Sacramento City Council
November 18, 2025

NORTH
P
AG
LDR
LMDR

PLANNED

PUMP STATION
P
12" SS
OS
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-16
Backbone Sewer Infrastructure
SOURCE: Upper Westside Specific Plan Admin Draft #4, 2024 D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-45 PLNP2018-00284
WATER
The City of Sacramento through an agreement with the SCWA would provide water service to land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP. The City of Sacramento obtains most of its water supply from surface water in the American and Sacramento rivers, while groundwater obtained from the North American and South American subbasins of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin provides the remainder. As discussed above, the proposed UWSP would require SCWA annexation.

Water supply would be delivered to the UWSP area through the City’s water treatment and distribution system, which consists of two water treatment plants, eight pump stations, many storage reservoirs, 28 municipal wells, thousands of hydrants, and nearly 1,800 miles of pipeline.

According to the Water Master Plan prepared for the UWSP, buildout of the UWSP would require a water storage tank site southeast of the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road. From this facility, a 24-inch transmission main is proposed to connect to an existing 24-inch transmission main in El Centro Road. From this pipeline, a series of 16-inch transmission mains are planned to serve the Development Area via a system of looped pipelines in major roadway corridors (see Plate PD-17).

DRAINAGE
The UWSP area is located within the Natomas Basin, a low-lying area east of the Sacramento River, north (upstream) of its confluence with the American River. As discussed above, drainage and flood control for the Natomas Basin is provided by RD 1000.

The Drainage Master Plan prepared for the UWSP would direct stormwater runoff to four drainage sheds (see Plate PD-18). Each shed would include a detention basin. The area of the basins would range from 21.2 to 32.2 acres, depending on the water level in the basin. A description of each shed is provided below.

EAST AND NORTH SHEDS
The existing San Juan and Riverside pump stations are located in existing low-lying areas on the west side of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), which would allow accumulated stormwater to be conveyed by gravity via existing irrigation/drainage ditches and then pumped into the canal.

SOUTH SHED
Grading in the South Shed would be designed to allow post-development stormwater to flow via gravity to the South Lake Basin planned near the south end of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). From this basin, stormwater would be pumped into the canal and then conveyed north to the channel along San Juan Road. This would allow the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) to serve multiple purposes, providing a stormwater conveyance system as well as a recreational and visual amenity. Because the canal is anticipated to have a very slow flow rate, water conveyed through it from the South Lake Basin is intended to help prevent water stagnation.

Existing 30" (NCMWC)
Existing 24" T-Main (City)
30" T-Main (NCMWC)
24" T-Main
16" T-Main
River Extraction Plant
Wheel to Plan Area
Storage Tank

SYMBOL WATER DETAIL
To EL CENTRO TANK

SAN JUAN TANK (EXISTING)
16" W
24"
W 24" W
W
W
W

PLANNED
WATER

STORAGE
SITE

CONNECT TO

OFFSITE NCMWC

RIVERSIDE PLANT
*
W. EL CAMINO AVE.

EL CENTRO ROAD
STREET 7

RADIO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

FARM ROAD
STREET 2STREET

STREET C

STREET B
BRYTE BEND ROAD STREET 6
STREET 5
STREET 4
STREET 3

STREET F

STREET F
STREET 8
STREET 10

STREET G

STREET H
STREET 12

ORCHARD LANE
GARDEN

SACRAMENTO
RIVER

HIGHWAY
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.

MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR

HDR MDR HDR
HDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR

CMU CMU CMU

CMU CMU

VHDR VHDR VHDR

VHDR VHDR
HDR
HDR
K-8 1 P
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR LDR
LDR LDR LMDR K-8 2 LDR

LMDR LMDR MDR P LMDR LDR
OS
LDR
CMU
E/HC
E/HC
LDR
OS
LDR P
LDR
LDR

LMDR LMDR LMDR

LDR LDR
AR
AR
AG
P
P
LDR
LDR
AG
LDR
CC
UF
K-8 3 LDR
HS OS
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU
P
OS

CMU CMU
OS
STREET 4
STREET 3
NORTH
P
P
AG
30" W
30" W
P
16" W
30" W
P
16" W
16" W
24" W
AG
STREET 9

STREET A
OS
CMU

STREET E
VHDR D
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-17
Backbone Water Infrastructure
SOURCE: Upper Westside Specific Plan Admin Draft #4, 2024 D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator

EXISTING CITY
PUMP STATION 130

BRYTE BEND ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD
STREET 1
W. EL CAMINO

SAN JUAN ROAD

RADIO ROAD
STREET 2

FARM ROAD
STREET 7
AVENUE

WEST SHED

SOUTH SHED

EAST SHED

NORTH SHED
GARDEN
I-80

SACRAMENTO
RIVER

HIGHWAY

PLANNED

PUMP STATION

EXISTING

RIVERSIDE

PUMP STATION

EXISTING

SAN JUAN

PUMP STATION
NORTH "LAKE"
BASIN
EAST
"LAKE" BASIN

SAN JUAN ROAD

CHANNEL

EL CENTRO ROAD

CHANNEL
WEST "LAKE"
BASIN

BRYTE BEND ROAD

CHANNEL
SOUTH
"LAKE"
BASIN

MDR MDR HDR MDR HDR

HDR VHDR VHDR HDR VHDR
K-8 1
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
AG
P
AG
AG
LDR
CC
UF
LDR K-8 3
HS
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
P
OS
MDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR

CMU CMU CMU CMU

CMU CMU

VHDR VHDR VHDR

CMU CMU
MDR
HDR
P
LDR
LDR
LMDR
AR
AR
AG
P
LDR
LDR

WESTSIDE
CANAL

LDR LDR P

LMDR LMDR

LDR LDR
E/HC

LDR LDR
P

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR
LDR
LMDR K-8 2 LDR

MDR P LMDR LDR
LDR
CMU
E/HC
P

CITY PUMP
STATION 160

EXISTING

PUMPING PLANT
1A & 1B
Planned Detention Basin/W.Q. Basin

SYMBOL DRAINAGE DETAIL
West Main Drainage Canal
(aka Witter Canal)
Westside Canal
Shed Boundary
Drainage Channel
Pump Station
Storm Drain
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.

NORTH

PLANNED

PUMP STATION
P
P
CMU
P
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-18
Backbone Drainage Infrastructure
SOURCE: Upper Westside Specific Plan Admin Draft #4, 2024 D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-48 PLNP2018-00284

WEST SHED
Grading for the West Shed would be designed to allow post-development stormwater to flow via gravity to the West Lake Basin, which is located at the southwest corner of San Juan Road and Bryte Bend Road. Due to flat terrain and planned basin depth, a pumping facility is needed to move stormwater to the east. By pumping into the drainage channel along the south side of San Juan Road, this channel configuration would allow the landscape corridor on the southeast side of this intersection to be at grade, which would allow a bike/ped access to the adjacent neighborhood at the corner.

DRY UTILITIES
SMUD and PG&E would provide electrical and natural gas service, respectively, to land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP. As discussed above, buildout of the UWSP would require two new electric substations (see Plate PD-19). Substation No. 1 would be located southwest of the intersection of Street 2 and El Centro Road while Substation No. 2 would be located southeast of the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road. The exact configuration of these substations would be determined in coordination with SMUD after the UWSP is approved, and tentative maps and improvement plans have been processed for the adjacent parcels. Additionally, a looping network of 12 kV lines is planned to serve the Development Area.

Existing natural gas infrastructure in the UWSP area may be plumbed along arterial and collector streets so that natural gas lines can be extended to serve commercial uses and the high school and community college sites within the Development Area in the future. Natural gas would not be extended to single-family homes, as the UWSP is pursuing a goal of Net Zero Energy (NZE) design.

PUBLIC SPACES AND SERVICES

PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
The UWSP includes approximately 146.6 acres of parks and amenities (see Plate PD-20). A description of the parks and amenities provided by the UWSP is provided below.

WESTSIDE CANAL
The Westside Canal would encompass approximately 15.0 acres and would be one mile in length and approximately 120 feet in width. This width includes an 80-foot water surface with a headwall and railing, and a 30-foot-wide corridor to either side. The corridor would allow a continuous 12-foot bike/pedestrian pathway along the edge of the canal, providing a scenic connection to the Town Center’s core (see Specific Plan Figure 6-2).

Existing WAPA 120 kV Line
Existing SMUD 69 kV Line
Planned SMUD 69kV Line
Planned SMUD 12 kV Line

COLOR SERVICE CLASSIFICATION

EL CENTRO ROAD
STREET 1
W. EL CAMINO AVE.

STREET 7

RADIO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD
STREET 2

FARM ROAD
GARDEN
I-80
I-5

SACRAMENTO
RIVER
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR

HDR HDR MDR
HDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR

CMU CMU CMU CMU

CMU CMU

VHDR VHDR VHDR

VHDR VHDR VHDR
HDR
HDR
K-8 1 P
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
P LDR
LDR LMDR LDR K-8 2 LDR

LMDR LMDR MDR LMDR P LDR
OS
LDR

CMU E/HC
E/HC
LDR
OS
P LDR
LDR
LDR

LMDR LMDR LMDR

LDR LDR
AR
AR
AG
AG
P
LDR
LDR
AG
AG
LDR
CC
UF
K-8 3 LDR
HS OS
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU
P
OS

CMU CMU

HIGHWAY

EXISTING WAPA
120 KV LINE BRYTE BEND ROAD

EXISTING SMUD
69 KV LINE

PLANNED

ELECTRIC
SUBSTATION #1

EXISTING ELECTRIC

SUBSTATION
Existing SMUD Electric Substation
Planned SMUD Electric Substation
OS
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.

NORTH
P
P

PLANNED
12 KV LINE
Existing PG&E Gas Line
Comcast
P

TO NNPP

PLANNED ELECTRIC
SUBSTATION #2
OS
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-19
Dry Utilities
SOURCE: Upper Westside Specific Plan Admin Draft #4, 2024 D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator

WEST LAKE
BASIN
W
W
*
W
W

EAST DISTRICT
PARK

BRYTE BEND ROAD
GREENBELT & U.F.

CORRIDOR
URBAN FARM*
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.

NORTH
OS
OS
GARDEN

SACRAMENTO
RIVER
MDR
HDR
HDR
K-8 1
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LMDR
AR
AG
LDR

HIGHWAY

BRYTE BEND ROAD
GREENBELT & U.F.

CORRIDOR
OS

TOWN CENTER
PARK
MDR
MDR

HDR MDR HDR
HDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR

CMU CMU CMU CMU

VHDR VHDR

VHDR VHDR VHDR

CMU CMU
W. EL CAMINO

FARM ROAD
STREET 2
AVENUE

CMU CMU
LDR
LMDR LMDR K-8 2 LDR

MDR LMDR LDR
LDR
CMU
E/HC

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

LDR LDR
LDR
AR

LDR LDR
LDR

LMDR LMDR
AG
AG
LDR
CC
K-8 3 LDR
HS
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU
I-80
I-5

BOLLINGER
PARK
NORTH
LAKE
BASIN
EAST

LAKE BASIN
EAST

TIP PARK

NORTH CANAL
PARK
SOUTH
CANAL
PARK
STREET 1

SOUTH LAKE
BASIN

POWERLINE
GREENBELT & U.F.

