to the urban heat island. The city has a UHII score in the range of 20 to 45 degree-hours per day (Celsius scale), with the highest UHII score located in East Sacramento. This is equivalent to an average temperature difference between rural and urban in that area of approximately 1.5 to 4.1ºF.

There is no analytical tool presently available to quantify impacts due to urban heat islands nor adopted numeric thresholds to identify any potential impact. According to the EPA, trees help reduce urban heat island effects by shading building and ground surfaces, deflecting radiation from the sun, and releasing moisture into the atmosphere, which results in cooling through evapotranspiration.

As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the 2040 General Plan includes several policies aimed at reducing heat island affects. Policy ERC-8.1, Cooling Design Techniques, requires the City to promote the use of tree canopies, cool pavements, landscaping, building materials, and site design techniques that provide passive cooling and reduce energy demand. In particular, the City shall promote the use of voluntary measures identified in the California Green Building Code to minimize heat island effects, including hardscape and roof materials with beneficial solar reflectance and thermal emittance values and measures for exterior wall shading. Policy ERC-8.2 requires the City to work with property owners and businesses identified in urban heat island hot spots to reduce ambient temperatures in surrounding residential areas. Finally, Policy ERC-8.3, requires the City pursue pilot projects to test the use of new materials (e.g., landscaping, building materials, and site design techniques) in city infrastructure projects to reduce urban heat.

The 2040 General Plan also includes Implementing Actions that address urban heat. Policy ERCA-4 calls for the City to explore opportunities to amend development standards and guidelines to promote the use of heat mitigation strategies to reduce temperatures in the public realm, particularly near light rail transit stations and along transit corridors. Implementing Action ERC-A- 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-140
7 requires the City to prepare landscape standards to mitigate urban heat islands; ERC-A-10 and ERC-A-11 require the City to update the Parking Lot Shade Ordinance and street standards for tree canopy. The general plan policies and Implementing Actions are designed to increase and protect trees and landscaping to help offset some of the highly-localized surface temperature warming effects from buildout of the proposed 2040 General Plan. 10-24 The comment refers to projects outside of the Planning Area that would contribute to criteria air pollutants and toxic air pollutants, specifically diesel particulate matter and suggests the Draft Master EIR discuss ways the City could influence proposed development to reduce emissions.

The projects noted in the comment, Grand Park and Upper Westside are two projects under the land use jurisdiction of Sacramento County. The County has indicated it will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City will have an opportunity to comment on the projects. The City does not have permitting authority over the projects, however, and is not a Responsible Agency. The Draft Master EIR considered the effects of these projects as appropriate under cumulative impacts analyses in the various technical sections, but does not have authority to approve, disapprove, or condition the two projects. Regarding the Airport South Industrial project, the City received an application for the annexation and development of this project and is currently going through a separate CEQA process. The City’s decision makers will review the project sometime in 2024.
10-25 The comment suggests the Draft Master EIR include a discussion if federal air quality standards are not met, such as a reduction in federal money to support transportation projects.

Information regarding federal and state air quality regulations is included under Section 6.6, Air Quality of the Technical Background Report. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to reassess the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) at least every 5 years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how those areas will attain the NAAQS within mandated time frames.

Areas of the state that do not currently meet the NAAQS must develop a SIP to provide a roadmap outlining how the standards will be attained. Projects are required to demonstrate conformity with the approved SIP to receive financial assistance, license or permit, or approve any action.

If a project significantly exceeds the thresholds set in the SIP, a separate report on the general conformity analysis and determination would be prepared in connection with the environmental review process.
10-26 The comment asks that the Draft Master EIR alternatives analysis include an alternative that excludes the Natomas Basin Special Study Area to reduce impacts to agricultural and biological resources.

The 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram, provided as Map LUP-5 on page 3-19 of the 2040 General Plan does not propose any new land use designations or changes to the Natomas Basin Special Study Area, and the requested alternative would have no effect on the impact analysis.