CORRIDOR

EAST/WEST GREENBELT
& U.F. CORRIDOR

BRYTE BEND ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

RADIO ROAD
OS
1/4 MI.

RADIUS
1/4 MI.

RADIUS

NORTHWEST
PARK
OS

SOUTHWEST
PARK

AG-BUFFER

AG-BUFFER
Park
Canal
Greenbelt/Urban Farm
Primary Urban Farm Node
Secondary Urban Farm Node
Open Space
Landscape Corridor
Ag-Buffer
1/4-Mile Radius of Park, Urban Farm, & Canal

COLOR LAND USE DISTRICT
W

PROXIMITY TO PARKS
LU-120 CB-2 Standard: 80% target for 1/2-Mile radius.
98% units within 1/4-Mile of Parks, Urban Farm & Canal

STREET ASTREET BSTREET C

STREET D
OS
OS
OS
MDR
LDR
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS

SCHOLAR'S
PARK
*Note: The 10.0 ac. Urban Farm south of
Scholar's Park will be owned and operated
by Los Rios Community College District.

WESTSIDE CANAL

MAIN STREET MEDIAN PARK
VHDR
*

WEST EDGE
PARK

AG-BUFFER
AG
*
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-20
Parks and Open Space Plan
SOURCE: Upper Westside Specific Plan Admin Draft #4, 2024 D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-51 PLNP2018-00284

WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE MEDIAN PARK
The Median Park would consist of five landscaped median islands and a roundabout in the center of West El Camino Avenue, which collectively would provide approximately

2.6 acres of park space. As a central gathering space along the Town Center’s primary commercial corridor, the Median Park is intended to function as a public plaza and attractive shady gathering space that can be actively programmed for community events.

ACTIVE PARKS
The proposed UWSP would include 10 active parks totaling approximately 76.4 acres.

The parks have been distributed throughout the Development Area so that 90 percent of residential dwelling units would be within a one-quarter mile walking distance of a park.

Active parks would range in size from approximately 2.9 to 18.4 acres. Smaller parks are targeted for local neighborhood needs and informal play and could provide a practice field for youth soccer and t-ball, a basketball court, or a play structure. The two larger parks – Town Center Park and East District Park – would provide multiple ball fields and hard courts for formal sports league play. A brief description of the two larger parks is provided below.

TOWN CENTER PARK
The approximately 18.4-acre Town Center Park would be located at the western terminus of West El Camino Avenue, west of the Bryte Bend Road roundabout. As the primary community park within the UWSP area, it is envisioned to include large, open turf areas for ballfields that accommodate recreational adult and youth sports. An outdoor pavilion area would also be included that would serve as a central gathering space for major outdoor community events such as theater performances, informal concerts, cultural events, special ceremonies, speeches, etc. A PA system would be provided, thus providing opportunities for amplified speaking and music events.

The facility would also include lighting. While the specifics for the design of the proposed lighting have not been determined, as discussed in the Development Standards and Design Guidelines included as part of the proposed UWSP, all outdoor lighting shall be directed away from adjacent areas to minimize light pollution caused by glare or spillage into neighboring properties.

EAST DISTRICT PARK
The approximately 17.4-acre East District Park would be located east of El Centro Road, along the northern edge of Farm Road. The park is anticipated to include large turf areas with ballfields for adult and youth league sports, plus hard courts, tot lots, picnic areas, shade structures, restrooms, and other amenities. It is also anticipated that the park would include lighting; no PA system is anticipated. Again, while the specifics for the design of the proposed lighting have not been determined, all outdoor lighting shall be directed away from adjacent areas to minimize light pollution caused by glare or spillage into neighboring properties.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-52 PLNP2018-00284

GREENBELT CORRIDORS AND URBAN FARMS
The UWSP would include a comprehensive network of greenbelt corridors and urban farm nodes that would support the planned bikeway network by providing attractive north/south and east/west parkways for off-street Class I bike trail connections between neighborhoods.

Land designated for this network would total approximately 44.0 acres. These linear greenbelt corridors are envisioned to serve several functions. To begin, they would provide a wide, landscaped parkway that would enhance the streetscape appearance along key roadway corridors and would provide a buffer between uses. Next, they would incorporate Class I trails that form a significant network of street-separated bicycle and pedestrian pathways throughout the Development Area. Finally, they would include several urban farming “nodes,” which would be strategically located throughout the community near residential neighborhoods and schools. These features provide points of interest along greenbelts and are planned to be managed and maintained by County non-profits and/or local residents. The nodes would include raised planter beds for vegetables, herbs and cut flower gardens, edible landscaping, and potentially tool sheds and greenhouses.

BASIN PERIMETER PARKWAYS
As discussed above, four lake basins are planned as part of the UWSP’s storm drain system, each sized at approximately 20 acres to provide detention and water quality features. Each lake basin is designed to include an approximately 50-foot-wide landscaped parkway along its perimeter, except where they are adjacent to the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) and the RD 1000 levee.

OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL USES
The open space program included in the UWSP would include agricultural lands to the west identified as the Ag Buffer, open space buffers around the perimeter of the Development Area, and internal drainage facilities.

AG BUFFER
The approximately 542-acre Ag Buffer consists of two key components: an approximately 505-acre area designated for Ag Residential and Ag Cropland land uses and an approximately 36.6-acre Open Space buffer. The approximately 505 acres of Ag use are currently utilized for small-scale farming and for habitat mitigation. The approximately 36.6-acre Open Space buffer is located along the west and north edges of the Development Area. This buffer consists of a 250-foot-wide open space buffer along the northwest edge of the plan area, adjacent to the southern edge of Fisherman’s Lake, and a 30- to 50-foot-wide open space corridor along the west edge of the Development Area.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-53 PLNP2018-00284

OTHER OPEN SPACE
A 7.4-acre Open Space corridor is provided along the southeasterly edge of the Development Area, which accommodates an existing sewer line easement and provides a buffer between residential uses and I-80. A 2.0-acre open space parcel is located directly south of the easterly tip of the UWSP area due to an existing sewer line easement in that location and would provide an additional buffer for development.

Finally, an 11.5-acre open space parcel is located north of the eastern tip of the UWSP area and includes the downslope side of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), controlled by RD 1000.

LAKE BASINS AND DRAINAGE CHANNELS
These open space features are part of the planned storm drainage system and include approximately 117.6 acres, with 82.6 acres designated for stormwater detention facilities and approximately 35.0 acres designated for drainage channels.

LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS
Approximately 28.0 acres of landscaped corridors are provided alongside major roadways within the Development Area. These landscaped corridors are intended to provide attractive streetscapes, and in many cases include a Class I bike trail and tree plantings to shade roadways

SCHOOLS
The UWSP would include sites for three K-8 Schools (K-8), a High School (HS), and a Community College (CC) within the Development Area. All the three K-8 School sites have been strategically distributed throughout the Development Area so that over 90 percent of the proposed residential units would be within three-quarters of a mile of a K-8 School site. Each K-8 School site would be a minimum of 16 acres in size and be located adjacent to a park site to allow shared use of facilities. The HS site is approximately 85 acres in size, which is larger than the approximately 50 acres typically required for a high school. Finally, the CC site would be approximately 11 acres in size and would accommodate a vocational training campus that would provide curriculum focused on “hands-on” learning experiences for students, such as an “Ag Tech” or “New Tech” programs.

LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Sacramento Sheriff’s Department currently provides law enforcement services to the UWSP area and would continue to do so after approval of the UWSP. A potential approximately 2.0-acre sheriff’s substation has been identified within land designated for E/HC at the east end of Farm Road to provide a local presence and “landing area” for sheriff’s department staff.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
The UWSP area is located in the Natomas Fire Protection District. The City of Sacramento Fire Department is contracted by the Natomas Fire Protection District and County of Sacramento to provide fire and emergency services to the UWSP area and 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-54 PLNP2018-00284
would continue to do so after approval of the UWSP. As discussed above, a potential Fire Station site has been reserved at the southeast corner of Bryte Bend Road and Street 2, which is southwest of the Town Center District.

LIBRARIES
Library services would be provided by the Sacramento Public Library Authority, an entity that partners with Sacramento County. To better serve the UWSP area, it is anticipated that the Los Rios Community College District or NUSD would participate in a shareduse library within the educational node proposed in the northern portion of the Development Area. The shared-use library would be located either on the proposed CC site located on the northwest corner of San Juan Road and Bryte Bend Road, or on the proposed HS site located directly to the east across Bryte Bend Road.

IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
Roadway improvements and associated storm drainage/water quality features would occur outside the Development Area but within the Ag Buffer. The improvements would be associated with the extension of Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road to the Garden Highway. The land use plan depicted in Plate PD-13 identifies the location of the roadway improvements. Because no development would occur in the Ag Buffer, no other infrastructure improvements would be required in this portion of the UWSP area.

OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed UWSP would include a variety of offsite improvements (see Plate PD-21). A description of the improvements is provided below.  Garden Highway Roadway Connections – The proposed plan would include connections to Garden Highway at Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road. Improvements associated with these connections include exclusive southbound left-turn lanes at Radio and San Juan Roads, roadside flares at either side of the stop-controlled intersection at Street 9, and an exclusive northbound right-turn lane at Bryte Bend Road. All improvements would require roadway widening on the landside of the Sacramento River levee.  Roadway Improvements to El Centro Road, Natomas Central Drive, and Arena Boulevard – Improvements would be required at the intersection of El Centro Road and Natomas Central Drive/Arena Boulevard that would affect all four legs of the intersection. Upgrades to the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) culvert south of the intersection would also be required.  Bike Trail Bridge Crossing – The proposed UWSP includes a potential bike trail bridge crossing of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) to the east of the intersection of El Centro and Radio roads. The bridge would connect to the bicycle trail located on the eastern side of the canal. It is anticipated that the design of the bridge would utilize footings.
0 1000
2000
4000

POTENTIAL BIKE TRAIL BRIDGE

CROSSING OF LEVEE AND

CONNECTION TO TRAIL ON

EAST SIDE OF CANAL

POTENTIAL STORMWATER PUMP

DISCHARGE LOCATION AND

BANK ARMORING FOR

EROSION PREVENTION

RADIO ROAD

CONNECTION TO

GARDEN HIGHWAY

SAN JUAN ROAD

CONNECTION TO

GARDEN HIGHWAY
STREET 9

CONNECTION TO

GARDEN HIGHWAY

BRYTE BEND ROAD

CONNECTION TO

GARDEN HIGHWAY

POTENTIAL WATER

CONNECTION TO EXISTING

IN WEST RIVER DRIVE

POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS

OR EXPANSION OF

INTERCHANGE

POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT

CORRIDOR FOR SEWER

FORCE MAIN

ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

TO EL CENTRO ROAD

AND SAN JUAN ROAD
LEGEND
OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT AREAS - 101.9± AC.

WEST CANAL - 16.6± AC.

INTERSTATE 80
INTERSTATE 5

SACRAMENTO RIVER

POTENTIAL
SMUD 69kV LINE
POTENTIAL SMUD 69kV LINE

POTENTIAL
SMUD 69kV
LINE

ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO

EL CENTRO ROAD, NATOMAS

CENTRAL DRIVE, AND ARENA
BOULEVARD; CULVERT
UPGRADES TO CANAL.

Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-21
Offsite Improvements
SOURCE: Wood Rodgers, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-56 PLNP2018-00284
 Stormwater Pump Discharge and Bank Armoring – The proposed UWSP would discharge water into the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) at two potential locations: one at the northeastern corner of the existing River View Subdivision, to the east of El Centro Road and north of San Juan Road, and the other at the southeastern corner of the existing River View Subdivision, east of El Centro Road and south of San Juan Road. The banks of the levees would be reinforced at these locations to prevent erosion.
 Roadway Improvements to El Centro Road and San Juan Road – Improvements would be required at the intersection of El Centro and San Juan roads that would affect all four legs of the intersection.  Force Main to New Natomas Pump Station – A new sewer force main would need to be extended from the UWSP area east to the NNPS to serve future development contemplated under the proposed UWSP. There are two potential alignments being considered. One alignment would extend the force main from the planned pump station near the intersection of Street 8 and El Centro Road east along San Juan Road to the NNPS (1.8 miles). This line would run parallel to the existing sewer trunk line in San Juan Road. The other alignment would extend the force main directly east from the pump station to a greenbelt along the canal paralleling I-80 and continuing along the canal north to San Juan Road, then east to the NNPS (1.7 miles).
 I-80/West El Camino Avenue Interchange – Project buildout would require the reconstruction of the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange to accommodate the travel needs of the proposed UWSP and provide for a more bicycle/pedestrian-friendly design. All improvements would occur within the existing right-of-way.
 Water Connection to West River Drive – The proposed UWSP would be served by the City of Sacramento’s water distribution system. One potential point of connection is across I-80 from the southeastern corner of the UWSP area to the east along West River Drive. This improvement would involve boring underneath I-80.

SUSTAINABILITY
As discussed above, sustainability was taken into consideration during the design of the proposed UWSP. The following policies listed in the proposed UWSP would enhance the community’s long-term sustainability.

GENERAL
 Subsequent development applications shall be consistent with the Land Use Plan, circulation network, infrastructure systems, park and open space systems, and other aspects of the UWSP to implement the sustainability features that are woven into the plan.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-57 PLNP2018-00284
 To contribute to the long-term sustainability of the community, infrastructure, roadways, and dry utilities shall be designed and constructed to provide efficient and effective service and shall contribute to the long-term reliability of these systems, and to improve the ability to respond to emergencies.

HABITAT
 Impacts to sensitive species within the Plan Area shall be mitigated through the conservation and/or re-creation of habitat areas at on-site and/or off-site locations, as required by applicable mitigation measures in the UWSP EIR.

AGRICULTURAL LAND
 Projects within the Plan Area shall mitigate for the loss of agricultural lands (e.g., Prime Farmland, Statewide Importance) on an in-kind basis as development occurs, in accordance with the Upper Westside Resource Conservation Strategy, County requirements, and EIR mitigation measures.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
 Individual development projects or construction phases shall be reviewed for potential impacts to cultural resources (e.g., historical, tribal, paleontological) as development applications are submitted for review, as required by applicable mitigation measures in the UWSP EIR.
 Where not provided for individual parcels within the Plan Area during the preparation of the UWSP, additional cultural resource studies may be required by the County with subsequent development applications, and projects may be conditioned to provide construction monitoring activities.

AIR QUALITY
 To reduce vehicular travel and related GHG emissions, subsequent development applications shall be consistent with the Land Use Plan and Chapter 4, Mobility, which incorporates an extensive and well-connected network of bikeways, pedestrian trails, and a public transit system.
 To reduce emissions and progress toward the goal of a Net Zero Electric Community, all electric” residential design shall be required on all conventional residential (i.e., LDR, LMDR, MDR, HDR, and VHDR) and to the extent practical on other land use designations (i.e., CMU, EHC). (See related policies in Chapter 10, Energy.)
 To maximize the tree canopy and vegetative mass to allow carbon sequestration, landscape corridors and medians along arterial and collector streets, landscape areas around the perimeter of basins or parks, greenbelts, and along open space corridors shall be densely planted with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees, shrubs, or groundcovers appropriate to the site constraints, soil conditions, and availability of irrigation.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-58 PLNP2018-00284

WATER QUALITY
 Subsequent development applications shall incorporate water quality measures that are appropriate to the location and situation and in accordance with the menu of options (e.g., amended soils, bio-retention, water quality basins) as allowed by the County’s Storm Water Quality Design Manual.

WATER CONSERVATION
 Development projects shall follow the County’s adopted Water Conservation requirements for the landscaping of public spaces.
 All new building construction shall be subject to the County's Building Code requirements for low flow appliances and fixtures.

ENERGY
 To implement energy-conserving measures and reduce energy use compared to “business as usual,” all development shall incorporate the latest energy-efficient construction standards in accordance with Title 24 and shall incorporate 75 percent of Tier 2 Voluntary Green Building measures as identified by the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) for residential or non-residential buildings that are in effect at time of building permit issuance.  To reduce energy demand, lighting for public spaces and building interiors shall utilize light-emitting diode (LED) and other low-wattage lighting to the extent feasible as a strategy.
 To promote the state’s electrification of transportation goals, all single-family residential garages shall provide a Level II 240A electrical outlet for electric vehicle charging. Private developments within the CMU areas adjacent to West El Camino Avenue shall provide conveniently placed charging outlets for micromobility devices such as e-bikes, e-scooters, or e-boards.  To provide energy resilience, all single-family residential development is encouraged to provide on-site battery storage to augment power supply and reduce late-afternoon/evening peak-hour demands.

SOLID WASTE REDUCTION/DIVERSION
 Urban farming nodes shall incorporate green waste composting areas at a small scale as a method of reducing the waste stream, improving soil health and providing mulch, and supporting sustainable organic farming methods.  The County solid waste provider should explore the possibility of establishing a green waste facility as a larger-scale method of providing mulch and soil amendments to the parks, open spaces, and residents within the plan area. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-59 PLNP2018-00284

PHASING
It is anticipated that buildout of the proposed UWSP would take approximately 20 years.

With 9,356 units and 3.1 million square feet proposed for the Development Area, the average pace of construction could result in the construction of 468 dwelling units and 155,000 square feet of non-residential space per year, with a target buildout date of 2044.

An approximately 295-acre Phase 1 area has been identified to advance the initial construction of a sewer lift station and a 1.7-mile off-site force main, as well as the extension of water mains. The cost of this initial phase of infrastructure is a significant undertaking but would provide backbone systems that are needed to serve the remainder of the Development Area. Residential development contemplated under Phase 1 includes 1,067 single-family units, 404 low-rise apartment units, 914 midrise apartment units, and 816 high-rise apartments while non-residential development anticipated under Phase 1 includes 1.3 million square feet of office development, an elementary school, and a 33.5-acre community park.

A preliminary phasing plan is illustrated in Plate PD-22 but would be subject to change as development occurs in response to market demand over time. Changes to the sequencing of individual development phases are permitted without an amendment to the proposed UWSP, provided that the improvements in each phase adequately support the associated development. This includes the ability for the Town Center to commence construction in an earlier phase than is identified on the preliminary phasing plan exhibit. Ultimate development phasing would be coordinated with and approved by County staff with processing of subsequent improvement plans for construction of public facilities.

INTENDED USES OF THE EIR
The EIR is intended to apply to the project approvals listed below, as well as to any other approvals that may be necessary to implement the proposed UWSP. The County of Sacramento is the CEQA lead agency for the project. The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will use the information contained in the EIR in evaluating the proposed UWSP and rendering a decision to approve or deny approvals of the project. County of Sacramento officials and agencies will use the EIR for other County permits and approvals of the project authorized or required by the County Code and/or state law.

The EIR will also serve as the CEQA document for approvals of the project by other local and state agencies with discretionary authority regarding the project (i.e., responsible agencies). Responsible agencies pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 may include, but are not limited to, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Transportation. Federal agencies that may rely on this EIR in taking action on the project include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

OS
OS OS
P
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LMDR

LMDR LMDR

LMDR LMDR
MDR
MDR
MDR

MDR MDR HDR HDR
CMU

CMU CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU

HDR HDR VHDR VHDR VHDR

VHDR VHDR
HDR
OS
LDR
HDR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
EHC
CMU
CMUCMU
CMU
CMU
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR
P
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.

NORTH
OS
G/UF
GARDEN

HIGHWAY
G/UF
OS
OS
OS
AR
AR
AG
AG
AG
CC
UF
HS
P

HDR VHDR

MDR MDR HDR
K-8 1
K-8 2
K-8 3
P
P
P
P
P
P
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU
G/UF
LDR
LDR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
OS
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4

SYMBOL PHASE CLASSIFICATION
G/UF
EHC P
AG
LDR
OS
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-22
Preliminary Phasing Plan
SOURCE: Upper Westside Specific Plan Admin Draft #4, 2024 D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-61 PLNP2018-00284
Table PD-3 below includes information required by Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines and summarizes the following intended uses of the EIR:
 A list of agencies that are expected to use the EIR in their decision-making.  A list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project.  A list of related environmental review and consultation requirements included in federal, state, or local laws, regulations, or policies.

Table PD-3: Subsequent Permits, Approvals, Review, and
Consultation Requirements
Agency Approval
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Final environmental impact report certification Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Specific Plan Adoption U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit California Department of Fish and Wildlife Incidental take permit Sacramento County Local Agency Formation
Commission
Annexation
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Electric utilities services, utilities, and future facilities Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District Various permits

Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-1 PLNP2018-00284
3 ALTERNATIVES

OVERVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, this EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that might feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the project. The feasibility of an alternative is determined by the lead agency based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and site accessibility and control (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]).

The chapter discloses the comparative effects of each of the alternatives relative to the proposed UWSP and evaluates the relationship of the alternatives to the objectives of the proposed plan. As required under Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, an environmentally superior alternative is identified at the end of this chapter for the proposed plan.

FACTORS IN THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the proposed UWSP are used to evaluate the reasonableness and feasibility of each alternative. As presented in Chapter 2, Project Description, the objectives for the project are as follows:

1. Formulate a specific plan and related land use planning documents and regulatory approvals for the UWSP area as a means of expanding the Urban Services Boundary (USB) and Urban Policy Area (UPA) in an orderly manner and accommodating the County’s share of future regional population growth.

2. Create a land use plan that satisfies County policies, regulations, and expectations, as defined in the General Plan, including Policies LU-114, LU-119, and LU-120.

3. Provide a comprehensively planned, high-quality, large-scale, residential-based community in northwestern Sacramento County, directly northwest of the City of Sacramento, with a balanced mix of uses, employment opportunities, a wide variety of housing types, park and open space, and supporting public and quasipublic uses.

4. Develop a master-planned community that can be efficiently served by existing infrastructure or proposed infrastructure that would encourage logical, orderly development and would discourage leapfrog or piecemeal development and sprawl.
3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-2 PLNP2018-00284

5. Provide residential housing within five miles of the existing job centers of downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, as well as in close proximity to newly developing or proposed job centers.

6. Create a development that has an overall positive economic impact on Sacramento County and achieves a neutral to positive fiscal impact on the County’s finances and existing ratepayers.