The Draft Master EIR did not identify any impacts due to loss of agricultural or biological resources within the Natomas Basin Special Study Area associated with buildout of the 2040 General Plan. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-141
However, under cumulative conditions there is development proposed within the County in the Natomas Basin and one project under consideration in the City (currently undergoing a separate CEQA review process) which is requesting annexation. Buildout of the 2040 General Plan would contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources, albeit a small amount and not within the Natomas Basin, through the incremental conversion of habitat for special-status species to urban uses. The incremental contribution to the loss of habitat attributed to the 2040 General Plan is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.

As explained in Response to Comment 10-27, the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 CCR 15126.6(a)). An EIR must evaluate “only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (14 CCR 15126.6(f)) and does not need to consider “every conceivable alternative” to a project (14 CCR 15126.6(a)). The alternatives evaluated constitute a reasonable range and because no land uses are proposed in the Natomas Basin Special Study Area as part of the 2040 General Plan removing this area would not make any meaningful change to the impacts identified if it were to be considered as an alternative. See also Responses to Comments 10-7, 10-14, 10-17 and 10-18.
10-27 The comment requests that the Draft Master EIR include a “real” no project alternative because state planning law requires general plans be updated.

California Government Code section 65300 requires each city and county to adopt a General Plan “for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which… bears relation to its planning.” By statute, the general plan is required to be updated “periodically.” According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, there is no requirement for how often to update a general plan, the planning period has traditionally been 15-20 years. The housing element is the only portion of the general plan that is on a mandated update schedule, as defined by the state Housing and Community Development agency. The City’s current 2035 General Plan covers a 20-year planning horizon so although not required, the City has opted to regularly update its general plan to reflect changes in planning law, existing conditions, and vision for future growth.

The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 CCR 15126.6(a)). An EIR must evaluate “only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice” (14 CCR 15126.6(f)) and does not need to consider “every conceivable alternative” to a project (14 CCR 15126.6(a)). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that an EIR evaluate a “No Project Alternative,” which is intended to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. As explained on page 6-5 in Chapter 6 of the Draft Master EIR, a No Project/2035 General Plan alternative is included that assumes development would occur consistent with the existing land use designations under the adopted 2035 General Plan, on the basis that the City is required by state law to have a general plan in effect. The No Project/2035 General Plan complies with the approach for evaluating a “no project alternative” set forth in the CEQA Guidelines.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-142
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-143

4.3 Response to Individual Comments
Comment Letter 11
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-144
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-145
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-146
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-147
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-148
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-149
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-150
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-151
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-152
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-153
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-154
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-155
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-156
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-157
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-158
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-159
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-160
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-161
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-162
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-163
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-164

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-165
Response to Letter 11
Howard Levine (October 2, 2023)
11-1 The comment includes excerpts from the 2040 General Plan and provides input on various proposed land use designations primarily within the Campus Commons area of the city.

The letter addresses land use designations in the 2040 General Plan and has been provided to the City’s long range planning team overseeing preparation of the 2040 General Plan for their consideration. The comments do not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
11-2 The comment requests input provided on the 2040 General Plan (see Response to Comment 11-1) be incorporated as comments on the Draft Master EIR. The comment requests that the 2040 General Plan not change how the Campus Commons area is designated in the 2035 General Plan and the Campus Commons area be redesignated as a Special Study Area in the 2040 General Plan.

The comments relate to planning and land use designation actions of the city and do not affect the environmental review. The comments will be provided to affected city staff. The comments provided in the letter specific to the 2040 General Plan do not raise any issues addressing the accuracy or adequacy of the analysis included in the Draft EIR, and no further response is required. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-166

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-167
Comment Letter 12
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-168
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-169
Response to Letter 12
Howard Levine (October 5, 2023)
12-1 The comment generally notes that biological and cultural resources are important and there needs to be a greater effort to retain, survey and educate the public on the importance of these resources.