7. Create a community that can be logically and efficiently phased to allow the orderly build-out of the community.

8. Provide a safe and efficient circulation system that interconnects land uses and promotes pedestrian and bicycle circulation and transit options that will encourage non-vehicular trips, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

9. Incorporate parks and open space, including an urban farm-greenbelt and canal, into the project design in a manner that provides community connectivity and encourages walking and bicycle use.

10.Make efficient use of development opportunity as the project site is bordered on three sides by existing or planned urban development.

11.Plan for enough units to provide housing choices in varying densities to respond to a range of market segments, including opportunities for rental units and affordable housing, and significant commercial uses, consistent with the General Plan and Housing Element.

12.Design a land use plan where the development footprint avoids impacts to wetland resources to the extent feasible.

13.Develop a specific plan that respects existing agricultural land uses and operations to the west of the proposed 1,532-acre Development Area.

14.Provide for development that meets the seven identified Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Blueprint principles, including provision of transportation choice, compact development, mixed use development, housing choice and diversity, use of existing assets, natural resource conservation, and quality design.

15.Develop the project and any associated on- and/or off-site mitigation to complement the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and the Metro Airpark Habitat Conservation Plan.

16.Designate open space preserves along the south side of Fisherman’s Lake Slough or along the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) that provide natural buffer to these features, and along the westerly edge of the proposed 1,532-acre Development Area to provide a transition between residential and agricultural designations to the west, which will provide a regional benefit for habitat, resources, and open space amenities.

17.Balance development with resource protection in an inter-connected, permanent open space.
3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-3 PLNP2018-00284

18.Create multi-functional habitat within open space corridors that provide on-site habitat and contribute to water quality.

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The environmental effects of the proposed UWSP on various aspects of the environment are discussed in detail in Chapters 4 through 20 of this Draft EIR. The significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposed UWSP is approved are listed below.
• Degradation of Existing Views and Visual Quality
• Substantially Degrade Existing Visual Character or Quality • New Sources of Light
• Conversion of Farmland to Nonagricultural Uses
• Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Applicable Air Quality Plan during Project Operation
• Long-Term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors • Exposure of Existing Off-Site Sensitive Receptors to TACs during Operation • Exposure of Future On-Site Sensitive Receptors to TACs during Operation • Historical Resources
• Archaeological Resources
• Human Remains
• Increase in Traffic Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors • Increase in Stationary Noise from Plan Components at Existing Receptors • Increase in Stationary Noise from Plan Components at Proposed Sensitive Receptors
• Inducement of Substantial Unplanned Population Growth • Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System
• Hazards Due to Design or Incompatible Uses
• Tribal Cultural Resources
3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-4 PLNP2018-00284

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER

EVALUATION
In identifying alternatives to the proposed UWSP, primary consideration was given to alternatives that could reduce significant unavoidable impacts resulting from development of the proposed plan while still achieving the basic objectives of the proposed plan. Certain impacts that are identified as being significant and unavoidable under the proposed UWSP (e.g., increase in noise levels from project construction and operation) would be due primarily to developing a vacant site. These impacts would not be eliminated, but could be reduced, for example, by limiting the scale of development allowed under the proposed plan, reconfiguring uses, or implementing specific measures. An alternative that would reduce the intensity of development allowed under the proposed UWSP is addressed later in this chapter.

Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the County to disclose alternatives that were considered but rejected from further analysis in this Draft EIR and provide the rationale for dismissal of those alternatives. According to the CEQA Guidelines, “among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.”

ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LOCATION
In developing the proposed UWSP and alternatives, consideration was given to the density and intensity of development that could meet project objectives and reduce significant impacts. Many of the anticipated significant impacts would result from the density and intensity of the development proposed. The analysis of alternatives to the proposed UWSP must also address “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[f][2][A].) Only those locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered. If no feasible alternative locations exist, the agency must disclose the reasons for this conclusion. (Section 15126.6[f][2][B].) In this case, alternative sites would entail either the same or new significant environmental effects as those that would occur within the UWSP area. For example, development of the proposed UWSP on any suitable alternative site in or around the County may not avoid or substantially lessen the project’s air quality or greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, as those impacts would occur no matter where the development is located and could be worse if located farther away from a major transportation corridor or in areas with existing unacceptable traffic levels.

Moreover, an alternative site that is not adjacent to already developed lands would likely result in greater aesthetic and utilities impacts than those that would occur within the UWSP area.

In addition, while other large vacant properties located adjacent to the City of Sacramento in northwest Sacramento County could feasibly achieve many of the project objectives, those lands are not available as planning applications for these lands 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-5 PLNP2018-00284
have already been filed with the City of Sacramento and with the County of Sacramento. Furthermore, while other large vacant properties are available in other portions of the county that could feasibly achieve many of the project objectives, none are located along a major transportation corridor within proximity of existing job centers in downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, as well as near newly developing or proposed job centers, which is an objective of the proposed UWSP.

Finally, although the project applicants only control 292 acres or 14 percent of the UWSP area, an offsite alternative would not be feasible as the project applicants do not control any other properties within Sacramento County.

INFILL ALTERNATIVE
SACOG is currently undertaking a scenario planning effort, referred to as Pathways, as part of the process to update its Sacramento Region Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy or Blueprint. Three scenarios are currently being considered: Pathway 1, Outward Expansion and Limited Infill; Pathway 2, Balanced Infill and Phased Expansion; and Pathway 3, Focused Infill and Limited Expansion. Per SACOG staff (K. Lizon), a new scenario may be developed due to ongoing analysis and feedback received from the public and SACOG member jurisdictions.

Pathway 1 builds on the land use trends over the last two decades and expands the footprint of the region outward through significant lower density growth in developing communities and rural residential areas. As a result, most growth would consist of largelot single-family and rural residential units and the least amount of infill growth. The land use forecast to be developed under Pathway 2 is based on key land use metrics from the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) that are to be updated with current conditions. In the 2020 MTP/SCS, roughly 65 percent of new housing and 85 percent of new jobs were in infill areas and roughly 73 percent of new homes consisted of either small lot single-family or attached products. Finally, Pathway 3 directs most of the region’s future growth to infill areas such as centers and corridors and established communities. The intent of this pathway is to explore the performance implications of a future that significantly departs from today’s land use trends. Housing under Pathway 3 would consist mostly of new small-lot and attached housing products.

The Infill Alternative envisions the growth included in the proposed UWSP being directed toward three corridors located within unincorporated Sacramento County:
(1) Florin Road; (2) North Watt Avenue; and (3) Stockton Boulevard Central and South (see Plate ALT-1). Growth within these corridors would be developed based on the “inward expansion model” associated with Pathway 3. According to this model, it is assumed that by 2050, these corridors could support an additional 4,980 jobs and 11,800 housing units, and thus could accommodate the 9,356 dwelling units and the approximately 10,300 jobs included in the proposed UWSP (see Table ALT-1). !(7
!(4
!(3
!(14
!(6
!(5
!(14
!(13
!(1
!(11
!(9
!(10
!(8
!(2
!(12
I 80
HWY 50
HWY 99

FOLSOM BLVD

FLORIN RD

JACKSON RD

SUNRISE BLVD

FAIR OAKS BLVD

MADISON AVE AUBURN BLVD

GRANT LINE RD

BRADSHAW RD
J ST

HAZEL AVE
BUSINESS 80

ARDEN WAY

SHELDON RD

EL CAMINO AVE

HOWE AVE
I ST
H ST

ELDER CREEK RD

WATT AVE

FRUITRIDGE RD

BELL AVE

S WATT AVE

ELVERTA RD

STOCKTON BLVD
65TH ST
24TH ST

DILLARD RD

ROSEVILLE RD

SAN JUAN AVE

MACK RD

FRANKLIN BLVD
16TH ST

ELK GROVE-FLORIN RD
HWY 160

BROADWAY

OLD AUBURN RD

LINCOLN AVE

ANTELOPE RD

ELKHORN BLVD

MARYSVILLE BLVD

ELVAS AVE

ELSIE AVE

SYLVAN RD

OAK AVE

RIO LINDA BLVD

DEL PASO BLVD

GREENBACK LN
I 80
AUBURN BLVD 65TH ST

RIO LINDA BLVD
HWY 50

SUNRISE BLVD
16TH ST
I ST

OAK AVE

ROSEVILLE RD
HWY 99

ELVAS AVE
BUSINESS 80

WATT AVE

ELVERTA RD

GRANT LINE RD

RANCHO CORDOVA

ELK GROVE

SACRAMENTO

CITRUS HEIGHTS
Study Corridors
Incorporated City
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

1. Florin Road

2. Watt Ave. North

3. Auburn Blvd. North

4. Fair Oaks Blvd. Central

5. Franklin Blvd.

6. Greenback Lane

7. Stockton Blvd. South

8. Auburn Blvd. South

9. Fair Oaks Blvd. West

10. Fair Oaks Blvd. East

11. Fulton Blvd.

12. Stockton Blvd. Central

13. Watt Ave. Central

14. Folsom Blvd. Í
FOLSOM
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate ALT-1
Inll Alternative Growth Corridors
SOURCE: Sacramento County, 2023
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-7 PLNP2018-00284
Table ALT-1: Infill Corridors
Corridor
Base-Year Inward Expansion
Existing Conditions
(January 2020) 2022–2050
Jobs
Housing
Units
Additional
Jobs
Additional
Housing
Units
Florin Road 4,080 590 480 1,200
Watt Avenue North 8,310 1,690 2,900 6,400
Stockton Boulevard Central and South 8,660 4,850 1,600 4,200 Total 21,050 7,130 4,980 11,800
SOURCE: Patten 2023.

The Infill Alternative would essentially function as a variation on the Alternative Project Location alternative discussed above. As with that alternative, the essential constraint on the Infill Alternative’s implementation is that the UWSP applicants do not control properties outside of the UWSP area, and do not control lands within the areas identified above in Table ALT-1.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) directs that a “rule of reason” be applied when identifying alternatives. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the feasibility of a prospective alternative is a key element in the rational selection of alternatives. One element of feasibility contained within the CEQA Guidelines, in Section 15126.6(f)(1), is “whether the proponent can reasonably acquire control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.” As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project applicant controls 10 out of 114 parcels within the UWSP plan area, or around 9 percent of the parcels. The land in the corridors included within this Infill Alternative includes over 3,200 individual parcels, so if the same ownership percentage were applied to this alternative, the project applicant would need to control over 280 parcels, many of which would need to be contiguous, which would be practically impossible. As such, this alternative would therefore be infeasible to implement. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) provides that “an EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.” Furthermore, while development under this alternative would result in a reduction of VMT locally due to better access to transit, and thus fewer vehicle trips and exhaust emissions, these environmental gains could be reversed, and possibly even worsened, as it is possible that this alternative could increase overall VMT regionally as each of these corridors is located approximately eight miles from the downtown Sacramento and the regional jobs core. In comparison, the UWSP area is located about 3.5 miles from downtown Sacramento, which is less than half that distance. In addition, there is 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-8 PLNP2018-00284
greater potential for redevelopment along these corridors to encounter contamination from past land uses than under the proposed UWSP, thus increasing the potential for the public in the surrounding communities to be exposed to toxic substances unless protective measures are adequately taken. Finally, infill development along these corridors would likely result in the need to demolish existing housing units and non-residential buildings, thus necessitating the relocation of existing residents, if occupied, which would not occur under the proposed UWSP.

Based upon these considerations, this prospective alternative was not selected for further analysis.

CONVERT CMU COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would address the state of California’s housing crisis by converting the

0.60 floor area ratio Commercial component of the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation into more residential at a target density of 40.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). This could result in an average density of 80.0 du/ac for the currently designated CMU parcels and an increase of 3,280 units. The remainder of the proposed UWSP, including the project footprint, would remain the same.

This alternative would not reduce or avoid several impacts associated with the UWSP project, such as those associated with aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials (i.e., hazards associated with disturbing contaminated sites), and tribal cultural resources, as the development footprint under this alternative would remain the same.

Furthermore, this alternative would likely increase the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed UWSP, as residents within the CMU designation would no longer have access to retail within the CMU designation and thus would have to travel elsewhere, most likely by private automobile, to access retail services. This in turn would increase impacts associated with VMT, pollutant and GHG emissions from vehicles, and noise from traffic. For these reasons, this alternative was not carried forward for analysis.

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
This section describes the range of alternatives to the proposed UWSP that are analyzed in this Draft EIR and examines how specific environmental impacts would differ in severity compared to those associated with the proposed UWSP. For the most part, significant impacts of the alternatives can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through adoption of the mitigation measures identified in Chapters 4 through 20, which contains the environmental analysis of the proposed UWSP. To varying degrees, the following alternatives would also avoid and/or lessen impacts, including some or all of the significant and unavoidable impacts, of the proposed UWSP. The following alternatives are considered in this section:

Alternative 1: No Project/No Development
Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Zoning
3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-9 PLNP2018-00284
Alternative 3: Reduced Density Alternative
Alternative 4: Reduced Footprint Alternative
CEQA requires consideration of the No Project Alternative, which addresses the impacts of not moving forward with the proposed project. The No Project Alternative can take many forms, including doing nothing, depending on what may likely occur if a project is not developed. In the case of the proposed UWSP, two “No Project” alternatives are considered: (1) not developing the UWSP area and leaving the project area in its present condition (Alternative 1), and (2) developing the UWSP area in accordance with existing zoning consistent with the Sacramento County Zoning Code (Alternative 2).

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT

DESCRIPTION
Under Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development Alternative, the County would not adopt the proposed UWSP. Under Alternative 1, no building or development would occur in the UWSP area. It is assumed that the site would remain in its existing condition with agriculture remaining the most predominant use along with agricultural residential, highway-serving commercial, and recreation.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

AESTHETICS
Alternative 1 would not cause any changes to existing views and the existing visual character because there would be no development within the UWSP area under this alternative. Views of the UWSP area from surrounding areas and Interstate 80 (I-80) would remain those of an open area dominated by agriculture with some residential and commercial use. Furthermore, there would also be no new sources of glare or nighttime light within the UWSP area under this alternative. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to scenic views, visual character, and new sources of light would be avoided.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Under Alternative 1, land in agricultural production within the UWSP area that is zoned for agriculture would not be converted to non-agricultural use and new residents would not be placed near existing farmlands and agricultural uses. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impact (with mitigation) with respect to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and its less-than-significant impact with respect to conflicts with existing agricultural use and zoning would be avoided.

AIR QUALITY
As no development would occur within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, no new land uses that could result in adverse air quality impacts would occur. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-10 PLNP2018-00284
conflicts with an applicable air quality plan, long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, and toxic air contaminants would be avoided.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No development would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts (with mitigation) related to sensitive species, riparian habitats, wetlands, wildlife movement, wildlife nursery sites, tree preservation, and conflicts with a habitat conservation plan would be avoided.

CLIMATE CHANGE
No development would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts (with mitigation) related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction and operation and conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to GHG emissions would be avoided.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
No construction or grading activities would occur within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus there would be no potential to uncover unknown historical resources, archaeological resources and/or human remains that may be located within the UWSP. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to historical resources, archaeological resources and/or human remains would be avoided.

ENERGY
No development would occur under Alternative 1. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy of energy efficiency would be avoided.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY
There would be no development within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus no structures that could be exposed to seismic or soil hazards would be constructed, and no construction or grading activities that would subject soils to erosion, would occur under this alternative. For these reasons, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts with respect to strong seismic ground shaking, seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction, soil erosion, unstable soil, and expansive soils would be avoided.

Furthermore, there would be no potential to uncover unknown paleontological resources that may be located within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impact (with mitigation) related to this resource topic would also be avoided.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As no development would occur within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, no new land uses that could create hazards to the public or handle hazardous materials would be constructed under this alternative. As a result, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts (with mitigation) with respect to the routine transport, use, or disposal of 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-11 PLNP2018-00284
hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions or use of hazardous materials near schools, and potential onsite contamination would be avoided. Furthermore, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impact related to interference with the implementation of an emergency response plan would also be avoided, as no road closures would be required during construction under Alternative 1 and no development would be subject to inundation.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As no development would occur within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, no new land uses that could result in adverse hydrology and water quality impacts would occur. As a result, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impact (with mitigation) with respect to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or degradation of surface or groundwater quality would be avoided. Furthermore, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or management; flood risk; alteration of drainage patterns; addition of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, impedance, or redirection of flood flows; and conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would also be avoided.

LAND USE
As no development would occur within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts with respect to physical division of an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be avoided.

NOISE
There would be no development within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus no new construction or operational noise and/or vibration would be generated under this alternative. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to traffic and stationary noise and less-than-significant impacts (with mitigation) with respect to construction noise and vibration, stationary noise, and exposure to aircraft noise would be avoided.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
As there would be no development within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, there would be no conflicts with land use plans governing population and housing growth under this alternative, and no imbalance between jobs and housing would occur.

Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impact related to substantial unplanned population growth would be avoided.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
There would be no new development within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus there would be no change in demand for public services or recreational facilities under this alternative. As a result, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts with respect to public services and recreation would be avoided. 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-12 PLNP2018-00284

TRANSPORTATION
As no development would occur under Alternative 1, no new traffic would be generated under this alternative. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system and hazards due to design or incompatible uses, and less-than-significant impacts related to VMT and emergency access would be avoided.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No construction or grading activities would occur within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus there would be no potential to uncover unknown tribal cultural resources that may be located within the UWSP area under this alternative. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impact (with mitigation) with respect to tribal cultural resources would be avoided.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
There would be no new development within the UWSP area under Alternative 1, and thus there would be no change in demand for utilities and service systems under this alternative. As a result, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts with respect to the utilities and service systems would be avoided.

RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
None of the objectives for the proposed UWSP would be achieved under Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 2: NO PROJECT/EXISTING ZONING
Alternative 2, the No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative, is based on development that is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed UWSP is not approved. Accordingly, Alternative 2 assumes that the proposed UWSP would not be approved or implemented, including the extension of the USB and UPA, and that future development within the UWSP area would occur consistent with existing County zoning designations, which include Agricultural-Residential 1 (AR-1), Agricultural-Residential 2 (AR-2), Agricultural-Residential 5 (AR-5), Agricultural 20 (AG-20), Agricultural 40 (AG-40), General Commercial (GC) and Highway Travel Commercial (TC) (see Plate ALT-2). As shown in Table ALT-2, development under existing zoning would result in modest growth within the UWSP area, with a net increase of 46 dwelling units and approximately 288,630 square feet of commercial space, which represents approximately 0.5 percent1 and 9.3 percent2 of residential and nonresidential development allowed under the proposed UWSP, respectively. 1 46 dwelling units / 9,356 dwelling units = 0.5 percent. 2 288,629 square feet / 3,096,245 square feet = 9.3 percent.

Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\15xxxx\D150587_NatomasNorthSP\03_MXDs_Projects\UpperWestSide_EIR.aprx Plate ALT-2_Zoning, EPimentel 6/21/2024 SOURCE: MAXAR 2022; Sacramento County, 2024; ESA, 2024 Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR Plate ALT-2
No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative
Radio Road
Farm Road
Bryte Bend Road
El Centro Road
Garden Highway
W El Camino Avenue
San Juan Road
Arena Boulevard
West Drainage Canal
Fisherman's
Lake Slough
5 80
GC
AR-2
AR-2
AR-1
AR-5
AG-40 AG-20
TC
AG-40
Yolo County, Maxar
N
0 2,000
Feet
Project Area
Zoning
Agricultural - 20 acres
Agricultural - 40 acres
Agricultural-Residential - 1 acre
Agricultural-Residential - 2 acres
Agricultural-Residential - 5 acres
General Commercial
Highway Travel Commercial
3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-14 PLNP2018-00284
Table ALT-2: No Project/Existing Zoning
Existing
Zone
Target
Density
of FAR Acres
Percent
(Acres)
Existing
Square Feet/
Dwelling
Units
Potential
Square Feet/
Dwelling
Units
Net Increase
Square Feet/
Dwelling
Units
GC 0.25 FAR 17.8 0.9% 88,569 SF 193,842 SF 105,273 SF
TC 0.25 FAR 31.8 1.5% 162,946 346,302 SF 183,356 SF
AR-1 -- 16.7 0.8% 10 DU 16 DU 6 DU
AR-21 -- 108.3 5.2% 20 DU 30 DU 10 DU
AR-5 -- 6.0 0.3% 1 DU 1 DU 0 DU
AG-20 -- 148.6 7.2% 0 DU 7 DU 7 DU
AG-401 -- 1,737.1 84.1% 17 DU 40 DU 23 DU
2,066.3 100%
251,515 SF 540,144 SF 288,629 SF
48 DU 94 DU 46 DU
NOTES: DU = dwelling units; FAR = floor area ratio; SF = square feet 1 Development potential impacted by Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency purchase of parcel located directly east of Garden Highway for Mitigation Area.

SOURCE: Wood Rodgers 2024.

In addition, new residential development would only be permitted to occur on 28 acres of land zoned AR-1 and AR-2 in the northeast portion of the UWSP area east of El Centro Road and on 97.0 acres of land zoned AR-2 in the southwest portion of the UWSP area east of Garden Highway, while new nonresidential development would only be permitted to occur on 37.4 acres of land zoned GC and TC adjacent to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange, which represents a fraction (10.6 percent3) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

AESTHETICS
Impacts related to aesthetics under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP. Specifically, impacts related to scenic views and visual character under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, unlike the proposed UWSP, as only a fraction (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP would be developed under this alternative, and thus existing views of the UWSP area from surrounding areas and I-80, and the existing visual character of the area 3 162.4 acres / 1,532 acres (Development Area) = 10.6 percent. 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-15 PLNP2018-00284
itself, would remain relatively unchanged. Similarly, the impact related to new sources of light under Alternative 2 would also be less than significant and no mitigation would be required, unlike the proposed UWSP, as development under this alternative would not introduce a substantial amount of new lighting to an area that is currently rural and contains minimal lighting, and thereby would not adversely affect nighttime views of the area.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
The impact related to the loss of agricultural land under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as no development under this alternative would occur on land that is currently under agricultural production within the UWSP area. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impact (with mitigation) with respect to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses would be avoided under Alternative 2 and the project’s mitigation measure to compensate for the loss of farmland would not be required. In addition, the proposed UWSP’s less-thansignificant impact with respect to conflicts with existing agricultural use and zoning would also be reduced under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed UWSP, as development under this alternative would only occur on a fraction (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP.