The city acknowledges the comment. No further response is required. 12-2 The significant and unavoidable impact numbers for biological resources are listed in the comment and the cumulative loss of special-status species and wetlands is noted. Please see the discussion and analysis in Section 4.4, Biological Resources in the Draft Master EIR for more information on the impact significance.
12-3 The significant and unavoidable impact numbers for cultural resources and noise are listed in the comment and the cumulative loss of historical and archeological resources is also noted. Please see the discussion and analysis in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources and Section 4.11, Noise in the Draft Master EIR for more information on the impact significance. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 12-4 The comment includes language from the Draft Master EIR noting that noise impacts on both a project and cumulative level would result in significant impacts. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 12-5 The comment includes language from the Draft Master EIR noting that impacts to tribal cultural resources on both a project and cumulative level would result in significant impacts. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-170

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-171
Comment Letter 13
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-172
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-173
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-174
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-175
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-176
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-177
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-178
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-179
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-180
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-181
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-182
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-183
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-184
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-185
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-186
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-187
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-188
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-189
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-190
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-191
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-192
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-193
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-194
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-195
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-196
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-197
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-198
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-199
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-200
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-201
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-202
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-203
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-204
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-205
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-206
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-207
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-208
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-209
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-210
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-211
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-212
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-213
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-214
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-215
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-216
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-217
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-218
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-219
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-220
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-221
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-222
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-223
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-224
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-225
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-226

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-227
Response to Letter 13
Sigrid Waggener, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
13-1 The comment provides an introduction and requests the City to not approve the 2040 General Plan or Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 13-2 The comment provides background on the Penske facility including permits obtained for operation of the facility and future plans to modify and modernize its operations including transitioning its vehicle fleet to zero-emission vehicles. The comment is acknowledged. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
13-3 The comment indicates that Penske was not notified by the City as part of the 2040 General Plan outreach process nor did they receive notification of the release of the Draft Master EIR and are requesting the Draft Master EIR comment period be extended and the Draft Master EIR be recirculated.

The City conducted extensive outreach and held multiple events, activities and community meetings including stakeholder and focus group interviews related to the preparation of the general plan, The outreach efforts included Citywide and Community plan workshops, and Planning and Design Commission and City Council meetings starting in 2019 to receive input from the community on issues and opportunities for future development within the city as part of the 2040 General Plan and the CAAP. The City’s general plan team held outreach events in each City Council district to promote the availability of draft plans, conducted webinars, and provided an Online SelfGuided Workshop. All meetings and events were also listed on the general plan project website and were updated throughout the summer, as were links to the PDF documents online, and a companion interactive web-based mapping tool to facilitate public review of our land use maps.

Staff also worked with councilmember offices to use their newsletters and social media accounts to let the community know the City was collecting input on the 2040 General Plan and CAAP.

The City released the Draft 2040 General Plan and CAAP for public review on April 28, 2023 and emailed notices to the general plan mailing list compiled over the summer. Since release of the General Plan and CAAP, the City has held webinars, met with community/neighborhood organizations, made numerous presentations to Planning and Design Commission and City Council, and conducted outreach via social media and email to receive feedback on the 2040 General Plan and CAAP.

The City released the Draft Master EIR for a 45-day public review on August 24, 2023. Consistent with Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City posted a notice of availability (NOA) of the Draft Master EIR in the Sacramento Bulletin and Sacramento Bee newspapers on August 24, 2023; posted the Draft Master EIR on the City’s website; and sent the NOA to a list of public agencies, organizations, interested individuals regarding the availability of the Draft Master EIR.

The City has provided adequate notice for the Draft EIR and extension of the comment period is not required or appropriate. Please see Response to Comment 10-1 regarding recirculation. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-228
13-4 The comment addresses the proposed Employment Mixed Use (“EMU”) land use designation as compared to the current Employment Center Low Rise land use designation which is the current designation for the Penske facility.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
13-5 The comment refers to an Interim Ordinance relating to Commercial Truck Usage in North Sacramento.