AIR QUALITY
Impacts related to air quality would be substantially reduced under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed UWSP. Because residential development under Alternative 2 would only be approximately 0.5 percent of that allowed under the proposed UWSP, and nonresidential development would only be 9.3 percent of what is proposed, emissions would be substantially less under this alternative than the proposed UWSP.

Based upon the substantial reduction in development and subsequent reduction in mass and localized emissions, it is likely that the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to conflicts with an applicable air quality plan, criteria air pollutants and precursors, and toxic air contaminants would be lessened to less-than-significant levels and no mitigation would be required.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Because residential development under Alternative 2 would only be approximately

0.5 percent of that allowed under the proposed UWSP, and nonresidential development would only be 9.3 percent of what is proposed, substantially less area would be developed, and impacts to biological resources would also be substantially less under this alternative. Much of the area would remain in agricultural or otherwise undeveloped condition. Localized impacts to biological resources would occur, presumably in a manner that could be mitigated, as property owners would be subject to several regulatory requirements, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Fish and Game Code Sections 3505 and 1600, the federal and California endangered species acts, Clean Water Act, and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act if they so choose to further develop their properties. Therefore, the proposed UWSP’s less-thansignificant impacts (with mitigation) related to sensitive species, riparian habitats, wetlands, wildlife movement, wildlife nursery sites, tree preservation and conflicts with a 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-16 PLNP2018-00284
habitat conservation plan would be substantially lessened under this alternative, and no mitigation would be required.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change would be substantially reduced under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed UWSP as residential development under Alternative 2 would only be approximately 0.5 percent of that allowed under the proposed UWSP, and nonresidential development would only be 9.3 percent of what is proposed, and thus emissions would be substantially less under this alternative than under the proposed UWSP. Based upon the substantial reduction in development and subsequent GHG emissions, it is likely that the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impact (with mitigation) related to construction and operation GHG emissions would be lessened and no mitigation would be required. Furthermore, the proposed UWSP’s lessthan-significant impact related to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to GHG emissions would be lessened for the same reason.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Although development under Alternative 2 would allow for additional development permitted by existing zoning on a fraction (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP, the potential for impacts to known historical resources, archaeological resources, and/or human remains, as well as the discovery of unknown historical resources, archaeological resources, and/or human remains during ground-disturbing activities associated with this alternative would remain the same as under the proposed UWSP. As a result, despite the large reduction in area to be disturbed and adherence to County standard conditions of approval, which list steps to take if historical resources, archaeological resources, and/or human remains are inadvertently discovered, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, like the proposed UWSP, as it may not be feasible to avoid these resources in some instances, and thus these resources may be altered or destroyed.

ENERGY
Impacts related to energy consumption would be substantially reduced under Alternative 2 when compared to the proposed UWSP as residential development under Alternative 2 would only be approximately 0.5 percent of that allowed under the proposed UWSP, and nonresidential development would only be 9.3 percent of what is proposed, and thus energy use would be substantially less under this alternative than the proposed UWSP. Based upon the substantial reduction in development and subsequent energy consumption, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy efficiency would be avoided.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY
Impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontology under Alternative 2 would be reduced as fewer residents, employees, and structures would be exposed to seismic risks, geologic hazards, and soil conditions found in the UWSP area and only a small portion (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-17 PLNP2018-00284
UWSP would be disturbed under this alternative. However, the danger to residents, employees, and structures associated with seismic risks, geologic hazards, and soil conditions found in the UWSP area under Alternative 2 would not be eliminated, and adherence to the same building regulations as identified for the proposed UWSP would also be required under this alternative to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Concerning paleontological resources, the impact related to these resources would also continue to be potentially significant under Alternative 2 as the potential for the discovery of unknown paleontological resources would remain the same. However, with adherence to County standard conditions of approval, which list steps to take if paleontological resources are inadvertently discovered, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, like the proposed UWSP, and no mitigation would be required.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as only a fraction of the residential development (0.5 percent) and a small portion of the nonresidential development (9.3 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative, and only a small portion (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP has the potential to be disturbed under this alternative. However, despite this large reduction in development, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain. For example, development under Alternative 2 would still result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Furthermore, development under Alternative 2 could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials, and hazardous emissions or use of hazardous materials near schools. However, as development under this alternative would have to adhere to the same government regulations that regulate the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials as the proposed UWSP, these impacts would remain less than significant.

The impact related to potential onsite contamination would remain potentially significant under Alternative 2 as potential contamination from pesticides, lead, arsenic, sumps/tanks, septic systems, asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) remain present in site soils. However, as existing U.S. Department of Labor Operational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations require that a worker safety plan be completed before performing any work on a potentially contaminated site, this impact would remain less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Finally, the impact related to physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan under Alternative 2 would also remain less than significant as all development under this alternative, like the proposed UWSP, would be required to prepare a traffic control plan (TCP), which would guarantee free flow of traffic through construction zones and would still not substantially impair emergency response or evacuation in the event of a flood as the amount of area developed would be substantially less. 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-18 PLNP2018-00284

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as only a fraction of the residential development (0.5 percent) and a small portion of the nonresidential development (9.3 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative, and only a small portion (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP has the potential to be disturbed under this alternative.

Specifically, Alternative 2 would entail a substantial reduction of ground-disturbing earthwork, including soil excavation and filling, trenching, grading, and landscaping, and a substantial reduction in the development of new impervious surfaces, such as paved streets, parking lots, and rooftops in comparison to the proposed UWSP. Finally, future residential uses within the UWSP area would rely solely on well water for domestic water supply and septic systems for wastewater disposal, as the USB/UPA would not be extended to cover properties zoned for agricultural residential use under this alternative (existing commercial uses adjacent to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange are presently served by the City of Sacramento water and wastewater systems).

Despite a large reduction in ground-disturbing earthwork, potential impacts related to water quality would remain, as sediment and other pollutants could run off to receiving waters during construction. In addition, water polluted with human waste could enter surface water or groundwater if septic systems are not properly maintained. However, with adherence to the same regulations as identified for the proposed UWSP as well as County regulations governing the installation and maintenance of septic systems, impacts related to water quality under Alternative 2 would also be reduced to a lessthan-significant level, like the proposed UWSP, and no mitigation would be required.

With respect to groundwater, the UWSP area is located within the North American subbasin, which is considered a high-priority groundwater basin by the state, though not one currently in condition of critical overdraft. A groundwater sustainability plan has been prepared for the subbasin and estimates for groundwater demand within the area covered by the plan are based on existing land use regulations. As Alternative 2 would be consistent with existing zoning, groundwater demand for future uses within the UWSP area have been accounted for in the groundwater sustainability plan, and thus, impacts with respect to groundwater supplies and management would be less than significant, like the proposed UWSP.

Finally, concerning flood risk, alternation of drainage patterns, and the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, impedance, or redirection of flood flows, impacts with respect to these topics would also not be eliminated despite the large reduction in development. However, with adherence to the same regulations as identified for the proposed UWSP, impacts related to flood risk, alternation of drainage patterns, and the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, impedance, or redirection of flood flows would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, like the proposed plan. 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-19 PLNP2018-00284

LAND USE
Alternative 2 is based on development that is reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the proposed UWSP is not approved. Accordingly, Alternative 2 assumes that future development within the UWSP area would occur consistent with existing County zoning designations. As discussed above, development under existing zoning would result in modest growth within the UWSP area, with a net increase of 46 dwelling units and approximately 288,630 square feet of commercial space, which represents approximately 0.5 percent and 9.3 percent of residential and nonresidential development allowed under the proposed UWSP, respectively.

In addition, new residential development would only be permitted to occur on 28 acres of land zoned AR-1 and AR-2 in the northeast portion of the UWSP area east of El Centro Road and on 97.0 acres of land zoned AR-2 in the southwest portion of the of the UWSP area east of Garden Highway, while new nonresidential development would only be permitted to occur on 37.4 acres of land zoned GC and TC adjacent to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange, which represents a fraction (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP.

As with the proposed plan, development under Alternative 2 would be required to be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan and the County Zoning Code. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to physical division of an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, but to a lesser extent due to the substantial reduction in new development.

NOISE
Impacts related to noise under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as only a fraction of the residential development (0.5 percent) and a small portion of the nonresidential development (9.3 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative. However, impacts related to construction noise under Alternative 2 would continue to be potentially significant, as the nearest offsite receptor would be the same distance to proposed residential development in the northeast portion of the UWSP area east of El Centro Road as development proposed by the UWSP.

While the Sacramento County Municipal Code exempts all construction noise activity during specified hours of the week, like the proposed UWSP, occasional construction noise levels could be more than 10 A-weighted decibels over existing conditions, which for a project under CEQA review could be a substantial temporary increase in noise levels. However, in the absence of CEQA review, which would not apply to Alternative 2, the municipal code provides the legal restriction for construction noise in Sacramento County and would also apply to Alternative 2 to ensure that impacts related to construction noise under this alternative would be less than significant. With respect to construction vibration, this impact would remain less than significant, as the nearest offsite receptor would be the same distance to proposed residential development in the northeast portion of the UWSP area east of El Centro Road as development proposed 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-20 PLNP2018-00284
by the UWSP. Mitigation measures to address construction noise and vibration would not be necessary.

Furthermore, the impact related to traffic noise at nearby offsite sensitive receptors would be less than significant under Alternative 2, unlike the proposed UWSP, given the substantial reduction in trips generated under this alternative and thus the mitigation measures proposed to address traffic noise would not be necessary. Moreover, unlike the proposed UWSP, the only sources of stationary noise associated with development under Alternative 2 that could increase noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors would be from commercial uses (e.g., parking, truck delivery, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, drive-through restaurant, and car wash) on land zoned GC and TC adjacent to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. Impacts associated with these commercial uses would remain less than significant under this alternative because the noise generated by these uses would be masked by freeway noise as the nearest sensitive receptors to these uses are located to the east across I-80.

Additionally, impacts to the nearest sensitive receptors from other sources of stationary noise (e.g., school parking, playgrounds, stadium noise) proposed by the UWSP would be avoided under Alternative 2, as these uses would not be developed under this alternative and thus the mitigation measures proposed to address noise from these sources would not be necessary.

Next, the impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the UWSP area to noise generated by aircraft arriving and/or departing from Sacramento International Airport would remain less than significant under Alternative 2, as all future residential development under this alternative, like the proposed UWSP, would be conditioned to provide noise insultation and disclose the potential for aircraft noise to create a nuisance to potential buyers.

Finally, the impacts to new sensitive receptors within the UWSP area from noise generated by project-related traffic under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, given the substantial reduction in trips generated under this alternative; thus, the project’s mitigation measures proposed to address this impact would not be necessary for the same reason. Similarly, the impacts to new sensitive receptors within the UWSP area from noise generated by stationary sources associated with commercial sues under Alternative 2 would be less than significant, as noise generated by commercial components within land zoned GC and TC adjacent to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange is not located near potential residential uses under this alternative. Finally, as other sources of stationary noise proposed under the proposed UWSP would not be constructed under Alternative 2, these impacts would be avoided under this alternative and the project’s mitigation measures to address these impacts would not be necessary.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impacts related to population and housing under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP. For instance, the impact related to the inducement of substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, would be less than significant under Alternative 2, as development potential under this alternative has 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-21 PLNP2018-00284
already been captured in existing land use plans governing population and housing growth. In addition, as the amount of development foreseen under Alternative 2 would be substantially less than the amount of development allowed under the proposed UWSP, no imbalance in the between jobs and housing is expected to occur.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impacts related to public services and recreation under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as only a fraction of the residential development (0.5 percent) and a small portion of the nonresidential development (9.3 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative. Specifically, impacts related to the demand for police protection service, fire protection service, public schools, parks and recreation, and libraries would remain less than significant under Alternative 2 as substantially fewer calls for service, fewer students, and fewer residents would be generated under this alternative compared to the proposed UWSP.

TRANSPORTATION
Impacts related to transportation under Alternative 2 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as the amount of traffic generated under this would be substantially less than the amount of traffic generated by the proposed UWSP, given that only a fraction of the residential development (0.5 percent) and a small portion of the nonresidential development (9.3 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative. Therefore, the impact related to the consistency with plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant under Alternative 2, and the project’s mitigation measures requiring the construction of bicycle and pedestrian improvements and the provision of additional transit facilities and services would not be required under this alternative as demand for alternative transportation facilities and services under this alternative would not be high enough to necessitate their provision.

However, VMT, which is based on trip length as opposed to number of trips, could increase under Alternative 2, as new residents under this alternative may have to drive farther to access retail services and employment. Next, the impact related to hazards due to design or incompatible uses would be less than significant under Alternative 2 and the project’s mitigation measures requiring intersection and freeway interchange improvements would not be required under this alternative, as the amount of traffic generated by this alternative would not justify the construction of these improvements.

Finally, the impact related to emergency access would remain less than significant under Alternative 2, as development under this alternative would also be required comply with applicable fire code requirements for emergency evacuation.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Although development under Alternative 2 would only occur on a fraction (10.6 percent) of the area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP, the potential for impacts to known tribal cultural resources during ground disturbing activities associated with this alternative would remain the same as under the proposed plan. As a result, 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-22 PLNP2018-00284
despite the large reduction in area to be disturbed and adherence to County standard conditions of approval, which list steps to take if tribal cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable, like the proposed UWSP, as it may not be feasible to avoid these resources in some instances, and thus these resources may be altered or destroyed.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Unlike the proposed UWSP, the USB/UPA would not be extended to cover the Development Area under Alternative 2, and thus public water and sewer service would not be extended into the UWSP area. As a result, water and sewer service to residential development under this alternative would be provided by wells and septic systems (existing commercial uses adjacent to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange are presently served by the City of Sacramento water and sewer systems). As a result, no impact would occur related to the provision of utility infrastructure to serve new development, as no new pipelines would be installed. In addition, no impact would occur related to wastewater disposal, as all wastewater would be treated onsite. With respect to demand for water supply and solid waste disposal under Alternative 2, impacts would remain less than significant, as only a fraction of the residential development (0.5 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative, and thus substantially fewer residents demanding these services would be generated under this alternative compared to the proposed UWSP.

With respect to existing commercial uses, impacts related to the provision of utility infrastructure to serve new development and the demand for water supply, wastewater disposal, and solid waste disposal would remain less than significant under Alternative 2, as only a small portion of the nonresidential development (9.3 percent) allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed under this alternative, and thus substantially fewer employees demanding these services would be generated under this alternative compared to the proposed UWSP.

RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
All but one of the objectives for the proposed UWSP would not be achieved under Alternative 2. While residential development under this alternative would provide residential housing within five miles of the existing job centers of downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, as well as near newly developing or proposed job centers (Objective 5), the amount of residential development would be substantially reduced compared to the proposed UWSP.

ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED DENSITY
This alternative keeps the same development area footprint but reduces the residential and commercial densities by 25 percent. As shown in Table ALT-3, this would result in 7,017 dwelling units and 2.32 million square feet of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and Employment Highway Commercial (E/HC). The density reduction would result in High Density Residential (HDR) dropping from 25.0 du/ac to 18.7 du/ac, Very High Density Residential (VHDR) dropping from 35 du/ac to 26.3 du/ac, and CMU Residential dropping from 40.0 du/ac to 30.0 du/ac. The alternative has the potential to reduce 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-23 PLNP2018-00284
vehicular traffic, and thus air quality and noise impacts, and GHG emissions. It would also still likely remain consistent with LU-120 Criteria CB-1 though closer to the minimum score.

Table ALT-3: Reduced Density
Land Use
Map
Symbol
Land Use Designation
(Density Range)
Net
Acres
Anticipated
Density/
FAR
Dwelling
Units/
Square Feet

RESIDENTIAL USES
VLDR Very Low Density Residential
(1.0-4.0 du/ac) 164.5 ac 1.2 du/ac 148 du
LDR Low Density Residential
(4.0-7.0 du/ac) 429.2 ac 5.5 du/ac 1,775 du
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
(6.0-10.0 du/ac) 133.0 ac 8.0 du/ac 797 du
MDR Medium Density Residential
(8.0-20.0 du/ac) 62.5 ac 12.0 du/ac 562 du
HDR High Density Residential
(20.0-40.0 du/ac) 36.4 ac 18.7 du/ac 683 du
VHDR Very High Density Residential
(20.0-40.0 du/ac) 22.6 ac 26.3 du/ac 593 du
Subtotal 848.2 ac 4,558 du

COMMERCIAL USES
CMU
Commercial Mixed Use
(0.02-2.00+ FAR & 30.0-100.0+
du/ac)

83.2 ac 0.60 FAR

30.0 du/ac
2,459 du
1,630,886 SF
E/HC Employment/Highway Commercial 52.9 ac 691,298 SF
Subtotal 136.1 ac 2,459 du
2,322,184 SF

PUBLIC, PARK & OPEN SPACE USES
K-8, HS, CC Schools 141.1 ac
P Parks 82.3 ac
GUF Greenbelt/Urban Farm 45.1 ac
OS Open Space – Canal 15.0 ac
OS Open Space – Lake Basins &
Buffers 109.1 ac
Subtotal 392.6 ac
3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-24 PLNP2018-00284
Land Use
Map
Symbol
Land Use Designation
(Density Range)
Net
Acres
Anticipated
Density/
FAR
Dwelling
Units/
Square Feet

RIGHT-OF-WAY
Major Roads A 116.9 ac
Landscape Corridors 38.2 ac
Subtotal 155.1 ac
Subtotal Development Area 1532.0 ac

AG BUFFER
AR Agricultural Residential 86.1 ac --
AG Agricultural Cropland 410.2 ac --
OS Open Space – Ag Buffer 32.8 ac
Major Road B – Ag Buffer 5.1 ac
Subtotal 534.2 ac
Total 2,066.2 ac 7,017 du
2,322,184 SF
NOTES: ac = acres; Ag Buffer = agricultural buffer; du = dwelling units; FAR = floor area ratio; SF = square feet
SOURCE: ESA 2023

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

AESTHETICS
Impacts related to aesthetics under Alternative 3 would be like those described for the proposed UWSP, as the same amount of land would be converted from farmland and rural use to urban use under this alternative. Specifically, impacts related to scenic views and visual character would remain significant and unavoidable, as existing views of the UWSP area from surrounding areas and I-80, and the existing visual character of the area itself, would be substantially changed. Furthermore, impacts related to new sources of light under Alternative 3 would remain significant and unavoidable, like the proposed UWSP, as development under this alternative would introduce a substantial amount of new lighting to an area that is currently rural and contains minimal lighting, thereby adversely affecting nighttime views of the area, and the project’s mitigation measure to ensure that outdoor lighting is designed in accordance with Section 140.7 of in the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would still be required.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts related to agricultural resources under Alternative 3 would be like those described for the proposed UWSP, as the same amount of farmland within the UWSP 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-25 PLNP2018-00284
area would be converted to urban uses. Specifically, the proposed plan’s significant and unavoidable impact with respect to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses would remain the same under Alternative 3 and the project’s mitigation measure to compensate for the loss of farmland would still be required under this alternative. In addition, the impact with respect to conflicts with existing agricultural use and zoning under Alternative 3 would also remain less than significant, like the proposed UWSP, as an open space buffer corridor would still be placed between proposed development and existing agricultural land to the west under this alternative and the County’s right-to-farm ordinance would continue to allow farming on adjacent land.

AIR QUALITY
Impacts related to air quality would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to the proposed UWSP, as residential and nonresidential development under Alternative 3 would be 25 percent less than under the proposed UWSP, and thus air pollutant emissions would be correspondingly less under this alternative than the proposed UWSP. Based upon the reduction in development, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to conflicts with an applicable air quality plan related to long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors, and toxic air contaminants would be lessened, but possibly not to a lessthan-significant level.

Regardless, the alternative’s air pollutant emissions would still be less than under the project as proposed, even if they were to remain significant and unavoidable. However, the reductions in air pollutant emissions that would seemingly be apparent under Alternative 3 could be less than expected as fewer employment and commercial opportunities would be available in the immediate vicinity compared to the proposed plan, and thus some project residents would be required to drive farther to access those opportunities. As a result, more air pollutant emissions would be generated on a per capita basis.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Residential and commercial development under Alternative 3 would occur over the same development footprint as the proposed UWSP, albeit at lower densities, and therefore the effects of this alternative on biological resources would not differ substantially from the project as proposed. Impacts to biological resources are most driven by disturbance and removal of habitat, and because disturbance and removal of habitat under Alternative 3 would generally not differ from the project as proposed, this alternative’s impact would also not differ. Therefore, the proposed plan’s less-thansignificant impacts (with mitigation) related to sensitive species, riparian habitats, wetlands, wildlife movement, wildlife nursery sites, tree preservation, and conflicts with a habitat conservation plan would be generally the same under this alternative.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to the proposed UWSP, as residential and nonresidential development under Alternative 3 would be 25 percent less than the proposed UWSP, 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-26 PLNP2018-00284
and thus GHG emissions would be correspondingly less under this alternative. Based upon the reduction in development, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impact (with mitigation) related to construction GHG emissions would be reduced.

Similarly, less-than-significant impacts (with mitigation) related to operational GHG emissions and conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation related to GHG emissions would also be reduced due to the reduction in development. However, the reductions in GHG emissions that would seemingly be apparent under Alternative 3 could be less than expected as fewer employment and commercial opportunities would be available in the immediate vicinity compared to the proposed plan, and thus some project residents would be required to drive further to access those opportunities. As a result, more GHG emissions would be generated on a per capita basis.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts related to cultural resources under Alternative 3 would be like those described for the proposed UWSP as the project footprint, and thus the amount of ground disturbance, would remain the same under this alternative. Specifically, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts (with mitigation) related to historical resources, archaeological resources and/or human remains would remain under Alternative 3 and the project’s mitigation outlining measures to be taken if unknown cultural resources are discovered would still be required under this alternative.

ENERGY
Impacts related to energy consumption would be reduced under Alternative 3 when compared to the proposed UWSP, as residential and nonresidential development under Alternative 3 would be 25 percent less than under the proposed UWSP, and thus energy consumption would be correspondingly less under this alternative. Based upon the reduction in development, the proposed UWSP’s less-than-significant impacts related to energy use would also be reduced.