This is separate from the 2040 General Plan and was not evaluated as part of the Draft Master EIR. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
13-6 The comment asserts that no environmental review has been completed for the Interim Ordinance and because it implements a component of the 2040 General Plan it is considered “piecemealing” and cannot be adopted until the effects of the Ordinance are considered in the context of the Draft Master EIR.

As described on page 4 of the October 3, 2023 Law and Legislation Committee Report, “The proposed interim ordinance is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3) and 15378. The proposed ordinance merely imposes an additional permit requirement for specified land uses. The ordinance does not trigger additional development, but rather modifies the development review process for considering specified projects. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines 15061(b)(3). Further, the proposed ordinance has no potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines 15378). Specified projects reviewed under the ordinance will continue to be subject to CEQA review.” The Law and Legislation Committee voted to recommend the Ordinance go to City Council for review after outreach to stakeholder groups was completed.

The CEQA Guidelines define a project under Section 15378 as “the whole of the action” that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment. This broad definition is intended to provide the maximum protection of the environment. Piecemealing or segmenting means dividing a project into two or more pieces, each with a minimal potential impact on the environment or requiring only a ministerial permit, and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document which cumulatively may have significant consequences (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency [2009] 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 235). However, environmental review is not piecemealed if the project has independent utility and a related proposal is not necessary for the project to proceed (Communities for a Better Env’t v. City of Richmond [2010] 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 108; Planning & Conservation League, supra, 237). The Interim Ordinance does not require the 2040 General Plan to proceed, and the 2040 General Plan is similarly not dependent on the Interim 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-229
Ordinance to proceed. The City will be reviewing and adopting various plans, ordinances and zoning updates as part of implementation of the general plan. These subsequent actions will be reviewed to determine if CEQA review is required, if the actions are within the scope of the Master EIR or, as in the case of the Interim Ordinance are exempt from CEQA. 13-7 The comment questions if the description of the EMU land use definition in the Draft Master EIR Project Description accurately characterizes the designation because it states the existing Employment Center Low Rise (“ECLR”) designation would essentially not change with the new EMU designation.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. However, the following response is provided to provide relevant information and respond to the comment.

The proposed EMU designation is not inconsistent with what would be allowed under the existing ECLR designation. Uses allowed under the ECLR designation include uses that generally do not produce loud noise or noxious odor:
• Industrial or manufacturing that occurs entirely within an enclosed building or an enclosed outdoor area with appropriately landscaped setbacks
• Office flex-space (i.e., industrial structures converting to office or research and design uses) • Residential and commercial flex-space (i.e., industrial structures converting to residential or commercial uses) in areas expected to transition to urban development • Office uses
• Retail and service uses that provide support to employees • Compatible public, quasi-public, and special uses
Under the proposed EMU designation allowable uses include the following:
• Light/advanced manufacturing, production, distribution, repair, testing, printing, research, and development
• Service commercial uses that do not generate substantial noise or odors • Accessory office uses
• Retail and service uses that provide support to employees • Compatible residential uses such as live-work spaces or employee housing • Hotels and motels
• Care facilities
• Assembly facilities
• Compatible public and quasi-public uses
Repair is identified as an allowable use in the EMU designation and "service commercial" typically includes vehicle maintenance, sales and leasing. The EMU designation also does not preclude outdoor activities so long as they do "not generate substantial noise or odors" the same as the ECLR designation.

The comment relates to land use and planning issues and does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-230
13-8 The comment asserts the Project Description (see Chapter 2) of the Draft Master EIR is not accurate because it creates the impression that the EMU designation allows the same uses as the ECLR designation and requests the EMU designation allow the same range of activities as under the ECLR designation.

The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. Please see also Response to Comment 13-7. 13-9 The comment asserts the Draft Master EIR did not evaluate air quality impacts associated with the displacement of general industrial uses which would require trucks to travel farther to provide goods and services within the city.

The assertion of potential displacement of existing industrial uses to areas outside of the city is speculative. The allowable uses under the EMU designation permit the same types of activities as under the existing ECLR designation. The City does not anticipate that existing industrial uses within these areas would opt to relocate elsewhere and if that were to happen there would be no way to determine how many businesses would relocate and where they would go. The analysis of air quality impacts in the Draft Master EIR evaluates the effects of implementation of the proposed Sacramento 2040 General Plan and CAAP on air quality in the Planning Area and captures the proposed increase in industrial uses, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines and guidance provided by the City and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). No further response is required.
13-10 The comment asserts the Draft Master EIR fails to analyze project-level impacts of locating sensitive receptors proximate to sources of pollutants and notes the EMU designation allows residential uses and care facilities adjacent to light industrial uses.

The Draft Master EIR is a program-level document that is tasked with analyzing environmental impacts that could result with adoption of the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan is a policy document and as such does not propose specific development projects, but designates land uses and density needed to accommodate future growth within the Planning Area.

The ECLR designation and the EMU designation each allow industrial uses that do "not generate substantial noise or odors" in addition to compatible residential uses-- the only change is the EMU designation has been expanded to allow care facilities, as noted in Response to Comment 13-7.

As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, starting on page 1-5, “[t]he general plan includes policies that will guide the physical development of the city, with resulting physical changes in the environment. Exactly where, and when, these changes will actually occur in the next twenty years is not known, nor is it feasible to know.” The same principle applies here.

The Master EIR does not assume that every parcel in the city would be developed during the general plan period, nor does it assume each such parcel would be developed to the maximum intensity allowed by the general plan. Due to market forces, as well as building and zoning restrictions when applied to specific sites, construction of less than the maximum allowable development identified in a general plan is typical. The 2040 General Plan includes a number of policies and Implementing Actions in addition to requirements set forth by SMAQMD to address health effects associated with locating sensitive uses proximate to freeways and other types of 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-231
uses. This includes Policy ERC-4.4 that requires the City to consult with SMAQMD in evaluating exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, which includes diesel particulate matter, and will impose conditions, as appropriate, on projects to protect public health and safety.

Proposals for residential and/or care facility projects within areas designed EMU would be evaluated on a project level under CEQA, if required, to ensure any potential health impacts would be identified and mitigated or reviewed by City staff to ensure compliance with relevant General Plan policies as well as SMAQMD requirements.

No further response is required.
13-11 The comment implies that under the 2040 General Plan industrial uses will be re-designated and this would affect the ability of these businesses to modify and modernize their uses to meet the City’s air quality objectives.

The 2040 General Plan includes policies M-1.36 that supports EV infrastructure readiness and installation in new development and incentivize additional levels of EV charging, and EV car share, beyond City Code minimums; M-1.37 that encourages the installation of EV charging in private development; M-1.38 where the City supports the innovative vehicle-to-grid technologies and encourages the deployment of integrated energy generation, storage, and vehicle technologies for energy reliability; and LUP-11.1 where the City supports and promotes projects that demonstrate responsible energy use and an acceleration of renewable energy generation toward a net-positive energy future. The Draft Master EIR evaluated the effect of these policies, as required by CEQA.

The comment relates to planning and land use regulation and does address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 13-12 The comment notes that the Draft Master EIRs analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions does not address displacement of industrial businesses to areas outside of the city which will also affect the ability to meet their GHG reduction goals and objectives.

Please see Responses to Comments 13-9 and 13-11 that are also applicable to GHGs. No further response is required.
13-13 The comment states the Draft Master EIR does not address potential impacts to sensitive receptors that are allowed under the EMU land use designation proposed in close proximity to McClellan Airport.

The Draft Master EIR addresses impacts associated with area airports due to potential hazardous conditions, including noise. The Draft Master EIR explains airspace within the city is subject to various stringent regulations to protect the public from potential aircraft hazards and related safety concerns based on the compatibility determinations for development around airports established by each airports’ Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).

All development near an airport, including McClellan Airport, is required to comply with the adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). To minimize compatibility issues, the ALUCP limits the height, type, and intensity of land uses surrounding airports to reduce safety concerns associated with aircraft crashes as well as uses that are sensitive to noise. Any potential noise or 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-232
safety incompatibility concerns with locating a specific land use in close proximity to an airport is thoroughly reviewed with specific recommendations set forth by the ALUC (see Section 4.9, Hazards, p. 4.9-7). The potential noise effects due to proximity to airports was evaluated in Section

4.11, Noise in the Draft Master EIR (see p. 4.11-33). As noted on page 4.11-33, the 65 dBA CNEL Land Use Compatibility Noise Contours for McClellan Airport does not cross over into the city limits, as shown on Figure 7-4 of the TBR.

When the City receives a development application in areas near existing airports, such as McClellan Airport, the airport’s ALUCP is reviewed for compatibility relating to building height and type of use. To ensure future development would be appropriate in areas near airports, the 2040 General Plan includes policies designed to address these concerns, including Policy LUP-1.13 that requires the City to work with the Sacramento County Airport System and the ALUC to ensure that new development near the area’s airports is compatible with airport operations, adopted ALUC policies, and applicable ALUCPs; Policy LUP-1.14 requires all new development within an airportdefined over-flight zone provides deed notices to future residents and property owners concerning airport over flights and noise; and Policy ERC-10.10 restricts new residential development within the 65 dBA CNEL airport noise contour, or in accordance with plans prepared by the ALUC. These policies ensure that new development in areas near airports is compatible with airport operations and that no new noise-sensitive land uses are approved within the 65 dBA CNEL noise level contour of the area’s airports.

The Draft Master EIR adequately describes and addresses potential impacts to all types of land uses in areas proximate to airports. No further response required. 13-14 The comment raises a similar concern as mentioned in earlier comments on air quality and GHGs regarding the displacement of industrial uses and effects on vehicle miles traveled.

Please see, for example, Response to Comment 13-9. No further response is required. 13-15 The comment states the 2040 General Plan proposes residential development in areas not served by transit or bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure and references the North Sacramento Community Plan. The comment asserts that development in these areas would increase vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

The North Sacramento Community Plan includes low density residential land uses, employment mixed use and commercial mixed use land use designations in areas north of Interstate 80. The 2040 General Plan does not significantly change the existing land use designations in this area but does include plans and policies to give space to walking, bicycling, and transit; calm traffic; and make streets safer for all users. The analysis of VMT provided in Section 4.14, Transportation evaluates the increase in growth of up to 69,012 housing units and up to 165,740 new residents.

The analysis relied on the SACSIM19 model that predicts the travel demand and travel patterns for residents, workers, students, visitors, and commercial vehicles throughout the region based on where new population growth may occur using the land use designations associated with each development parcel. The analysis predicted the VMT for land uses throughout the city, including areas of the city where access to transit and other modes of transportation is limited, such as areas in North Sacramento. The Draft Master EIR adequately addresses the increase in VMT attributed to buildout of the 2040 General Plan.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-233
13-16 The comment reiterates an earlier comment that no notices were received regarding the 2040 General Plan or the Draft Master EIR, including stakeholder meetings, study sessions or any other meetings held on the 2040 General Plan and Draft Master EIR.

Please see Response to Comment 13-3.
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-234

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-235
Comment Letter 14
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-236
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-237
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-238
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-239
Response to Letter 14
Tim Vendlinski
14-1 The comment requests that the City establish a Natural Areas Program that ties together the City’s 2040 General Plan, Parks Plan, Urban Forest Plan, and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan and also strengthens the 2040 General Plan environmental resource policies. The suggestion is part of the public record and can be reviewed and considered by the appropriate city staff for beneficial impacts. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for updates to the ERC policies, including the addition of new policies. 14-2 The comment provides a brief overview explaining how the various plan are not coordinated in terms of protecting natural areas and biodiversity and requests the City adopt a Natural Areas Program as the implementing mechanism to protect environmental resources in the city. See Response to Comment 14-1. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 14-3 The comment includes policies from the 2035 General Plan that address riparian, grassland and oak woodland habitat. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for updates to the ERC policies, including the addition of new policies. 14-4 The comment provides a brief history of the City and reiterates the need for the City to establish a way to evaluate, catalog, protect and provide public access to natural areas within the city’s parks system and to establish a Natural Areas Program to protect these natural areas. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required.
14-5 The comment indicates that the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) is also requesting the city establish a Natural Areas Program and to designate a network of natural areas throughout the city. The comment also refers to other areas where this has been done and would tie together a variety of City plans. The comment concludes, indicating public and private funds would be needed to manage and implement the program but would like to see the city be a leader in protecting natural resources. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-240

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-241
Comment Letter 15
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-242
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-243
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-244

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-245
Response to Letter 15
Evan Edgar, Edgar and Associates, Principal Civil Engineer 15-1 The comment is an introduction to comments provided in the letter which recommend that the 2040 General Plan include a component that addresses ‘carbon farming’ where compost derived from urban green waste can be sequestered onto working lands in the County. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. Please see Response to Comment 15-2.
15-2 The comment notes support of the Resiliency and Climate Action sections of the 2040 General Plan and the City’s goal to reduce carbon neutrality by 2045. Policies PFS-5.7 and PFS-5.1 through PFS-5.9 are referenced.

Minor edits have been made to some of these policies and are provided in Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR. The 2040 includes policies that support existing programs already in place to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of at local landfills. In addition, the City has added a new policy under goal ERC-9, Policy ERC-9.12 to encourage regenerative agriculture practices in urban agriculture uses, including carbon-sequestering practices. This policy addresses the desire by the commenter to include more carbon farming. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 15-3 The comment references information provided in the Draft Master EIR relating to paleontological and mineral resources and soil conditions and references Policy ERC-1.4.

Please see Chapter 3, Changes to the Draft Master EIR for a minor revision to Policy ERC-1.4.

No further response is required.
15-4 The comment notes support of the California Compost Coalition and the 2022 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan that addresses carbon sequestration into natural and working lands and references information from the Scoping Plan. The comment does not address the accuracy or adequacy of the Draft Master EIR; therefore, no further response is required. 4 – Comments and Responses
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 4-246

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 5-1
5 Master Environmental
Impact Report Preparers
City of Sacramento
Long Range Planning
Greg Sandlund, Planning Director
Matt Hertel, AICP, Principal Planner, Long Range Planning Manager Remi Mendoza, Senior Planner
Vic Randall, Senior Planner and Climate Action & Adaptation Project Manager Amy Yang, Associate Planner
Environmental Services
Tom Buford, Principal Planner
Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
Dyett & Bhatia (2040 General Plan)
Andrew Hill, 2040 General Plan Project Manager
Jossie Ivanov, Senior Associate
Alison Moore, Senior Associate
Dudek (Master EIR)
Christine Kronenberg, AICP, Project Manager
Angelica Chiu, Deputy Project Managers
Brian Grattidge: Land Use, Population, and Housing
Angelica Chiu: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Public Services and Recreation Ian McIntire and Matt Morales: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Energy Mike Henry: Biological Resources
Adam Giacinto and Nicholas Hanten: Cultural and Historic Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Eric Schniewind: Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources; Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding; Hazards and Public Safety; Public Utilities Michael Carr: Noise
Fehr & Peers (Transportation)
Ronald Milan, Principal
Albee Wei, Transportation Planner
5 – Master Environmental Impact Report Preparers
Sacramento 2040 Project 11499
January 2024 5-2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento City CouncilFebruary 27, 2024

Sacramento City Council
February 27, 2024