However, the reductions in energy use (particularly related to fuel and electric energy to power vehicles) that would seemingly be apparent under Alternative 3 could be less than expected because fewer employment and commercial opportunities would be available in the immediate vicinity compared to the proposed plan, and thus some project residents would be required to drive further to access those opportunities. As a result, more energy would be consumed on a per capita basis.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY
Impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontology under Alternative 3 would be reduced as fewer residents, employees, and potentially structures would be exposed to seismic risks, geologic hazards, and soil conditions found in the UWSP area; the same amount of area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP would be disturbed under this alternative. However, the risks to residents, employees, and structures associated with seismic risks, geologic hazards, and soil conditions found in the UWSP area under Alternative 3 would not be eliminated, and the same mitigation 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-27 PLNP2018-00284
measures as identified for the proposed UWSP would be required under this alternative to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Concerning paleontological resources, the impact related to these resources would also continue to be potentially significant under Alternative 3 as the potential for the discovery of unknown paleontological resources would remain the same, and thus the same mitigation as identified for the proposed UWSP would be required under this alternative to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials under Alternative 3 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as the amount of the residential and commercial development would be reduced by 25 percent under this alternative compared to the proposed UWSP; the amount of area set aside for new development by the proposed UWSP would remain the same under this alternative.

However, despite this reduction, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would remain. For example, development under Alternative 3 would still result in the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Furthermore, development under Alternative 3 could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials, and hazardous emissions or use of hazardous materials near schools.

However, as development under this alternative would have to adhere to the same government regulations that regulate the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials as the proposed UWSP, these impacts would remain less than significant.

Furthermore, the impact related to potential onsite contamination would remain potentially significant under Alternative 3 as potential contamination from pesticides, lead, arsenic, sumps/tanks, septic systems, ACM, LBP, and PCBs would remain present in site soils. However, the same mitigation as identified for the proposed UWSP would also be required under this alternative to reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Finally, the impact related to physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan under Alternative 3 would also remain less than significant as all development under this alternative, like the proposed UWSP, would be required to prepare a TCP, which would guarantee free flow of traffic through construction zones, and would still not substantially impair emergency response or evacuation in the event of a flood as the amount of area developed would be the same.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impacts related to hydrology and water quality under Alternative 3 would be like those described for the proposed UWSP, as the same amount of land would be developed under this alternative. Specifically, Alternative 3 would entail the same extent of grounddisturbing earthwork, including soil excavation and filling, trenching, grading, and the same extent of development of new impervious surfaces, such as paved streets, parking lots, and rooftops, as the proposed plan. Consequently, a less-than-significant 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-28 PLNP2018-00284
impact (with mitigation) with respect to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or degradation of surface or groundwater quality would occur under this alternative, like the proposed plan.

Furthermore, less-than-significant impacts related to groundwater supplies or management; flood risk; alteration of drainage patterns; addition of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, impedance, or redirection of flood flows; and conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would also occur under this alternative, like the proposed plan.

LAND USE
Alternative 3 includes the same development area footprint as the proposed UWSP but reduces the residential and commercial densities by 25 percent. As with the proposed plan, development under Alternative 3 would be required to be consistent with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan and the County Zoning Code. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to physical division of an established community or conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

NOISE
The impact related to construction noise under Alternative 3 would continue to be potentially significant, as the distance between proposed construction onsite and offsite sensitive receptors would remain the same under this alternative as with the proposed UWSP. As a result, the same mitigation as identified for the proposed UWSP would be required under this alternative to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Similarly, the impact related to construction vibration under Alternative 3 would continue to be potentially significant for the same reason, and the same mitigation as identified for the proposed UWSP would be required under this alternative to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Next, the impact related to traffic noise at nearby offsite receptors under Alternative 3 would be less severe than the impact described for the proposed UWSP as residential and non-residential development within the UWSP area would be reduced by 25 percent. However, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable and the same mitigation would be required, as the reduction in vehicle trips would likely not be enough to reduce traffic noise levels at nearby receptors to a level that would be below the applicable threshold.

Similarly, the impact related to stationary noise at nearby offsite receptors under Alternative 3 would be less severe than the impact described for the proposed UWSP for the same reason. However, noise from certain stationary sources, such as the proposed high school sports stadium and parks, would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 3 and the same mitigation would be required, as the distance from these sources to offsite sensitive receptors would remain the same. 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-29 PLNP2018-00284
With respect to the exposure of people residing or working in the UWSP area to noise generated by aircraft arriving and/or departing from Sacramento International Airport, this impact would remain less than significant under Alternative 3, as all future residential development under this alternative, like the proposed UWSP, would be conditioned to provide noise insulation and disclose the potential for aircraft noise to create a nuisance to potential buyers.

As with offsite receptors, impacts related to traffic noise at proposed onsite receptors under Alternative 3 would be less severe than the impacts described for the proposed UWSP, as residential and non-residential development within the UWSP area would be reduced by 25 percent. Specifically, future exterior and interior noise levels at these receptors due to project traffic would remain potentially significant under Alternative 3, as the distance from onsite roadways to onsite sensitive receptors would remain the same. However, as the same mitigation as identified for the proposed UWSP would also be required under this alternative, these impacts would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

Finally, the impact related to stationary noise at future onsite receptors under Alternative 3 would be less severe than the impact described for the proposed UWSP for the same reason. However, like the proposed UWSP, noise from sports stadiums would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative 3 and the same mitigation would be required, as the distance from these sources to future sensitive receptors would remain the same.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impacts related to population and housing under Alternative 3 would be less severe than those described for the proposed UWSP, as residential and non-residential development within the UWSP area would be reduced by 25 percent, and thus fewer new residents would be housed within the UWSP area and fewer employees requiring housing elsewhere in the Sacramento region would be generated. However, impacts related to the inducement of substantial unplanned population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly, would remain significant and unavoidable as, like the proposed UWSP, development within the plan area under Alternative 3 was not anticipated in either the SACOG Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS. Next, impacts related to displacement of housing would remain less than significant, as no change to the agricultural residential homes located within the UWSP area would occur under this alternative, like the proposed UWSP.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
Impacts related to public services and recreation under Alternative 3 would be less severe than those described for the proposed UWSP, as residential and non-residential development within the UWSP area would be reduced by 25 percent, and thus there would be fewer demands of service from public service providers. Specifically, impacts related to the demand for police protection service, fire protection service, public schools, parks and recreation, and libraries would remain less than significant under Alternative 3, as substantially fewer calls for service, fewer students, and fewer residents would be generated under this alternative compared to the proposed UWSP. 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-30 PLNP2018-00284

TRANSPORTATION
Impacts related to transportation under Alternative 3 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as the amount of new development under this alternative would be reduced by 25 percent, and thus less traffic would be generated. However, the impact related to the consistency with plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system would continue to be significant and unavoidable and the same mitigation would be required, as the County would still not be able to compel the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Sacramento to construct likely bicycle and pedestrian at facilities under their jurisdictions.

Furthermore, VMT, which is based on trip length as opposed to number of trips, could increase under Alternative 3, as the amount of retail and employment uses under this alternative would be substantially lower, and thus new residents under this alternative may have to drive farther to access retail services and employment, and thus result in higher per capita VMT.

Next, like the proposed UWSP, the impact related to hazards due to design or incompatible uses under Alternative 3 would continue to be significant and unavoidable and the same mitigation would be required with respect to freeway off-ramp queues exceeding available storage, freeway on-ramp ramp meter queues exceeding available storage, and potential safety issues at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange associated with Sacramento 49er travel plaza truck stop, as the County would still not be able to compel Caltrans and the City of Sacramento to construct likely improvements at facilities under their jurisdictions.

Finally, the impact related to emergency access would remain less than significant under Alternative 3, as development under this alternative would also be required to comply with applicable fire code requirements for emergency evacuation.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts related to tribal cultural resources under Alternative 3 would be like those described for the proposed UWSP, as the project footprint, and thus the amount of ground disturbance, would remain the same under this alternative. Specifically, the proposed UWSP’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to tribal cultural resources would remain under Alternative 3 and the project’s mitigation outlining measures to be taken if unknown tribal cultural resources are discovered would still be required under this alternative.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The impact related to the provision of utility infrastructure to serve new development under Alternative 3 would be the same as under the proposed UWSP and would remain less than significant, as the location and extent of water distribution, wastewater conveyance, stormwater conveyance, and electrical and natural gas distribution infrastructure would be the same under this alternative as the proposed plan. However, impacts related to demand for water supply, wastewater disposal, and solid waste disposal would be reduced under Alternative 3 and would remain less than significant, as residential and non-residential development within the UWSP area would be reduced 3 - Alternatives
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3-31 PLNP2018-00284
by 25 percent under this alternative. As a result, substantially fewer residents and employees demanding these services from utility providers would be generated under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed UWSP.

RELATIONSHIP TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Alternative 3 would meet or partially meet many of the objectives of the proposed UWSP. However, due to the reduction in residential and commercial densities by 25 percent in comparison to the proposed UWSP, this alternative would reduce the achievement of several proposed UWSP objectives related to the provision of housing and employment opportunities, including Objectives 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, and 14.

ALTERNATIVE 4: REDUCED FOOTPRINT
This alternative looks at shrinking the 1,532-acre development area footprint by approximately 25 percent by shifting inward toward the Town Center from the north, east, and south edges. The low-density residential areas along the east edge of the development area would be eliminated in favor of agricultural uses, as would the mixeduse residential area located north of Radio Road, and the low-density residential along I-80 at the southerly end of the UWSP area. The surrounding low-density residential areas would be eliminated in favor of agricultural designations, and the higher density residential located around and within the Town Center would remain as is (see Plate ALT-3). The lower density residential uses would be shifted inward, which would result in less higher density residential. As shown in Table ALT-4, this would result in 7,435 dwelling units and 2.93 million square feet of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and Employment Highway Commercial (E/HC). The alternative has the potential to reduce air quality impacts near I-80 and traffic noise impacts, as well as aesthetics, conversion of agricultural land, conversion of habitat for special-status species, and historical, archaeological, and tribal lands impacts.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

AESTHETICS
Impacts related to aesthetics under Alternative 4 would be reduced when compared to the proposed UWSP, as the amount of area set aside for new development under this alternative would be reduced by approximately 25 percent. However, despite this reduction, the change to existing views of the UWSP area from surrounding areas and I-80, and the existing visual character of the area itself, under Alternative 4 would still be substantial, as a majority of the agricultural and rural lands in the area would be converted to urban use. As a result, impacts related to scenic views and visual character under Alternative 4 would remain significant and unavoidable, like the proposed UWSP. Similarly, impacts related to new sources of light under Alternative 4 would also remain significant and unavoidable, like the proposed UWSP, as development under this alternative would still introduce a substantial amount of new lighting to an area that is currently rural and contains minimal lighting, thereby adversely affecting nighttime views of the area, and the project’s mitigation measure to ensure that outdoor lighting is designed in accordance with Section 140.7 of in the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would still be required.

Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate ALT-3
Reduced Footprint Alternative
SOURCE: Wood Rodgers, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator