Sacramento City Council
November 18, 2025

Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Game
March 7, 20121

1 This document replaces the Department of Fish and Game 1995 Staff Report On Burrowing Owl Mitigation. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ..........................................................................................................................1 DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES ..............................................................................................2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION.....................................................................................................3 CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA .........................................................4 ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS.............................................4 PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS.......................................................................................................................5 MITIGATION METHODS.........................................................................................................................................8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................................................................15 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................15 Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats...............................................................................20 Appendix B. Definitions .....................................................................................................................................24 Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details................................................................................26 Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Survey
and Reports ...................................................................................................................................28 Appendix E. Draft Example Components for Burrowing Owl
Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans ........................................................................................31 Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation
Management Goals .......................................................................................................................33 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Maintaining California’s rich biological diversity is dependent on the conservation of species and their habitats. The California Department of Fish and Game (Department) has designated certain species as “species of special concern” when their population viability and survival is adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines or other vulnerability factors (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced modest breeding range retraction (Gervais et al. 2008). In California, threat factors affecting burrowing owl populations include habitat loss, degradation and modification, and eradication of ground squirrels resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owls for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (See Appendix A).

The Department recognized the need for a comprehensive conservation and mitigation strategy for burrowing owls, and in 1995 directed staff to prepare a report describing mitigation and survey recommendations. This report, “1995 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation,” (Staff Report) (CDFG 1995), contained Department-recommended burrowing owl and burrow survey techniques and mitigation measures intended to offset the loss of habitat and slow or reverse further decline of this species. Notwithstanding these measures, over the past 15+ years, burrowing owls have continued to decline in portions of their range (DeSante et al. 2007, Wilkerson and Siegel, 2010). The Department has determined that reversing declining population and range trends for burrowing owls will require implementation of more effective conservation actions, and evaluating the efficacy of the Department’s existing recommended avoidance, minimization and mitigation approaches for burrowing owls.

The Department has identified three main actions that together will facilitate a more viable, coordinated, and concerted approach to conservation and mitigation for burrowing owls in California. These include:

1. Incorporating burrowing owl comprehensive conservation strategies into landscape-based planning efforts such as Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) and multi-species Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) that specifically address burrowing owls.

2. Developing and implementing a statewide conservation strategy (Burkett and Johnson, 2007) and local or regional conservation strategies for burrowing owls, including the development and implementation of a statewide burrowing owl survey and monitoring plan.

3. Developing more rigorous burrowing owl survey methods, working to improve the adequacy of impacts assessments; developing clear and effective avoidance and minimization measures; and developing mitigation measures to ensure impacts to the species are effectively addressed at the project, local, and/or regional level (the focus of this document).

This Report sets forth the Department’s recommendations for implementing the third approach identified above by revising the 1995 Staff Report, drawing from the most relevant and current knowledge and expertise, and incorporating the best scientific information 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 2
available pertaining to the species. It is designed to provide a compilation of the best available science for Department staff, biologists, planners, land managers, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agencies, and the public to consider when assessing impacts of projects or other activities on burrowing owls.

This revised Staff Report takes into account the California Burrowing Owl Consortium’s Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines (CBOC 1993, 1997) and supersedes the survey, avoidance, minimization and mitigation recommendations in the 1995 Staff Report. Based on experiences gained from implementing the 1995 Staff Report, the Department believes revising that report is warranted. This document also includes general conservation goals and principles for developing mitigation measures for burrowing owls.

DEPARTMENT ROLE AND LEGAL AUTHORITIES
The mission of the Department is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitats necessary to maintain biologically sustainable populations of those species (Fish and Game Code (FGC) §1802). The Department, as trustee agency pursuant to CEQA (See CEQA Guidelines, §15386), has jurisdiction by law over natural resources, including fish and wildlife, affected by a project, as that term is defined in Section 21065 of the Public Resources Code. The Department exercises this authority by reviewing and commenting on environmental documents and making recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential negative impacts to those resources held in trust for the people of California.

Field surveys designed to detect the presence of a particular species, habitat element, or natural community are one of the tools that can assist biologists in determining whether a species or habitat may be significantly impacted by land use changes or disturbance. The Department reviews field survey data as well as site-specific and regional information to evaluate whether a project’s impacts may be significant. This document compiles the best available science for conducting habitat assessments and surveys, and includes considerations for developing measures to avoid impacts or mitigate unavoidable impacts.

CEQA
CEQA requires public agencies in California to analyze and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with a project that the agency will carry out, fund, or approve. Any potentially significant impact must be mitigated to the extent feasible. Project-specific CEQA mitigation is important for burrowing owls because most populations exist on privately owned parcels that, when proposed for development or other types of modification, may be subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA.

Take
Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by FGC section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Take is defined in FGC Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.” 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 3
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of migratory birds, including the burrowing owl (50 C.F.R. § 10). The MBTA protects migratory bird nests from possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import and export, and collection. The other prohibitions of the MBTA - capture, pursue, hunt, and kill - are inapplicable to nests.

The regulatory definition of take, as defined in Title 50 C.F.R. part 10.12, means to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Only the verb “collect” applies to nests. It is illegal to collect, possess, and by any means transfer possession of any migratory bird nest. The MBTA prohibits the destruction of a nest when it contains birds or eggs, and no possession shall occur during the destruction (see Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, April 15, 2003). Certain exceptions to this prohibition are included in 50 C.F.R. section 21. Pursuant to Fish & Game Code section 3513, the Department enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act consistent with rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Treaty Act.

Regional Conservation Plans
Regional multiple species conservation plans offer long-term assurances for conservation of covered species at a landscape scale, in exchange for biologically appropriate levels of incidental take and/or habitat loss as defined in the approved plan. California’s NCCP Act (FGC §2800 et seq.) governs such plans at the state level, and was designed to conserve species, natural communities, ecosystems, and ecological processes across a jurisdiction or a collection of jurisdictions. Complementary federal HCPs are governed by the Endangered Species Act (7 U.S.C. § 136, 16 U.S.C.§ 1531 et seq.) (ESA). Regional conservation plans (and certain other landscape-level conservation and management plans), may provide conservation for unlisted as well as listed species. Because the geographic scope of NCCPs and HCPs may span many hundreds of thousands of acres, these planning tools have the potential to play a significant role in conservation of burrowing owls, and grasslands and other habitats.

Fish and Game Commission Policies
There are a number of Fish and Game Commission policies (see FGC §2008) that can be applied to burrowing owl conservation. These include policies on: Raptors, Cooperation, Endangered and Threatened Species, Land Use Planning, Management and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on Federal Lands, Management and Utilization of Fish and Wildlife on Private Lands, and Research.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION
Unless otherwise provided in a statewide, local, or regional conservation strategy, surveying and evaluating impacts to burrowing owls, as well as developing and implementing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation and conservation measures incorporate the following principles. These principles are a summary of Department staff expert opinion and were used to guide the preparation of this document.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 4

1. Use the Precautionary Principle (Noss et al.1997), by which the alternative of increased conservation is deliberately chosen in order to buffer against incomplete knowledge of burrowing owl ecology and uncertainty about the consequences to burrowing owls of potential impacts, including those that are cumulative.

2. Employ basic conservation biology tenets and population-level approaches when determining what constitutes appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation for impacts. Include mitigation effectiveness monitoring and reporting, and use an adaptive management loop to modify measures based on results.

3. Protect and conserve owls in wild, semi-natural, and agricultural habitats (conserve is defined at FGC §1802).

4. Protect and conserve natural nest burrows (or burrow surrogates) previously used by burrowing owls and sufficient foraging habitat and protect auxiliary “satellite” burrows that contribute to burrowing owl survivorship and natural behavior of owls.

CONSERVATION GOALS FOR THE BURROWING OWL IN CALIFORNIA
It is Department staff expert opinion that the following goals guide and contribute to the short and long-term conservation of burrowing owls in California:

1. Maintain size and distribution of extant burrowing owl populations (allowing for natural population fluctuations).

2. Increase geographic distribution of burrowing owls into formerly occupied historical range where burrowing owl habitat still exists, or where it can be created or enhanced, and where the reason for its local disappearance is no longer of concern.

3. Increase size of existing populations where possible and appropriate (for example, considering basic ecological principles such as carrying capacity, predator-prey relationships, and inter-specific relationships with other species at risk).

4. Protect and restore self-sustaining ecosystems or natural communities which can support burrowing owls at a landscape scale, and which will require minimal long-term management.

5. Minimize or prevent unnatural causes of burrowing owl population declines (e.g., nest burrow destruction, chemical control of rodent hosts and prey).

6. Augment/restore natural dynamics of burrowing owl populations including movement and genetic exchange among populations, such that the species does not require future listing and protection under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and/or the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

7. Engage stakeholders, including ranchers; farmers; military; tribes; local, state, and federal agencies; non-governmental organizations; and scientific research and education communities involved in burrowing owl protection and habitat management.

ACTIVITIES WITH THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE OR IMPACT BURROWING OWLS The following activities are examples of activities that have the potential to take burrowing owls, their nests or eggs, or destroy or degrade burrowing owl habitat: grading, disking, cultivation, earthmoving, burrow blockage, heavy equipment compacting and crushing burrow tunnels, levee maintenance, flooding, burning and mowing (if burrows are impacted), and operating wind turbine collisions (collectively hereafter referred to as “projects” or “activities” 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 5
whether carried out pursuant to CEQA or not). In addition, the following activities may have impacts to burrowing owl populations: eradication of host burrowers; changes in vegetation management (i.e. grazing); use of pesticides and rodenticides; destruction, conversion or degradation of nesting, foraging, over-wintering or other habitats; destruction of natural burrows and burrow surrogates; and disturbance which may result in harassment of owls at occupied burrows.

PROJECT IMPACT EVALUATIONS
The following three progressive steps are effective in evaluating whether projects will result in impacts to burrowing owls. The information gained from these steps will inform any subsequent avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. The steps for project impact evaluations are: 1) habitat assessment, 2) surveys, and 3) impact assessment. Habitat assessments are conducted to evaluate the likelihood that a site supports burrowing owl.

Burrowing owl surveys provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with FGC sections 86, 3503, and 3503.5. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of a proposed CEQA project activity or non-CEQA project. These three site evaluation steps are discussed in detail below.

Biologist Qualifications
The current scientific literature indicates that only individuals meeting the following minimum qualifications should perform burrowing owl habitat assessments, surveys, and impact assessments:

1. Familiarity with the species and its local ecology;

2. Experience conducting habitat assessments and non-breeding and breeding season surveys, or experience with these surveys conducted under the direction of an experienced surveyor;

3. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to burrowing owls, scientific research, and conservation;

4. Experience with analyzing impacts of development on burrowing owls and their habitat.

Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting
A habitat assessment is the first step in the evaluation process and will assist investigators in determining whether or not occupancy surveys are needed. Refer to Appendix B for a definition of burrowing owl habitat. Compile the detailed information described in Appendix C when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report.

Surveys
Burrowing owl surveys are the second step of the evaluation process and the best available scientific literature recommends that they be conducted whenever burrowing owl habitat or sign (see Appendix B) is encountered on or adjacent to (within 150 meters) a project site 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 6
(Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973). Occupancy of burrowing owl habitat is confirmed at a site when at least one burrowing owl, or its sign at or near a burrow entrance, is observed within the last three years (Rich 1984). Burrowing owls are more detectable during the breeding season with detection probabilities being highest during the nestling stage (Conway et al. 2008). In California, the burrowing owl breeding season extends from 1 February to 31 August (Haug et al. 1993, Thompsen 1971) with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions. Several researchers suggest three or more survey visits during daylight hours (Haug and Diduik 1993, CBOC 1997, Conway and Simon 2003) and recommend each visit occur at least three weeks apart during the peak of the breeding season, commonly accepted in California as between 15 April and 15 July (CBOC 1997). Conway and Simon (2003) and Conway et al. (2008) recommended conducting surveys during the day when most burrowing owls in a local area are in the laying and incubation period (so as not to miss early breeding attempts), during the nesting period, and in the late nestling period when most owls are spending time above ground.

Non-breeding season (1 September to 31 January) surveys may provide information on burrowing owl occupancy, but do not substitute for breeding season surveys because results are typically inconclusive. Burrowing owls are more difficult to detect during the non-breeding season and their seasonal residency status is difficult to ascertain. Burrowing owls detected during non-breeding season surveys may be year-round residents, young from the previous breeding season, pre-breeding territorial adults, winter residents, dispersing juveniles, migrants, transients or new colonizers. In addition, the numbers of owls and their pattern of distribution may differ during winter and breeding seasons. However, on rare occasions, non-breeding season surveys may be warranted (i.e., if the site is believed to be a wintering site only based on negative breeding season results). Refer to Appendix D for information on breeding season and non-breeding season survey methodologies.

Survey Reports
Adequate information about burrowing owls present in and adjacent to an area that will be disturbed by a project or activity will enable the Department, reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The survey report includes but is not limited to a description of the proposed project or proposed activity, including the proposed project start and end dates, as well as a description of disturbances or other activities occurring on-site or nearby. Refer to Appendix D for details included in a survey report.

Impact Assessment
The third step in the evaluation process is the impact assessment. When surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjoining the project area, there are a number of ways to assess a project’s potential significant impacts to burrowing owls and their habitat.

Richardson and Miller (1997) recommended monitoring raptor behavior prior to developing management recommendations and buffers to determine the extent to which individuals have been sensitized to human disturbance. Monitoring results will also provide detail necessary for developing site-specific measures. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommended an analytical approach to mitigation planning: define the problem (impact), set goals (to guide mitigation development), evaluate and select mitigation methods, and monitor the results. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 7
Define the problem. The impact assessment evaluates all factors that could affect burrowing owls. Postovit and Postovit (1987) recommend evaluating the following in assessing impacts to raptors and planning mitigation: type and extent of disturbance, duration and timing of disturbance, visibility of disturbance, sensitivity and ability to habituate, and influence of environmental factors. They suggest identifying and addressing all potential direct and indirect impacts to burrowing owls, regardless of whether or not the impacts will occur during the breeding season. Several examples are given for each impact category below; however, examples are not intended to be used exclusively.

Type and extent of the disturbance. The impact assessment describes the nature (source) and extent (scale) of potential project impacts on occupied, satellite and unoccupied burrows including acreage to be lost (temporary or permanent), fragmentation/edge being created, increased distance to other nesting and foraging habitat, and habitat degradation. Discuss any project activities that impact either breeding and/or non-breeding habitat which could affect owl home range size and spatial configuration, negatively affect onsite and offsite burrowing owl presence, increase energetic costs, lower reproductive success, increase vulnerability to predation, and/or decrease the chance of procuring a mate.

Duration and timing of the impact. The impact assessment describes the amount of time the burrowing owl habitat will be unavailable to burrowing owls (temporary or permanent) on the site and the effect of that loss on essential behaviors or life history requirements of burrowing owls, the overlap of project activities with breeding and/or non-breeding seasons (timing of nesting and/or non-breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions, which should be considered with the timeline of the project or activity), and any variance of the project activities in intensity, scale and proximity relative to burrowing owl occurrences.

Visibility and sensitivity. Some individual burrowing owls or pairs are more sensitive than others to specific stimuli and may habituate to ongoing visual or audible disturbance. Sitespecific monitoring may provide clues to the burrowing owl’s sensitivities. This type of assessment addresses the sensitivity of burrowing owls within their nesting area to humans on foot, and vehicular traffic. Other variables are whether the site is primarily in a rural versus urban setting, and whether any prior disturbance (e.g., human development or recreation) is known at the site.

Environmental factors. The impact assessment discusses any environmental factors that could be influenced or changed by the proposed activities including nest site availability, predators, prey availability, burrowing mammal presence and abundance, and threats from other extrinsic factors such as human disturbance, urban interface, feral animals, invasive species, disease or pesticides.

Significance of impacts. The impact assessment evaluates the potential loss of nesting burrows, satellite burrows, foraging habitat, dispersal and migration habitat, wintering habitat, and habitat linkages, including habitat supporting prey and host burrowers and other essential habitat attributes. This assessment determines if impacts to the species will result in significant impacts to the species locally, regionally and range-wide per CEQA Guidelines §15382 and Appendix G. The significance of the impact to habitat depends on the extent of habitat disturbed and length of time the habitat is unavailable (for example: minor – several days, medium – several weeks to months, high - breeding season affecting juvenile survival, 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 8
or over winter affecting adult survival).

Cumulative effects. The cumulative effects assessment evaluates two consequences: 1) the project’s proportional share of reasonably foreseeable impacts on burrowing owls and habitat caused by the project or in combination with other projects and local influences having impacts on burrowing owls and habitat, and 2) the effects on the regional owl population resulting from the project’s impacts to burrowing owls and habitat.

Mitigation goals. Establishing goals will assist in planning mitigation and selecting measures that function at a desired level. Goals also provide a standard by which to measure mitigation success. Unless specifically provided for through other FGC Sections or through specific regulations, take, possession or destruction of individual burrowing owls, their nests and eggs is prohibited under FGC sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Therefore, a required goal for all project activities is to avoid take of burrowing owls. Under CEQA, goals would consist of measures that would avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. For individual projects, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts, including cumulative impacts, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B), 15064, 15065, and 16355). In order for mitigation measures to be effective, they must be specific, enforceable, and feasible actions that will improve environmental conditions. As set forth in more detail in Appendix A, the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal, presence of burrows, burrow surrogates, presence of fossorial mammal dens, well drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.

MITIGATION METHODS
The current scientific literature indicates that any site-specific avoidance or mitigation measures developed should incorporate the best practices presented below or other practices confirmed by experts and the Department. The Department is available to assist in the development of site-specific avoidance and mitigation measures.

Avoiding. A primary goal is to design and implement projects to seasonally and spatially avoid negative impacts and disturbances that could result in take of burrowing owls, nests, or eggs. Other avoidance measures may include but not be limited to:
 Avoid disturbing occupied burrows during the nesting period, from 1 February through 31 August.
 Avoid impacting burrows occupied during the non-breeding season by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls.
 Avoid direct destruction of burrows through chaining (dragging a heavy chain over an area to remove shrubs), disking, cultivation, and urban, industrial, or agricultural development.  Develop and implement a worker awareness program to increase the on-site worker’s recognition of and commitment to burrowing owl protection.  Place visible markers near burrows to ensure that farm equipment and other machinery does not collapse burrows.
 Do not fumigate, use treated bait or other means of poisoning nuisance animals in areas where burrowing owls are known or suspected to occur (e.g., sites observed with nesting 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 9
owls, designated use areas).
 Restrict the use of treated grain to poison mammals to the months of January and February.

Take avoidance (pre-construction) surveys. Take avoidance surveys are intended to detect the presence of burrowing owls on a project site at a fixed period in time and inform necessary take avoidance actions. Take avoidance surveys may detect changes in owl presence such as colonizing owls that have recently moved onto the site, migrating owls, resident burrowing owls changing burrow use, or young of the year that are still present and have not dispersed. Refer to Appendix D for take avoidance survey methodology.

Site surveillance. Burrowing owls may attempt to colonize or re-colonize an area that will be impacted; thus, the current scientific literature indicates a need for ongoing surveillance at the project site during project activities is recommended. The surveillance frequency/effort should be sufficient to detect burrowing owls if they return. Subsequent to their new occupancy or return to the site, take avoidance measures should assure with a high degree of certainty that take of owls will not occur.

Minimizing. If burrowing owls and their habitat can be protected in place on or adjacent to a project site, the use of buffer zones, visual screens or other measures while project activities are occurring can minimize disturbance impacts. Conduct site-specific monitoring to inform development of buffers (see Visibility and sensitivity above). The following general guidelines for implementing buffers should be adjusted to address site-specific conditions using the impact assessment approach described above. The CEQA lead agency and/or project proponent is encouraged to consult with the Department and other burrowing owl experts for assistance in developing site-specific buffer zones and visual screens.

Buffers. Holroyd et al. (2001) identified a need to standardize management and disturbance mitigation guidelines. For instance, guidelines for mitigating impacts by petroleum industries on burrowing owls and other prairie species (Scobie and Faminow, 2000) may be used as a template for future mitigation guidelines (Holroyd et al. 2001). Scobie and Faminow (2000) developed guidelines for activities around occupied burrowing owl nests recommending buffers around low, medium, and high disturbance activities, respectively (see below).

Recommended restricted activity dates and setback distances by level of disturbance for burrowing owls (Scobie and Faminow 2000).

Level of Disturbance Location Time of Year Low Med High Nesting sites April 1-Aug 15 200 m* 500 m 500 m
Nesting sites Aug 16-Oct 15 200 m 200 m 500 m
Nesting sites Oct 16-Mar 31 50 m 100 m 500 m

* meters (m)
Based on existing vegetation, human development, and land uses in an area, resource managers may decide to allow human development or resource extraction closer to these area/sites than recommended above. However, if it is decided to allow activities closer than 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 10
the setback distances recommended, a broad-scale, long-term, scientifically-rigorous monitoring program ensures that burrowing owls are not detrimentally affected by alternative approaches.

Other minimization measures include eliminating actions that reduce burrowing owl forage and burrowing surrogates (e.g. ground squirrel), or introduce/facilitate burrowing owl predators. Actions that could influence these factors include reducing livestock grazing rates and/or changing the timing or duration of grazing or vegetation management that could result in less suitable habitat.

Burrow exclusion and closure. Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings during the non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls, or permanently exclude burrowing owls and close burrows after verifying burrows are empty by site monitoring and scoping. Exclusion in and of itself is not a take avoidance, minimization or mitigation method. Eviction of burrowing owls is a potentially significant impact under CEQA.

The long-term demographic consequences of these techniques have not been thoroughly evaluated, and the fate of evicted or excluded burrowing owls has not been systematically studied. Because burrowing owls are dependent on burrows at all times of the year for survival and/or reproduction, evicting them from nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows may lead to indirect impacts or take. Temporary or permanent closure of burrows may result in significant loss of burrows and habitat for reproduction and other life history requirements.

Depending on the proximity and availability of alternate habitat, loss of access to burrows will likely result in varying levels of increased stress on burrowing owls and could depress reproduction, increase predation, increase energetic costs, and introduce risks posed by having to find and compete for available burrows. Therefore, exclusion and burrow closure are not recommended where they can be avoided. The current scientific literature indicates consideration of all possible avoidance and minimization measures before temporary or permanent exclusion and closure of burrows is implemented, in order to avoid take.

The results of a study by Trulio (1995) in California showed that burrowing owls passively displaced from their burrows were quickly attracted to adjacent artificial burrows at five of six passive relocation sites. The successful sites were all within 75 meters (m) of the destroyed burrow, a distance generally within a pair's territory. This researcher discouraged using passive relocation to artificial burrows as a mitigation measure for lost burrows without protection of adjacent foraging habitat. The study results indicated artificial burrows were used by evicted burrowing owls when they were approximately 50-100 m from the natural burrow (Thomsen 1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Locating artificial or natural burrows more than 100 m from the eviction burrow may greatly reduce the chances that new burrows will be used. Ideally, exclusion and burrow closure is employed only where there are adjacent natural burrows and non-impacted, sufficient habitat for burrowing owls to occupy with permanent protection mechanisms in place. Any new burrowing owl colonizing the project site after the CEQA document has been adopted may constitute changed circumstances that should be addressed in a re-circulated CEQA document.

The current scientific literature indicates that burrow exclusion should only be conducted by qualified biologists (meeting the Biologist’s Qualifications above) during the non-breeding 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 11
season, before breeding behavior is exhibited and after the burrow is confirmed empty by site surveillance and/or scoping. The literature also indicates that when temporary or permanent burrow exclusion and/or burrow closure is implemented, burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows unless or until:
 A Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan (see Appendix E) is developed and approved by the applicable local DFG office;
 Permanent loss of occupied burrow(s) and habitat is mitigated in accordance with the Mitigating Impacts sections below. Temporary exclusion is mitigated in accordance with the item #1 under Mitigating Impacts below.
 Site monitoring is conducted prior to, during, and after exclusion of burrowing owls from their burrows sufficient to ensure take is avoided. Conduct daily monitoring for one week to confirm young of the year have fledged if the exclusion will occur immediately after the end of the breeding season.
 Excluded burrowing owls are documented using artificial or natural burrows on an adjoining mitigation site (if able to confirm by band re-sight).

Translocation (Active relocation offsite >100 meters). At this time, there is little published information regarding the efficacy of translocating burrowing owls, and additional research is needed to determine subsequent survival and breeding success (Klute et al. 2003, Holroyd et al. 2001). Study results for translocation in Florida implied that hatching success may be decreased for populations of burrowing owls that undergo translocation (Nixon 2006). At this time, the Department is unable to authorize the capture and relocation of burrowing owls except within the context of scientific research (FGC §1002) or a NCCP conservation strategy.

Mitigating impacts. Habitat loss and degradation from rapid urbanization of farmland in the core areas of the Central and Imperial valleys is the greatest of many threats to burrowing owls in California (Shuford and Gardali, 2008). At a minimum, if burrowing owls have been documented to occupy burrows (see Definitions, Appendix B) at the project site in recent years, the current scientific literature supports the conclusion that the site should be considered occupied and mitigation should be required by the CEQA lead agency to address project-specific significant and cumulative impacts. Other site-specific and regionally significant and cumulative impacts may warrant mitigation. The current scientific literature indicates the following to be best practices. If these best practices cannot be implemented, the lead agency or lead investigator may consult with the Department to develop effective mitigation alternatives. The Department is also available to assist in the identification of suitable mitigation lands.

1. Where habitat will be temporarily disturbed, restore the disturbed area to pre-project condition including decompacting soil and revegetating. Permanent habitat protection may be warranted if there is the potential that the temporary impacts may render a nesting site (nesting burrow and satellite burrows) unsustainable or unavailable depending on the time frame, resulting in reduced survival or abandonment. For the latter potential impact, see the permanent impact measures below.

2. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and/or burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owls impacted are replaced based on the information provided in Appendix A. Note: A 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 12
minimum habitat replacement recommendation is not provided here as it has been shown to serve as a default, replacing any site-specific analysis and discounting the wide variation in natal area, home range, foraging area, and other factors influencing burrowing owls and burrowing owl population persistence in a particular area.

3. Mitigate for permanent impacts to nesting, occupied and satellite burrows and burrowing owl habitat with (a) permanent conservation of similar vegetation communities (grassland, scrublands, desert, urban, and agriculture) to provide for burrowing owl nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal (i.e., during breeding and non-breeding seasons) comparable to or better than that of the impact area, and (b) sufficiently large acreage, and presence of fossorial mammals. The mitigation lands may require habitat enhancements including enhancement or expansion of burrows for breeding, shelter and dispersal opportunity, and removal or control of population stressors. If the mitigation lands are located adjacent to the impacted burrow site, ensure the nearest neighbor artificial or natural burrow clusters are at least within 210 meters (Fisher et al. 2007).

4. Permanently protect mitigation land through a conservation easement deeded to a nonprofit conservation organization or public agency with a conservation mission, for the purpose of conserving burrowing owl habitat and prohibiting activities incompatible with burrowing owl use. If the project is located within the service area of a Departmentapproved burrowing owl conservation bank, the project proponent may purchase available burrowing owl conservation bank credits.

5. Develop and implement a mitigation land management plan to address long-term ecological sustainability and maintenance of the site for burrowing owls (see Management Plan and Artificial Burrow sections below, if applicable).

6. Fund the maintenance and management of mitigation land through the establishment of a long-term funding mechanism such as an endowment.

7. Habitat should not be altered or destroyed, and burrowing owls should not be excluded from burrows, until mitigation lands have been legally secured, are managed for the benefit of burrowing owls according to Department-approved management, monitoring and reporting plans, and the endowment or other long-term funding mechanism is in place or security is provided until these measures are completed.

8. Mitigation lands should be on, adjacent or proximate to the impact site where possible and where habitat is sufficient to support burrowing owls present.

9. Where there is insufficient habitat on, adjacent to, or near project sites where burrowing owls will be excluded, acquire mitigation lands with burrowing owl habitat away from the project site. The selection of mitigation lands should then focus on consolidating and enlarging conservation areas located outside of urban and planned growth areas, within foraging distance of other conserved lands. If mitigation lands are not available adjacent to other conserved lands, increase the mitigation land acreage requirement to ensure a selected site is of sufficient size. Offsite mitigation may not adequately offset the biological and habitat values impacted on a one to one basis. Consult with the Department when determining offsite mitigation acreages.

10. Evaluate and select suitable mitigation lands based on a comparison of the habitat attributes of the impacted and conserved lands, including but not limited to: type and structure of habitat being impacted or conserved; density of burrowing owls in impacted and conserved habitat; and significance of impacted or conserved habitat to the species range-wide. Mitigate for the highest quality burrowing owl habitat impacted first and foremost when identifying mitigation lands, even if a mitigation site is located outside of 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 13
a lead agency’s jurisdictional boundary, particularly if the lead agency is a city or special district.

11. Select mitigation lands taking into account the potential human and wildlife conflicts or incompatibility, including but not limited to, human foot and vehicle traffic, and predation by cats, loose dogs and urban-adapted wildlife, and incompatible species management (i.e., snowy plover).

12. Where a burrowing owl population appears to be highly adapted to heavily altered habitats such as golf courses, airports, athletic fields, and business complexes, permanently protecting the land, augmenting the site with artificial burrows, and enhancing and maintaining those areas may enhance sustainability of the burrowing owl population onsite. Maintenance includes keeping lands grazed or mowed with weedeaters or push mowers, free from trees and shrubs, and preventing excessive human and human-related disturbance (e.g., walking, jogging, off-road activity, dog-walking) and loose and feral pets (chasing and, presumably, preying upon owls) that make the environment uninhabitable for burrowing owls (Wesemann and Rowe 1985, Millsap and Bear 2000, Lincer and Bloom 2007). Items 4, 5 and 6 also still apply to this mitigation approach.

13. If there are no other feasible mitigation options available and a lead agency is willing to establish and oversee a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Conservation Fund that funds on a competitive basis acquisition and permanent habitat conservation, the project proponent may participate in the lead agency’s program.

Artificial burrows. Artificial burrows have been used to replace natural burrows either temporarily or long-term and their long-term success is unclear. Artificial burrows may be an effective addition to in-perpetuity habitat mitigation if they are augmenting natural burrows, the burrows are regularly maintained (i.e., no less than annual, with biennial maintenance recommended), and surrounding habitat patches are carefully maintained. There may be some circumstances, for example at airports, where squirrels will not be allowed to persist and create a dynamic burrow system, where artificial burrows may provide some support to an owl population.

Many variables may contribute to the successful use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls, including pre-existence of burrowing owls in the area, availability of food, predators, surrounding vegetation and proximity, number of natural burrows in proximity, type of materials used to build the burrow, size of the burrow and entrance, direction in which the burrow entrance is facing, slope of the entrance, number of burrow entrances per burrow, depth of the burrow, type and height of perches, and annual maintenance needs (Belthoff and King 2002, Smith et al. 2005, Barclay et al. 2011). Refer to Barclay (2008) and (2011) and to Johnson et al. 2010 (unpublished report) for guidance on installing artificial burrows including recommendations for placement, installation and maintenance.

Any long-term reliance on artificial burrows as natural burrow replacements must include semi-annual to annual cleaning and maintenance and/or replacement (Barclay et al. 2011, Smith and Conway 2005, Alexander et al. 2005) as an ongoing management practice.

Alexander et al. (2005), in a study of the use of artificial burrows found that all of 20 artificial burrows needed some annual cleaning and maintenance. Burrows were either excavated by predators, blocked by soil or vegetation, or experienced substrate erosion forming a space beneath the tubing that prevented nestlings from re-entering the burrow. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 14
Mitigation lands management plan. Develop a Mitigation Lands Management Plan for projects that require off-site or on-site mitigation habitat protection to ensure compliance with and effectiveness of identified management actions for the mitigation lands. A suggested outline and related vegetation management goals and monitoring success criteria can be found in Appendix E.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Verify the compliance with required mitigation measures, the accuracy of predictions, and ensure the effectiveness of all mitigation measures for burrowing owls by conducting followup monitoring, and implementing midcourse corrections, if necessary, to protect burrowing owls. Refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and the CEQA Guidelines for additional guidance on mitigation, monitoring and reporting. Monitoring is qualitatively different from site surveillance; monitoring normally has a specific purpose and its outputs and outcomes will usually allow a comparison with some baseline condition of the site before the mitigation (including avoidance and minimization) was undertaken. Ideally, monitoring should be based on the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) principle (McDonald et al. 2000) that requires knowledge of the pre-mitigation state to provide a reference point for the state and change in state after the project and mitigation have been implemented. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 15

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Jack Barclay, Jeff Lincer, David Plumpton, Jeff Kidd, Carol Roberts and other reviewers for their valuable comments on this report. We also want to acknowledge all the hard work of the Department team, especially T. Bartlett, K. Riesz, S. Wilson, D. Gifford, D.

Mayer, J. Gan, L. Connolly, D. Mayer, A. Donlan, L. Bauer, L. Comrack, D. Lancaster, E.

Burkett, B. Johnson, D. Johnston, A. Gonzales, S. Morey and K. Hunting.

REFERENCES
Alexander, A. K., M. R. Sackschewsky, and C. A. Duberstein. 2005. Use of artificial burrows by burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) at the HAMMER Facility on the U.S.

Department of Energy Hanford Site. Pacific Northwest National Lab-15414. U.S.

Department of Energy, DE-AC05-76RL01830, Richland, Washington, USA.

BIOS. California Department of Fish and Game. The Biogeographic Information Observation System (http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/)
Barclay, J. H. 2008. A simple artificial burrow design for burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research. 42: 53-57.

Barclay, J. H. 2012. Albion Environmental, Inc, personal communication.

Barclay, J. H., K. W. Hunting, J. L. Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. 2007.

Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

Barclay, J. H., N. Korfanta, and M. Kauffman. 2011. Long-term population dynamics of a managed burrowing owl colony. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1295–1306.

Belthoff, J R., R. A. King. 2002. Nest-site characteristics of burrowing owls (athene cunicularia) in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area, Idaho, and applications to artificial burrow installation. Western North American Naturalist 62: 112- 119.

Botelho, E. S. 1996. Behavioral ecology and parental care of breeding western burrowing owls (Speotyto cunicularia hupugaea) in southern New Mexico, USA. Dissertation, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA.

Burkett, E. E., and B. S. Johnson. 2007. Development of a conservation strategy for burrowing owls in California. Pages 165-168 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L.

Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

CBOC (California Burrowing Owl Consortium). 1997. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Pages 171-177 in Lincer, J. L. and K. Steenhof (editors). 1997.

The burrowing owl, its biology and management. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Unpublished report. Sacramento, California, USA.

CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/), Sacramento, California, USA.

Catlin, D. H. 2004. Factors affecting within-season and between-season breeding dispersal of Burrowing Owls in California. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 16
Catlin, D. H., and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Nest destruction increases mortality and dispersal of Burrowing Owls in the Imperial Valley, California. Southwest Naturalist 51: 406–409.

Catlin, D. H., D. K. Rosenberg, and K. L. Haley. 2005. The effects of nesting success and mate fidelity on breeding dispersal in burrowing owls. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1574–1580.

Conway, C. J., and J. Simon. 2003. Comparison of detection probability associated with burrowing owl survey methods. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 501-511.

Conway, C. J., V. Garcia, M. D., and K. Hughes. 2008. Factors affecting detection of burrowing owl nests during standardized surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:
688-696.

Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the burrowing owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73: 162–176.

Dechant, J. A., M. L. Sondreal, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, P. A. Rabie, and B.

R. Euliss. 2003. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: burrowing owl.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online.
<http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/buow/buow.htm>.

DeSante, D. F., E. D Ruhlen, and R. Scalf. 2007. The distribution and relative abundance of burrowing owls in California during 1991–1993: Evidence for a declining population and thoughts on its conservation. Pages 1-41 in J. H. Barclay, K. W. Hunting, J. L.

Lincer, J. Linthicum, and T. A. Roberts, editors. Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003 Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1998. Burrowing Owl conservation in the Great Plains.

Proceedings of the Second International Burrowing Owl Symposium, 29-30 September 1999, Ogden, Utah, USA.

Desmond, M. J., and J. A. Savidge. 1999. Satellite burrow use by burrowing owl chicks and its influence on nest fate. Pages 128-130 in P. D. Vickery and J. R. Herkert, editors.

Ecology and conservation of grassland birds of the western hemisphere. Studies in Avian Biology 19.

Emlen, J. T. 1977. Estimating breeding season bird densities from transects counts. Auk 94:
455-468.

Fisher, J. B., L. A. Trulio, G. S. Biging, and D. Chromczack. 2007. An analysis of spatial clustering and implications for wildlife management: a burrowing owl example.

Environmental Management 39: 403-11.

Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. A. Comrack. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.

Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA.

Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164.

Green, G.A.; Anthony, R.G. 1989. Nesting success and habitat relationships of burrowing owls in the Columbia Basin, Oregon. The Condor 91: 347-354.

Haug, E. A. 1985. Observations on the breeding ecology of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 17
Thesis, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.

Haug, E. A., and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54: 27-35.

Holroyd, G. L., R. Rodriguez-Estrella, and S. R. Sheffield. 2001. Conservation of the burrowing owl in western North America: issues, challenges, and recommendations.

Journal of Raptor Research 35: 399-407.

James, P. C., T. J. Ethier, and M. K. Toutloff. 1997. Parameters of a declining burrowing owl population in Saskatchewan. Pages 34-37. in J. L. Lincer, and K. Steenhof, editors.

The burrowing owl, its biology and management: including the proceedings of the first international symposium. 13-14 November 1992, Bellevue, WA, USA. Raptor Research Report Number 9.

Johnson, D. H., D. C. Gillis, M. A. Gregg, J. L.Rebholz, J. L. Lincer, and J. R. Belthoff. 2010.

Users guide to installation of artificial burrows for burrowing owls. Unpublished report.

Tree Top Inc., Selah, Washington, USA.

Klute, D. S., A. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman. 2003. Status assessment and conservation plan for the western burrowing owl in the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP-R6001-2003, Washington, D.C, USA.

Koenig, W. D., D. D. Van Vuren, and P. N. Hooge. 1996. Detectability, philopatry, and the distribution of dispersal distances in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:
514–517.

LaFever, D. H., K. E. LaFever, D. H. Catlin, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2008. Diurnal time budget of burrowing owls in a resident population during the non-breeding season.

Southwestern Naturalist 53: 29-33.

Lincer, J. L., and P. W. Bloom. 2007. The status of the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) in San Diego County, CA. Pages 90-102 in Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium, 11-12 November 2003, Sacramento, California, USA. Bird Populations Monographs No. 1. The Institute for Bird Populations and Albion Environmental, Inc., Point Reyes Station, CA.

Lutz, R. S. and D. L. Plumpton. 1999. Philopatry and nest site reuse by burrowing owls:
implications for management. Journal of Raptor Research 33: 149-153.

MacCracken, J. G., D. W. Uresk, and R. M. Hansen. 1985a. Vegetation and soils of burrowing owl nest sites in Conata Basin, South Dakota. Condor 87: 152-154.

Manning, J. A., and R. S. A. Kaler. 2011. Effects of survey methods on burrowing owl behaviors. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 525-30.

McDonald, T. L., W. P. Erickson, and L. L. McDonald. 2000. Analysis of count data from before-after control-impact studies. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics 5: 262-279.

Millsap, B. A., and C. Bear. 2000. Density and reproduction of burrowing owls along an urban development gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:33-41.

Nixon, P A. 2006. Effects of translocation on the Florida burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia floridana). Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.

Noss, R. F., M. A. O’Connell, and D. D. Murphy. 1997. The science of conservation planning:
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 18
habitat conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Postovit, H. R., and B. C. Postovit. 1987. Impacts and mitigation techniques. Pages 183-213 in Raptor management techniques manual scientific technical series number 10, National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D. C., USA
Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California: An annotated list of declining or vulnerable bird species. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife. Investigations, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report 78-1, Sacramento, California, USA.

Rich, T. 1984. Monitoring burrowing owl populations: implications of burrow re-use. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 178-189.

Richardson, C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25: 634-38.

Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Rosenberg, D., 2009 Oregon State University, Corvallis, personal communication.

Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, D. F. DeSante, and H. Ober. 2009. An updated adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at NAS Lemoore. The Oregon Wildlife Institute, Corvallis, OR and The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA. OWI Contribution No. 201 and IBP Contribution No. 375.

Rosenberg, D. K., J. A. Gervais, H. Ober, and D. F. DeSante. 1998. An adaptive management plan for the burrowing owl population at Naval Air Station Lemoore, California, USA. Publication 95, Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, Pt.

Reyes Station, CA 94956.

Rosenberg, D. K., and K. L. Haley. 2004. The ecology of burrowing owls in the agroecosystem of the Imperial Valley, California. Studies in Avian Biology 27:120-135.

Rosenberg, D. K., L. A. Trulio, D. H. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J. A. Gervais, N. Ronan, and K.

A. Haley. 2007. The ecology of the burrowing owl in California, unpublished report to Bureau of Land Management.

Rosier, J. R., N. A., Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist 155: 162–167.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA.

Scobie, D., and C. Faminow. 2000. Development of standardized guidelines for petroleum industry activities that affect COSEWIC Prairie and Northern Region vertebrate species at risk. Environment Canada, Prairie and Northern Region, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. Comrack. 2008.

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).

Smith, M. D., C. J. Conway, and L. A. Ellis. 2005. Burrowing owl nesting productivity: a comparison between artificial and natural burrows on and off golf courses. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 454-462.

Thelander, C. G., K. S. Smallwood, and L. Rugge. 2003. Bird risk behaviors and fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, period of performance: March 1998– 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 19
December 2000. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA.

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport.

Condor 73: 177-192.

Thompson, C. D. 1984. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology in central Wyoming.

Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA.

Trulio, L. 1995. Passive relocation: A method to preserve burrowing owls on disturbed sites.

Journal of Field Ornithology 66: 99–106.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. U.S.

Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. U.S.

Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Wesemann, T. and M. Rowe. 1985. Factors influencing the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in Cape Coral, Florida. Pages 129-137 in L. W. Adams and D. L.

Leedy, editors. Integrating Man and Nature in the Metropolitan Environment.

Proceedings National Symposium. on Urban Wildlife, 4-7 November 1986, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA.

Wilkerson, R. L. and R. B. Siegel. 2010. Assessing changes in the distribution and abundance of burrowing owls in California, 1993-2007. Bird Populations 10: 1-36.

Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Technical Note T-N-250, Denver, Colorado, USA.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 20
Appendix A. Burrowing Owl Natural History and Threats
Diet
Burrowing owl diet includes arthropods, small rodents, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and carrion (Haug et al. 1993).

Breeding
In California, the breeding season for the burrowing owl typically occurs between 1 February and 31 August although breeding in December has been documented (Thompson 1971, Gervais et al. 2008); breeding behavior includes nest site selection by the male, pair formation, copulation, egg laying, hatching, fledging, and post-fledging care of young by the parents. The peak of the breeding season occurs between 15 April and 15 July and is the period when most burrowing owls have active nests (eggs or young). The incubation period lasts 29 days (Coulombe 1971) and young fledge after 44 days (Haug et al. 1993). Note that the timing of nesting activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. Burrowing owls may change burrows several times during the breeding season, starting when nestlings are about three weeks old (Haug et al. 1993).

Dispersal
The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al (2008):
“The burrowing owl is often considered a sedentary species (e.g., Thomsen 1971).

A large proportion of adults show strong fidelity to their nest site from year to year, especially where resident, as in Florida (74% for females, 83% for males; Millsap and Bear 1997). In California, nest-site fidelity rates were 32%–50% in a large grassland and 57% in an agricultural environment (Ronan 2002, Catlin 2004, Catlin et al. 2005). Differences in these rates among sites may reflect differences in nest predation rates (Catlin 2004, Catlin et al. 2005). Despite the high nest fidelity rates, dispersal distances may be considerable for both juveniles (natal dispersal) and adults (postbreeding dispersal), but this also varied with location (Catlin 2004, Rosier et al. 2006). Distances of 53 km to roughly 150 km have been observed in California for adult and natal dispersal, respectively (D. K. Rosenberg and J. A.

Gervais, unpublished data), despite the difficulty in detecting movements beyond the immediate study area (Koenig et al. 1996).”
Habitat
The burrowing owl is a small, long-legged, ground-dwelling bird species, well-adapted to open, relatively flat expanses. In California, preferred habitat is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs, level to gentle topography and well-drained soils (Haug et al. 1993). Grassland, shrub steppe, and desert are naturally occurring habitat types used by the species. In addition, burrowing owls may occur in some agricultural areas, ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat in proximity (Gervais et al 2008). Unique amongst North 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 21
American raptors, the burrowing owl requires underground burrows or other cavities for nesting during the breeding season and for roosting and cover, year round. Burrows used by the owls are usually dug by other species termed host burrowers. In California, California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and round-tailed ground squirrel (Citellus tereticaudus) burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls but they may use dens or holes dug by other fossorial species including badger (Taxidea taxus), coyote (Canis latrans), and fox (e.g., San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica; Ronan 2002). In some instances, owls have been known to excavate their own burrows (Thompson 1971, Barclay 2007). Natural rock cavities, debris piles, culverts, and pipes also are used for nesting and roosting (Rosenberg et al. 1998). Burrowing owls have been documented using artificial burrows for nesting and cover (Smith and Belthoff, 2003).

Foraging habitat. Foraging habitat is essential to burrowing owls. The following discussion is an excerpt from Gervais et al. (2008):
“Useful as a rough guide to evaluating project impacts and appropriate mitigation for burrowing owls, adult male burrowing owls home ranges have been documented (calculated by minimum convex polygon) to comprise anywhere from 280 acres in intensively irrigated agroecosystems in Imperial Valley (Rosenberg and Haley 2004) to 450 acres in mixed agricultural lands at Lemoore Naval Air Station, CA (Gervais et al. 2003), to 600 acres in pasture in Saskatchewan, Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990). But owl home ranges may be much larger, perhaps by an order of magnitude, in non-irrigated grasslands such as at Carrizo Plain, California (Gervais et al. 2008), based on telemetry studies and distribution of nests. Foraging occurs primarily within 600 m of their nests (within approximately 300 acres, based on a circle with a 600 m radius) during the breeding season.”
Importance of burrows and adjacent habitat. Burrows and the associated surrounding habitat are essential ecological requisites for burrowing owls throughout the year and especially during the breeding season. During the non-breeding season, burrowing owls remain closely associated with burrows, as they continue to use them as refuge from predators, shelter from weather and roost sites. Resident populations will remain near the previous season’s nest burrow at least some of the time (Coulombe 1971, Thomsen 1971, Botelho 1996, LaFever et al. 2008).

In a study by Lutz and Plumpton (1999) adult males and females nested in formerly used sites at similar rates (75% and 63%, respectively) (Lutz and Plumpton 1999). Burrow fidelity has been reported in some areas; however, more frequently, burrowing owls reuse traditional nesting areas without necessarily using the same burrow (Haug et al. 1993, Dechant et al. 1999). Burrow and nest sites are re-used at a higher rate if the burrowing owl has reproduced successfully during the previous year (Haug et al. 1993) and if the number of burrows isn’t limiting nesting opportunity.

Burrowing owls may use “satellite” or non-nesting burrows, moving young at 10-14 days, presumably to reduce risk of predation (Desmond and Savidge 1998) and possibly to avoid nest parasites (Dechant et al. 1999). Successful nests in Nebraska had more active satellite burrows within 75 m of the nest burrow than unsuccessful nests (Desmond and Savidge 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 22
1999). Several studies have documented the number of satellite burrows used by young and adult burrowing owls during the breeding season as between one and 11 burrows with an average use of approximately five burrows (Thompsen 1984, Haug 1985, Haug and Oliphant 1990). Supporting the notion of selecting for nest sites near potential satellite burrows, Ronan (2002) found burrowing owl families would move away from a nest site if their satellite burrows were experimentally removed through blocking their entrance.

Habitat adjacent to burrows has been documented to be important to burrowing owls.

Gervais et al. (2003) found that home range sizes of male burrowing owls during the nesting season were highly variable within but not between years. Their results also suggested that owls concentrate foraging efforts within 600 meters of the nest burrow, as was observed in Canada (Haug and Oliphant 1990) and southern California (Rosenberg and Haley 2004).

James et al. (1997), reported habitat modification factors causing local burrowing owl declines included habitat fragmentation and loss of connectivity.

In conclusion, the best available science indicates that essential habitat for the burrowing owl in California must include suitable year-round habitat, primarily for breeding, foraging, wintering and dispersal habitat consisting of short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey within close proximity to the burrow.

Threats to Burrowing Owls in California
Habitat loss. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation are the greatest threats to burrowing owls in California. According to DeSante et al. (2007), “the vast majority of burrowing owls [now] occur in the wide, flat lowland valleys and basins of the Imperial Valley and Great Central Valley [where] for the most part,...the highest rates of residential and commercial development in California are occurring.” Habitat loss from the State’s long history of urbanization in coastal counties has already resulted in either extirpation or drastic reduction of burrowing owl populations there (Gervais et al. 2008). Further, loss of agricultural and other open lands (such as grazed landscapes) also negatively affect owl populations. Because of their need for open habitat with low vegetation, burrowing owls are unlikely to persist in agricultural lands dominated by vineyards and orchards (Gervais et al. 2008).

Control of burrowing rodents. According to Klute et al. (2003), the elimination of burrowing rodents through control programs is a primary factor in the recent and historical decline of burrowing owl populations nationwide. In California, ground squirrel burrows are most often used by burrowing owls for nesting and cover; thus, ground squirrel control programs may affect owl numbers in local areas by eliminating a necessary resource.

Direct mortality. Burrowing owls suffer direct losses from a number of sources. Vehicle collisions are a significant source of mortality especially in the urban interface and where owls nest alongside roads (Haug et al. 1993, Gervais et al. 2008). Road and ditch maintenance, modification of water conveyance structures (Imperial Valley) and discing to control weeds in fallow fields may destroy burrows (Rosenberg and Haley 2004, Catlin and Rosenberg 2006) which may trap or crush owls. Wind turbines at Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area are known to cause direct burrowing owl mortality (Thelander et al. 2003). Exposure to 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 23
pesticides may pose a threat to the species but is poorly understood (Klute et al. 2003, Gervais et al. 2008).
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 24
Appendix B. Definitions
Some key terms that appear in this document are defined below.

Adjacent habitat means burrowing owl habitat that abuts the area where habitat and burrows will be impacted and rendered non-suitable for occupancy.

Breeding (nesting) season begins as early as 1 February and continues through 31 August (Thomsen 1971, Zarn 1974). The timing of breeding activities may vary with latitude and climatic conditions. The breeding season includes pairing, egg-laying and incubation, and nestling and fledging stages.

Burrow exclusion is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings during the non-breeding season to temporarily exclude burrowing owls or permanently exclude burrowing owls and excavate and close burrows after confirming burrows are empty.

Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.

Burrow surrogates include culverts, piles of concrete rubble, piles of soil, burrows created along soft banks of ditches and canals, pipes, and similar structures.

Civil twilight - Morning civil twilight begins when the geometric center of the sun is 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dawn) and ends at sunrise. Evening civil twilight begins at sunset and ends when the geometric center of the sun reaches 6 degrees below the horizon (civil dusk).

During this period there is enough light from the sun that artificial sources of light may not be needed to carry on outdoor activities. This concept is sometimes enshrined in laws, for example, when drivers of automobiles must turn on their headlights (called lighting-up time in the UK); when pilots may exercise the rights to fly aircraft. Civil twilight can also be described as the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under clear weather conditions, for terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning civil twilight, or end of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and the brightest stars are visible under clear atmospheric conditions.

Conservation for burrowing owls may include but may not be limited to protecting remaining breeding pairs or providing for population expansion, protecting and enhancing breeding and essential habitat, and amending or augmenting land use plans to stabilize populations and other specific actions to avoid the need to list the species pursuant to California or federal Endangered Species Acts.

Contiguous means connected together so as to form an uninterrupted expanse in space.

Essential habitat includes nesting, foraging, wintering, and dispersal habitat.

Foraging habitat is habitat within the estimated home range of an occupied burrow, supports suitable prey base, and allows for effective hunting.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 25
Host burrowers include ground squirrels, badgers, foxes, coyotes, gophers etc.

Locally significant species is a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or occurring in a unique habitat type.

Non-breeding season is the period of time when nesting activity is not occurring, generally September 1 through January 31, but may vary with latitude and climatic conditions.

Occupied site or occupancy means a site that is assumed occupied if at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying a burrow within the last three years (Rich 1984).

Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat may also be indicated by owl sign including its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site.

Other impacting activities may include but may not be limited to agricultural practices, vegetation management and fire control, pest management, conversion of habitat from rangeland or natural lands to more intensive agricultural uses that could result in “take”.

These impacting activities may not meet the definition of a project under CEQA.

Passive relocation is a technique of installing one-way doors in burrow openings to temporarily or permanently evict burrowing owls and prevent burrow re-occupation.

Peak of the breeding season is between 15 April and 15 July.

Sign includes its tracks, molted feathers, cast pellets (defined as 1-2” long brown to black regurgitated pellets consisting of non-digestible portions of the owls’ diet, such as fur, bones, claws, beetle elytra, or feathers), prey remains, egg shell fragments, owl white wash, nest burrow decoration materials (e.g., paper, foil, plastic items, livestock or other animal manure, etc.), possible owl perches, or other items.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 26
Appendix C. Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details
Habitat Assessment Data Collection and Reporting
Current scientific literature indicates that it would be most effective to gather the data in the manner described below when conducting project scoping, conducting a habitat assessment site visit and preparing a habitat assessment report:

1. Conduct at least one visit covering the entire potential project/activity area including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Survey adjoining areas within 150 m (Thomsen 1971, Martin 1973), or more where direct or indirect effects could potentially extend offsite. If lawful access cannot be achieved to adjacent areas, surveys can be performed with a spotting scope or other methods.

2. Prior to the site visit, compile relevant biological information for the site and surrounding area to provide a local and regional context.

3. Check all available sources for burrowing owl occurrence information regionally prior to a field inspection. The CNDDB and BIOS (see References cited) may be consulted for known occurrences of burrowing owls. Other sources of information include, but are not limited to, the Proceedings of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium (Barclay et al. 2007), county bird atlas projects, Breeding Bird Survey records, eBIRD (http://ebird.org), Gervais et al. (2008), local reports or experts, museum records, and other site-specific relevant information.

4. Identify vegetation and habitat types potentially supporting burrowing owls in the project area and vicinity.

5. Record and report on the following information:
a. A full description of the proposed project, including but not limited to, expected work periods, daily work schedules, equipment used, activities performed (such as drilling, construction, excavation, etc.) and whether the expected activities will vary in location or intensity over the project’s timeline;
b. A regional setting map, showing the general project location relative to major roads and other recognizable features;
c. A detailed map (preferably a USGS topo 7.5’ quad base map) of the site and proposed project, including the footprint of proposed land and/or vegetation-altering activities, base map source, identifying topography, landscape features, a north arrow, bar scale, and legend;
d. A written description of the biological setting, including location (Section, Township, Range, baseline and meridian), acreage, topography, soils, geographic and hydrologic characteristics, land use and management history on and adjoining the site (i.e., whether it is urban, semi-urban or rural; whether there is any evidence of past or current livestock grazing, mowing, disking, or other vegetation management activities); e. An analysis of any relevant, historical information concerning burrowing owl use or occupancy (breeding, foraging, over-wintering) on site or in the assessment area; f. Vegetation type and structure (using Sawyer et al. 2009), vegetation height, habitat types and features in the surrounding area plus a reasonably sized (as supported with logical justification) assessment area; (Note: use caution in discounting habitat based on grass height as it can be a temporary condition variable by season and conditions (such as current grazing regime) or may be distributed as a mosaic). 03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 27
g. The presence of burrowing owl individuals or pairs or sign (see Appendix B); h. The presence of suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates (>11 cm in diameter (height and width) and >150 cm in depth) (Johnson et al. 2010), regardless of a lack of any burrowing owl sign and/or burrow surrogates; and burrowing owls and/or their sign that have recently or historically (within the last 3 years) been identified on or adjacent to the site.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 28
Appendix D. Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports
Current scientific literature indicates that it is most effective to conduct breeding and nonbreeding season surveys and report in the manner that follows:

Breeding Season Surveys
Number of visits and timing. Conduct 4 survey visits: 1) at least one site visit between 15 February and 15 April, and 2) a minimum of three survey visits, at least three weeks apart, between 15 April and 15 July, with at least one visit after 15 June. Note: many burrowing owl migrants are still present in southwestern California during mid-March, therefore, exercise caution in assuming breeding occupancy early in the breeding season.

Survey method. Rosenberg et al. (2007) confirmed walking line transects were most effective in smaller habitat patches. Conduct surveys in all portions of the project site that were identified in the Habitat Assessment and fit the description of habitat in Appendix A.

Conduct surveys by walking straight-line transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density (Rosenberg et al. 2007). At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars.

During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey.

Care should be taken to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons and not to “flush” burrowing owls especially if predators are present to reduce any potential for needless energy expenditure or burrowing owl mortality. Burrowing owls may flush if approached by pedestrians within 50 m (Conway et al. 2003). If raptors or other predators are present that may suppress burrowing owl activity, return at another time or later date for a follow-up survey.

Check all burrowing owls detected for bands and/or color bands and report band combinations to the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL). Some site-specific variations to survey methods discussed below may be developed in coordination with species experts and Department staff.

Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75% (Conway et al. 2008).

Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey method. However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities (Barclay pers. comm. 2012, Conway et al. 2008).
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 29
Alternate methods. If the project site is large enough to warrant an alternate method, consult current literature for generally accepted survey methods and consult with the Department on the proposed survey approach.

Additional breeding season site visits. Additional breeding season site visits may be necessary, especially if non-breeding season exclusion methods are contemplated. Detailed information, such as approximate home ranges of each individual or of family units, as well as foraging areas as related to the proposed project, will be important to document for evaluating impacts, planning avoidance measure implementation and for mitigation measure performance monitoring.

Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from determining presence or occupancy.

Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of burrowing owls in any given year. Any such conditions should be identified and discussed in the survey report. Visits to the site in more than one year may increase the likelihood of detection. Also, visits to adjacent known occupied habitat may help determine appropriate survey timing.

Given the high site fidelity shown by burrowing owls (see Appendix A, Importance of burrows), conducting surveys over several years may be necessary when project activities are ongoing, occur annually, or start and stop seasonally. (See Negative surveys).

Non-breeding Season Surveys
If conducting non-breeding season surveys, follow the methods described above for breeding season surveys, but conduct at least four (4) visits, spread evenly, throughout the nonbreeding season. Burrowing owl experts and local Department staff are available to assist with interpreting results.

Negative Surveys
Adverse conditions may prevent investigators from documenting presence or occupancy.

Disease, predation, drought, high rainfall or site disturbance may preclude presence of burrowing owl in any given year. Discuss such conditions in the Survey Report. Visits to the site in more than one year increase the likelihood of detection and failure to locate burrowing owls during one field season does not constitute evidence that the site is no longer occupied, particularly if adverse conditions influenced the survey results. Visits to other nearby known occupied sites can affirm whether the survey timing is appropriate.

Take Avoidance Surveys
Field experience from 1995 to present supports the conclusion that it would be effective to complete an initial take avoidance survey no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground disturbance activities using the recommended methods described in the Detection Surveys section above. Implementation of avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered by positive owl presence on the site where project activities will occur. The development of avoidance and minimization approaches would be informed by monitoring the burrowing owls.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 30
Burrowing owls may re-colonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance.

Survey Reports
Report on the survey methods used and results including the information described in the Summary Report and include the reports within the CEQA documentation:

1. Date, start and end time of surveys including weather conditions (ambient temperature, wind speed, percent cloud cover, precipitation and visibility);

2. Name(s) of surveyor(s) and qualifications;

3. A discussion of how the timing of the survey affected the comprehensiveness and detection probability;

4. A description of survey methods used including transect spacing, point count dispersal and duration, and any calls used;

5. A description and justification of the area surveyed relative to the project area;

6. A description that includes: number of owls or nesting pairs at each location (by nestlings, juveniles, adults, and those of an unknown age), number of burrows being used by owls, and burrowing owl sign at burrows. Include a description of individual markers, such as bands (numbers and colors), transmitters, or unique natural identifying features. If any owls are banded, request documentation from the BBL and bander to report on the details regarding the known history of the banded burrowing owl(s) (age, sex, origins, whether it was previously relocated) and provide with the report if available;

7. A description of the behavior of burrowing owls during the surveys, including feeding, resting, courtship, alarm, territorial defense, and those indicative of parents or juveniles;

8. A list of possible burrowing owl predators present and documentation of any evidence of predation of owls;

9. A detailed map (1:24,000 or closer to show details) showing locations of all burrowing owls, potential burrows, occupied burrows, areas of concentrated burrows, and burrowing owl sign. Locations documented by use of global positioning system (GPS) coordinates must include the datum in which they were collected. The map should include a title, north arrow, bar scale and legend;

10. Signed field forms, photos, etc., as appendices to the field survey report;

11. Recent color photographs of the proposed project or activity site; and

12. Original CNDDB Field Survey Forms should be sent directly to the Department’s CNDDB office, and copies should be included in the environmental document as an appendix. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/bdb/html/cnddb.html ).
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 31
Appendix E. Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans
Whereas the Department does not recommend exclusion and burrow closure, current scientific literature and experience from 1995 to present, indicate that the following example components for burrowing owl artificial burrow and exclusion plans, combined with consultation with the Department to further develop these plans, would be effective.

Artificial Burrow Location
If a burrow is confirmed occupied on-site, artificial burrow locations should be appropriately located and their use should be documented taking into consideration:

1. A brief description of the project and project site pre-construction;

2. The mitigation measures that will be implemented;

3. Potential conflicting site uses or encumbrances;

4. A comparison of the occupied burrow site(s) and the artificial burrow site(s) (e.g., vegetation, habitat types, fossorial species use in the area, and other features);

5. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to the project activities, roads and drainages;

6. Artificial burrow(s) proximity to other burrows and entrance exposure;

7. Photographs of the site of the occupied burrow(s) and the artificial burrows;

8. Map of the project area that identifies the burrow(s) to be excluded as well as the proposed sites for the artificial burrows;

9. A brief description of the artificial burrow design;

10. Description of the monitoring that will take place during and after project implementation including information that will be provided in a monitoring report.

11. A description of the frequency and type of burrow maintenance.

Exclusion Plan
An Exclusion Plan addresses the following including but not limited to:

1. Confirm by site surveillance that the burrow(s) is empty of burrowing owls and other species preceding burrow scoping;

2. Type of scope and appropriate timing of scoping to avoid impacts;

3. Occupancy factors to look for and what will guide determination of vacancy and excavation timing (one-way doors should be left in place 48 hours to ensure burrowing owls have left the burrow before excavation, visited twice daily and monitored for evidence that owls are inside and can’t escape i.e., look for sign immediately inside the door).

4. How the burrow(s) will be excavated. Excavation using hand tools with refilling to prevent reoccupation is preferable whenever possible (may include using piping to stabilize the burrow to prevent collapsing until the entire burrow has been excavated and it can be determined that no owls reside inside the burrow);

5. Removal of other potential owl burrow surrogates or refugia on site;

6. Photographing the excavation and closure of the burrow to demonstrate success and sufficiency;
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 32

7. Monitoring of the site to evaluate success and, if needed, to implement remedial measures to prevent subsequent owl use to avoid take;

8. How the impacted site will continually be made inhospitable to burrowing owls and fossorial mammals (e.g., by allowing vegetation to grow tall, heavy disking, or immediate and continuous grading) until development is complete.
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 33
Appendix F. Mitigation Management Plan and Vegetation
Management Goals
Mitigation Management Plan
A mitigation site management plan will help ensure the appropriate implementation and maintenance for the mitigation site and persistence of the burrowing owls on the site. For an example to review, refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009). The current scientific literature and field experience from 1995 to present indicate that an effective management plan includes the following:

1. Mitigation objectives;

2. Site selection factors (including a comparison of the attributes of the impacted and conserved lands) and baseline assessment;

3. Enhancement of the conserved lands (enhancement of reproductive capacity, enhancement of breeding areas and dispersal opportunities, and removal or control of population stressors);

4. Site protection method and prohibited uses;

5. Site manager roles and responsibilities;

6. Habitat management goals and objectives:
a. Vegetation management goals,
i. Vegetation management tools:

1. Grazing

2. Mowing

3. Burning

4. Other
b. Management of ground squirrels and other fossorial mammals, c. Semi-annual and annual artificial burrow cleaning and maintenance, d. Non-natives control – weeds and wildlife,
e. Trash removal;

7. Financial assurances:
a. Property analysis record or other financial analysis to determine long-term management funding,
b. Funding schedule;

8. Performance standards and success criteria;

9. Monitoring, surveys and adaptive management;

10. Maps;

11. Annual reports.

Vegetation Management Goals
 Manage vegetation height and density (especially in immediate proximity to burrows).

Suitable vegetation structure varies across sites and vegetation types, but should generally be at the average effective vegetation height of 4.7 cm (Green and Anthony 1989) and <13 cm average effective vegetation height (MacCracken et al. 1985a).  Employ experimental prescribed fires (controlled, at a small scale) to manage vegetation structure;
03/7/12 DFG BUOW Staff Report 34
 Vegetation reduction or ground disturbance timing, extent, and configuration should avoid take. While local ordinances may require fire prevention through vegetation management, activities like disking, mowing, and grading during the breeding season can result in take of burrowing owls and collapse of burrows, causing nest destruction. Consult the take avoidance surveys section above for pre-management avoidance survey recommendations;
 Promote natural prey distribution and abundance, especially in proximity to occupied burrows; and
 Promote self-sustaining populations of host burrowers by limiting or prohibiting lethal rodent control measures and by ensuring food availability for host burrowers through vegetation management.

Refer to Rosenberg et al. (2009) for a good discussion of managing grasslands for burrowing owls.

Mitigation Site Success Criteria
In order to evaluate the success of mitigation and management strategies for burrowing owls, monitoring is required that is specific to the burrowing owl management plan. Given limited resources, Barclay et al. (2011) suggests managers focus on accurately estimating annual adult owl populations rather than devoting time to estimating reproduction, which shows high annual variation and is difficult to accurately estimate. Therefore, the key objective will be to determine accurately the number of adult burrowing owls and pairs, and if the numbers are maintained. A frequency of 5-10 years for surveys to estimate population size may suffice if there are no changes in the management of the nesting and foraging habitat of the owls.

Effective monitoring and evaluation of off-site and on-site mitigation management success for burrowing owls includes (Barclay, pers. comm.):
 Site tenacity;
 Number of adult owls present and reproducing;
 Colonization by burrowing owls from elsewhere (by band re-sight);  Evidence and causes of mortality;
 Changes in distribution; and
 Trends in stressors.

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to
Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Sensitive Natural Communities

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
DATE: March 20, 2018*

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........................................................................... 1

2. BOTANICAL FIELD SURVEYS................................................................................ 4

3. REPORTING AND DATA COLLECTION ................................................................. 7

4. BOTANICAL FIELD SURVEYOR QUALIFICATIONS ............................................ 11

5. SUGGESTED REFERENCES................................................................................ 11

1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The conservation of special status native plants and their habitats, as well as sensitive natural communities, is integral to maintaining biological diversity. The purpose of these protocols is to facilitate a consistent and systematic approach to botanical field surveys and assessments of special status plants and sensitive natural communities so that reliable information is produced and the potential for locating special status plants and sensitive natural communities is maximized. These protocols may also help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine when botanical field surveys are needed, how botanical field surveys may be conducted, what information to include in a botanical survey report, and what qualifications to consider for botanical field surveyors. These protocols are meant to help people meet California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 requirements for adequate disclosure of potential impacts to plants and sensitive natural communities. These protocols may be used in conjunction with protocols formulated by other agencies, for example, those developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to delineate jurisdictional wetlands2 or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to survey for the presence of special status plants. 3 * Minor editorial revisions were made to this document on February 3, 2021 1 Available at: https://files.resources.ca.gov/ceqa/
2 Available at: https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Regulatory-Program-andPermits/techbio/ 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines: https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/SurveyProtocols-Guidelines/ Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

Department of Fish and Wildlife Trustee and Responsible Agency Mission The mission of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is to manage California's diverse wildlife and native plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary to maintain biologically sustainable populations (Fish & G.

Code, § 1802). CDFW, as trustee agency under CEQA Guidelines section 15386, provides expertise in reviewing and commenting on environmental documents and provides protocols regarding potential negative impacts to those resources held in trust for the people of California.

Certain species are in danger of extinction because their habitats have been severely reduced in acreage, are threatened with destruction or adverse modification, or because of a combination of these and other factors. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) provide additional protections for such species, including take prohibitions (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.; Fish & G. Code, § 1908). As a responsible agency, CDFW has the authority to issue permits for the take of species listed under CESA and NPPA if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; CDFW has determined that the impacts of the take have been minimized and fully mitigated; and the take would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species (Fish & G. Code, § 2081, subd. (b); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 786.9, subd. (b)).

Botanical field surveys are one of the preliminary steps to detect special status plant species and sensitive natural communities that may be impacted by a project.

Definitions
Botanical field surveys provide information used to determine the potential environmental effects of proposed projects on special status plants and sensitive natural communities as required by law (e.g., CEQA, CESA, and federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)).

Special status plants, for the purposes of this document, include all plants that meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 C.F.R., § 17.12).
• Listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.). 4 In CESA,
“endangered species” means a native species or subspecies of plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease (Fish & G. Code, § 2062). “Threatened species” means a native species or subspecies of plant that, 4 Refer to current online published lists available at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by CESA (Fish & G. Code, § 2067). “Candidate species” means a native species or subspecies of plant that the California Fish and Game Commission has formally noticed as being under review by CDFW for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the California Fish and Game Commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list (Fish & G. Code, § 2068).
• Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (Fish & G. Code, § 1900 et seq.). A plant is rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens (Fish & G. Code, § 1901).
• Meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA Guidelines section 15380, subdivisions (b) and (d), which may include:
o Plants tracked by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1 or 2;
5 and
o Plants that may warrant consideration on the basis of declining trends, recent taxonomic information, or other factors. This includes plants tracked by the CNDDB as CRPR 3 or 4.
6 • Considered locally significant plants, that is, plants that are not rare from a statewide perspective but are rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G).

Examples include plants that are at the outer limits of their known geographic range or plants occurring on an atypical soil type.

Sensitive natural communities are communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. These communities may or may not contain special status plants or their habitat. CDFW’s List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities7 is based on the best available information, and indicates which natural communities are considered sensitive at the current stage of the California vegetation classification effort. See the Vegetation 5 See CNDDB’s Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List for plant taxa with a CRPR of 1 or 2: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline 6 CRPR 3 plants (plants about which more information is needed) and CRPR 4 plants (plants of limited distribution) may warrant consideration under CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Impacts to CRPR 3 plants may warrant consideration under CEQA if sufficient information is available to assess potential impacts to such plants. Impacts to CRPR 4 plants may warrant consideration under CEQA if cumulative impacts to such plants are significant enough to affect their overall rarity. Data on CRPR 3 and 4 plants should be submitted to CNDDB. Such data aids in determining and revising the CRPR of plants. See CNDDB’s Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List for plant taxa with a CRPR of 3 or 4: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline 7 Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities#natural communities lists Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) website for additional information on natural communities and vegetation classification.
8 2. BOTANICAL FIELD SURVEYS
Evaluate the need for botanical field surveys prior to the commencement of any activities that may modify vegetation, such as clearing, mowing, or ground-breaking activities. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey when:
• Natural (or naturalized) vegetation occurs in an area that may be directly or indirectly affected by a project (project area), and it is unknown whether or not special status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in the project area; • Special status plants or sensitive natural communities have historically been identified in a project area; or
• Special status plants or sensitive natural communities occur in areas with similar physical and biological properties as a project area.

Survey Objectives
Conduct botanical field surveys in a manner which maximizes the likelihood of locating special status plants and sensitive natural communities that may be present. Botanical field surveys should be floristic in nature, meaning that every plant taxon that occurs in the project area is identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status. “Focused surveys” that are limited to habitats known to support special status plants or that are restricted to lists of likely potential special status plants are not considered floristic in nature and are not adequate to identify all plants in a project area to the level necessary to determine if they are special status plants.

For each botanical field survey conducted, include a list of all plants and natural communities detected in the project area. More than one field visit is usually necessary to adequately capture the floristic diversity of a project area. An indication of the prevalence (estimated total numbers, percent cover, density, etc.) of the special status plants and sensitive natural communities in the project area is also useful to assess the significance of a particular plant population or natural community.

Survey Preparation
Before botanical field surveys are conducted, the botanical field surveyors should compile relevant botanical information in the general project area to provide a regional context. Consult the CNDDB9 and BIOS10 for known occurrences of special status plants and sensitive natural communities in the project area prior to botanical field surveys. Generally, identify vegetation and habitat types potentially occurring in the project area based on biological and physical properties (e.g., soils) of the project area 8 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP 9 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB
10 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

and surrounding ecoregion.
11 Then, develop a list of special status plants and sensitive natural communities with the potential to occur within the vegetation and habitat types identified. The list of special status plants with the potential to occur in the project area can be created with the help of the CNDDB QuickView Tool12 which allows the user to generate lists of CNDDB-tracked elements that occur within a particular U.S. Geological Survey 7.5’ topographic quad, surrounding quads, and counties within California.

Resulting lists should only be used as a tool to facilitate the use of reference sites, with the understanding that special status plants and sensitive natural communities in a project area may not be limited to those on the list. Botanical field surveys and subsequent reporting should be comprehensive and floristic in nature and not restricted to or focused only on a list. Include in the botanical survey report the list of potential special status plants and sensitive natural communities that was created, and the list of references used to compile the background botanical information for the project area.

Survey Extent
Botanical field surveys should be comprehensive over the entire project area, including areas that will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project. Adjoining properties should also be surveyed where direct or indirect project effects could occur, such as those from fuel modification, herbicide application, invasive species, and altered hydrology. Surveys restricted to known locations of special status plants may not identify all special status plants and sensitive natural communities present, and therefore do not provide a sufficient level of information to determine potential impacts.

Field Survey Method
Conduct botanical field surveys using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the project area to ensure thorough coverage. The level of effort required per given area and habitat is dependent upon the vegetation and its overall diversity and structural complexity, which determines the distance at which plants can be identified. Conduct botanical field surveys by traversing the entire project area to ensure thorough coverage, documenting all plant taxa observed. Parallel survey transects may be necessary to ensure thorough survey coverage in some habitats. The level of effort should be sufficient to provide comprehensive reporting. Additional time should be allocated for plant identification in the field.

Timing and Number of Visits
Conduct botanical field surveys in the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is during flowering or fruiting. Space botanical field survey visits throughout the growing season to accurately determine what plants exist in the project area. This usually involves multiple visits to the project area (e.g., in early, mid, and late-season) to capture the floristic diversity at a level necessary to determine 11 Ecological Subregions of the United States, available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/ toc.html
12 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. When creating a list of special status plants with the potential to occur in a project area, special care should be taken to search all quads with similar geology, habitats, and vegetation to those found in the project area.

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

if special status plants are present.
13 The timing and number of visits necessary to
determine if special status plants are present is determined by geographic location, the natural communities present, and the weather patterns of the year(s) in which botanical field surveys are conducted.

Reference Sites
When special status plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat present in a project area, observe reference sites (nearby accessible occurrences of the plants) to determine whether those special status plants are identifiable at the times of year the botanical field surveys take place and to obtain a visual image of the special status plants, associated habitat, and associated natural communities.

Use of Existing Surveys
For some project areas, floristic inventories or botanical survey reports may already exist. Additional botanical field surveys may be necessary for one or more of the following reasons:
• Botanical field surveys are not current;
14 • Botanical field surveys were conducted in natural systems that commonly experience year to year fluctuations such as periods of drought or flooding (e.g., vernal pool habitats or riverine systems);
• Botanical field surveys did not cover the entire project area; • Botanical field surveys did not occur at the appropriate times of year; • Botanical field surveys were not conducted for a sufficient number of years to detect plants that are not evident and identifiable every year (e.g., geophytes, annuals, and some short-lived plants);
• Botanical field surveys did not identify all plants in the project area to the taxonomic level necessary to determine rarity and listing status; • Fire history, land use, or the physical or climatic conditions of the project area have changed since the last botanical field survey was conducted; • Changes in vegetation or plant distribution have occurred since the last botanical field surveys were conducted, such as those related to habitat alteration, fluctuations in abundance, invasive species, seed bank dynamics, or other factors; or
13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants available at: https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/ Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/
14 Habitats, such as grasslands or desert plant communities that have annual and short-lived perennial plants as major floristic components, may require multiple annual surveys to fully capture baseline conditions. In habitats dominated by long-lived perennial plants, such as forests, surveys that were not conducted within the previous five years may not adequately represent the current baseline conditions and should be re-conducted.

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

• Recent taxonomic studies, status reviews or other scientific information has resulted in a revised understanding of the special status plants with potential to occur in the project area.

Negative Surveys
Adverse conditions from yearly weather patterns may prevent botanical field surveyors from determining the presence of, or accurately identifying, some special status plants in the project area. Disease, drought, predation, fire, herbivory, or other disturbance may also preclude the presence or identification of special status plants in any given year. Discuss all adverse conditions in the botanical survey report. 15 The failure to locate a known special status plant occurrence during one field season does not constitute evidence that the plant occurrence no longer exists at a location, particularly if adverse conditions are present. For example, botanical field surveys over a number of years may be necessary if the special status plant is an annual or shortlived plant having a persistent, long-lived seed bank and populations of the plant are known to not germinate every year. Visiting the project area in more than one year increases the likelihood of detecting special status plants, particularly if conditions change. To further substantiate negative findings for a known occurrence, a visit to a nearby reference site may help ensure that the timing of botanical field surveys was appropriate.

3. REPORTING AND DATA COLLECTION
Adequate information about special status plants and sensitive natural communities present in a project area will enable reviewing agencies and the public to effectively assess potential impacts to special status plants and sensitive natural communities and will guide the development of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The information necessary to assess impacts to special status plants and sensitive natural communities is described below. For comprehensive, systematic botanical field surveys where no special status plants or sensitive natural communities were found, reporting and data collection responsibilities for botanical field surveyor remain as described below, excluding specific occurrence information.

Special Status Plant and Sensitive Natural Community Observations Record the following information for locations of each special status plant and sensitive natural community detected during a botanical field survey of a project area. • The specific geographic locations where the special status plants and sensitive natural communities were found. Preferably this will be done by use of global positioning system (GPS) and include the datum16 in which the spatial data was 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants available at: https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ es/Survey-Protocols-Guidelines/
16 NAD83, NAD27 or WGS84
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

collected and any uncertainty or error associated with the data. If GPS is not available, a detailed map (1:24,000 or larger) showing locations and boundaries of each special status plant population and sensitive natural community in relation to the project area is acceptable. Mark occurrences and boundaries as accurately as possible;
• The site-specific characteristics of occurrences, such as associated species, habitat and microhabitat, structure of vegetation, topographic features, soil type, texture, and soil parent material. If a special status plant is associated with a wetland, provide a description of the direction of flow and integrity of surface or subsurface hydrology and adjacent off-site hydrological influences as appropriate;
• The number of individuals in each special status plant population as counted (if population is small) or estimated (if population is large); • If applicable, information about the percentage of each special status plant in each life stage such as seedling, vegetative, flowering, and fruiting; • The density of special status plants, identifying areas of relatively high, medium and low density of each special status plant in the project area; and • Digital images of special status plants and sensitive natural communities in the project area, with diagnostic features.

Special Status Plant and Sensitive Natural Community Documentation When a special status plant is located, data must be submitted to the CNDDB. Data may be submitted in a variety of formats depending on the amount and type of data that is collected.
17 The most common way to submit data is the Online CNDDB Field Survey Form,
18 or equivalent written report, accompanied by geographic locality information (GPS coordinates, GIS shapefiles, KML files, topographic map, etc.). Data submitted in digital form must include the datum19 in which it was collected.

If a sensitive natural community is found in a project area, document it with a Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form20 and submit the form to VegCAMP.
21 Voucher Collection
Voucher specimens provide verifiable documentation of special status plant presence and identification and a scientific record. This information is vital to conservation efforts and valuable for scientific research. Collection of voucher specimens should be 17 See https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data for information on acceptable data submission formats.
18 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data 19 NAD83, NAD27 or WGS84
20 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities/Submit 21 Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Releve Field Forms can be emailed to VegCAMP staff.

Contact information available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics, and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit requirements (e.g., scientific, educational, or management permits pursuant to Fish & G. Code, § 2081, subd. (a)). Voucher collections of special status plants (or possible special status plants) should only be made when such actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the population. A plant voucher collecting permit22 is required from CDFW prior to the take or possession of a state-listed plant for voucher collection purposes, and the permittee must comply with all permit conditions.

Voucher specimens should be deposited in herbaria that are members of the Consortium of California Herbaria23 no later than 120 days after the collections have been made. Digital imagery can be used to supplement plant identification and document habitat. Record all relevant collector names and permit numbers on specimen labels (if applicable).

Botanical Survey Reports
Botanical survey reports provide an important record of botanical field survey results and project area conditions. Botanical survey reports containing the following information should be prepared whenever botanical field surveys take place, and should also be submitted with project environmental documents:

Project and location description
• A description of the proposed project;
• A detailed map of the project area that identifies topographic and landscape features and includes a north arrow and bar scale;
• A vegetation map of the project area using Survey of California Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards24 at a thematic and spatial scale that allows the display of all sensitive natural communities; • A soil map of the project area; and
• A written description of the biological setting, including all natural communities; geological and hydrological characteristics; and land use or management history.

Detailed description of survey methodology and results
• Names and qualifications of botanical field surveyor(s); • Dates of botanical field surveys (indicating the botanical field surveyor(s) that surveyed each area on each survey date), and total person-hours spent; • A discussion of the survey preparation methodology;
• A list of special status plants and sensitive natural communities with potential to 22 Applications available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Permits 23 A list of Consortium of California Herbaria participants is available at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/ consortium/participants.html
24 Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/publications-and-protocols Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

occur in the region;
• Description(s) of reference site(s), if visited, and the phenological development of special status plant(s) at those reference sites;
• A description and map of the area surveyed relative to the project area; • A list of all plant taxa occurring in the project area, with all taxa identified to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether or not they are a special status plant;
• Detailed data and maps for all special status plants and sensitive natural communities detected. Information specified above under the headings “Special Status Plant and Sensitive Natural Community Observations,” and “Special Status Plant and Sensitive Natural Community Documentation,” should be provided for the locations of each special status plant and sensitive natural community detected. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms and Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Forms should be sent to the CNDDB and VegCAMP, respectively, and included in the project environmental document as an Appendix;
25 • A discussion of the potential for a false negative botanical field survey; • A discussion of how climatic conditions may have affected the botanical field survey results;
• A discussion of how the timing of botanical field surveys may affect the comprehensiveness of botanical field surveys;
• Any use of existing botanical field surveys and a discussion of their applicability to the project;
• The deposition locations of voucher specimens, if collected; and • A list of references used, including persons contacted and herbaria visited.

Assessment of potential project impacts
• A discussion of the significance of special status plant populations in the project area considering nearby populations and total range and distribution; • A discussion of the significance of sensitive natural communities in the project area considering nearby occurrences and natural community distribution; • A discussion of project related direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to special status plants and sensitive natural communities;
• A discussion of the degree and immediacy of all threats to special status plants and sensitive natural communities, including those from invasive species; • A discussion of the degree of impact, if any, of the project on unoccupied, 25 It is not necessary to submit entire environmental documents to the CNDDB.

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

potential habitat for special status plants; and
• Recommended measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to special status plants and sensitive natural communities.

4. BOTANICAL FIELD SURVEYOR QUALIFICATIONS
Botanical field surveyors should possess the following qualifications:
• Knowledge of plant taxonomy and natural community ecology; • Familiarity with plants of the region, including special status plants; • Familiarity with natural communities of the region, including sensitive natural communities;
• Experience with the CNDDB, BIOS, and Survey of California Vegetation Classification and Mapping Standards;
• Experience conducting floristic botanical field surveys as described in this document, or experience conducting such botanical field surveys under the direction of an experienced botanical field surveyor;
• Familiarity with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to plants and plant collecting; and
• Experience analyzing the impacts of projects on native plant species and sensitive natural communities.

5. SUGGESTED REFERENCES
Bonham, C.D. 1988. Measurements for terrestrial vegetation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. Most recent version. Inventory of rare and endangered plants (online edition). California Native Plant Society.

Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/.

California Native Plant Society. Most recent version. A manual of California vegetation.

California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/ cnps/vegetation/manual.php.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database. Most recent version. Special vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens list. Updated quarterly. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID= 109383&inline.

Elzinga, C.L., D.W. Salzer, and J. Willoughby. 1998. Measuring and monitoring plant populations. BLM Technical Reference 1730-1. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Denver, Colorado. Available at:
https://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/265/technical%20reference.pdf.

Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Most recent version. Jepson eFlora. Available at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/.

Leppig, G. and J.W. White. 2006. Conservation of peripheral plant populations in California. Madroño. 53:264-274.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.

John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Guidelines for conducting and reporting botanical inventories for federally listed plants on the Santa Rosa Plain. Sacramento, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Guidelines for conducting and reporting botanical inventories for federally listed, proposed and candidate plants. Sacramento, CA.

Van der Maarel, E. 2005. Vegetation Ecology. Blackwell Science Ltd. Malden, MA.

This document is available online at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

UPPER WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
Control Number: PLNP2018-00284
State Clearinghouse Number: 2020100069
August 2024

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DIVISION
827 7TH STREET, ROOM 225
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
1st District: Phil Serna
2nd District: Patrick Kennedy
3rd District: Rich Desmond
4th District: Sue Frost
5th District: Patrick Hume

COUNTY EXECUTIVE
David Villanueva, County Executive

PREPARED BY
Environmental Science Associates
County of Sacramento
Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

UPPER WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
Control Number: PLNP2018-00284
State Clearinghouse Number: 2020100069
This environmental impact report has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code Division 13). An environmental impact report is an informational document that, when this Office requires its preparation, shall be considered by every public agency prior to its approval or disapproval of a project. The purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies with detailed information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which any adverse effects of such a project might be minimized; and to suggest alternatives to such a project.

Prepared by the

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DIVISION
827 7TH STREET, ROOM 225
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814
https://planning.saccounty.gov

Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-1 PLNP2018-00284

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary............................................................................ ES-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................. ES-132 Terminology Used in This EIR........................................................................ ES-132 1 Introduction......................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose and Use of This EIR................................................................................. 1-1 CEQA Environmental Review................................................................................ 1-1 Environmental Review ........................................................................................... 1-2 Subsequent Project Approvals ............................................................................. 1-4 2 Project Description............................................................................. 2-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 2-1 Project Setting ........................................................................................................ 2-1 Project Background.............................................................................................. 2-11 Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 2-13 Requested Entitlements....................................................................................... 2-14 Vision..................................................................................................................... 2-20 Project Design ...................................................................................................... 2-28 Intended Uses of the EIR ..................................................................................... 2-59 3 Alternatives ......................................................................................... 3-1 Overview.................................................................................................................. 3-1 Factors in the Selection of Alternatives ............................................................... 3-1 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Evaluation ..................... 3-4 Alternatives Selected for Further Consideration................................................. 3-8 Overall Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................... 3-41 Environmentally Superior Alternative................................................................. 3-41 4 Aesthetics............................................................................................ 4-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 4-1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................ 4-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 4-12 Impacts And Analysis .......................................................................................... 4-15 5 Agricultural Resources ...................................................................... 5-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 5-1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................ 5-1 Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................. 5-9 Impacts And Analysis .......................................................................................... 5-16 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-2 PLNP2018-00284
6 Air Quality............................................................................................ 6-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 6-1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................ 6-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 6-12 Impacts and Analysis........................................................................................... 6-24 7 Biological Resources ......................................................................... 7-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 7-1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................ 7-3 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 7-28 Impacts and Analysis........................................................................................... 7-39 8 Climate Change................................................................................... 8-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 8-1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................ 8-1 Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................. 8-4 Impacts And Analysis .......................................................................................... 8-24 9 Cultural Resources............................................................................. 9-1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 9-1 Regulatory Setting.................................................................................................. 9-1 Environmental Setting............................................................................................ 9-5 Impacts And Analysis .......................................................................................... 9-22 10 Energy .............................................................................................10-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................10-1 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................10-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................10-5 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................10-14 11 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology .................................................11-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................11-1 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................11-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................11-7 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................11-11 12 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................12-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................12-1 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................12-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................12-4 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................12-14 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-3 PLNP2018-00284
13 Hydrology and Water Quality.........................................................13-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................13-1 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................13-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................13-4 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................13-15 14 Land Use..........................................................................................14-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................14-1 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................14-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................14-4 Impacts and Analysis.........................................................................................14-17 15 Noise................................................................................................15-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................15-1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................... 15-2 Regulatory Setting.............................................................................................. 15-15 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................ 15-24 16 Population and Housing................................................................. 16-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................16-1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................... 16-2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 16-6 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................ 16-10 17 Public Services and Recreation.....................................................17-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................17-1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................... 17-2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 17-6 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................ 17-11 18 Transportation ................................................................................18-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................18-1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................... 18-2 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 18-4 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................ 18-13 19 Tribal Cultural Resources ..............................................................19-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................19-1 Environmental Setting.......................................................................................... 19-1 Regulatory Setting................................................................................................ 19-5 Impacts and Analysis........................................................................................... 19-6 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-4 PLNP2018-00284
20 Utilities.............................................................................................20-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................20-1 Environmental Setting..........................................................................................20-1 Regulatory Setting..............................................................................................20-15 Impacts And Analysis ........................................................................................20-27 21 Other Resource Topics...................................................................21-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................21-1 Mineral Resources................................................................................................ 21-1 Wildfire .................................................................................................................. 21-2 22 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................22-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................22-1 Methodology .........................................................................................................22-1 Cumulative Issue Areas .....................................................................................22-10 23 Growth Inducement and Urban Decay ..........................................23-1 Growth-Inducing Effects......................................................................................23-1 Urban Decay..........................................................................................................23-3 24 Other CEQA Considerations ..........................................................24-1 Introduction...........................................................................................................24-1 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................24-2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes......................................24-14 25 Bibliography....................................................................................25-1 List of Plates
Plate PD-1: Regional Location ..................................................................................... 2-3 Plate PD-2: Vicinity Map............................................................................................... 2-4 Plate PD-3: UWSP Area............................................................................................... 2-5 Plate PD-4: UWSP Area Parcels.................................................................................. 2-6 Plate PD-5: Existing Uses & Site Features................................................................... 2-7 Plate PD-6: Natomas Joint Vision Area...................................................................... 2-12 Plate PD-7: Proposed USB/UPA Exhibit .................................................................... 2-15 Plate PD-8: Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Amendment .................. 2-17 Plate PD-9: Proposed Transportation Plan Exhibit..................................................... 2-18 Plate PD-10: Active Transportation Plan.................................................................... 2-19 Plate PD-11: Community Form Elements................................................................... 2-22 Plate PD-12: UWSP Planning Districts....................................................................... 2-25 Plate PD-13: UWSP Land Use Plan........................................................................... 2-29 Plate PD-14: UWSP Conceptual Roadway Plan ........................................................ 2-40 Plate PD-15: Bikeway Master Plan ............................................................................ 2-42 Plate PD-16: Sewer Master Plan................................................................................ 2-44 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-5 PLNP2018-00284
Plate PD-17: Water Master Plan ................................................................................ 2-46 Plate PD-18: Drainage Master Plan ........................................................................... 2-47 Plate PD-19: Dry Utilities............................................................................................ 2-49 Plate PD-20: Parks and Open Space Plan................................................................. 2-50 Plate PD-21: Offsite Improvements............................................................................ 2-55 Plate PD-22: Preliminary Phasing Plan...................................................................... 2-60 Plate ALT-1: Infill Alternative Growth Corridors............................................................ 3-6 Plate ALT-2: No Project/Existing Zoning Alternative .................................................. 3-13 Plate ALT-3: Reduced Footprint Alternative............................................................... 3-32 Plate AE-1: Viewpoint Locations .................................................................................. 4-3 Plate AE-2: Viewpoints 1 and 2.................................................................................... 4-4 Plate AE-3: Viewpoints 3 and 4.................................................................................... 4-5 Plate AE-4: Viewpoints 5 and 6.................................................................................... 4-6 Plate AE-5: Viewpoints 7 and 8.................................................................................... 4-7 Plate AE-6: Viewpoints 9 and 10.................................................................................. 4-8 Plate AE-7: Viewpoints 11 and 12................................................................................ 4-9 Plate AE-8: Viewpoints 13 and 14.............................................................................. 4-10 Plate TR-1: Existing Transit Facilities......................................................................... 18-5 Plate TR-2: Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................... 18-6 Plate TR-3: Proposed Roadway Network................................................................. 18-17 Plate TR-4: Proposed Bicycle Network .................................................................... 18-18 Plate TR-5: Proposed Transit Network..................................................................... 18-20 Plate TR-6: El Centro Rd/I-80 WB Ramps/West El Camino Ave Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements................................................................... 18-25 Plate TR-7: El Centro Road & West El Camino Avenue - Existing & Existing Plus Phase I with Recommended Improvements ....................................... 18-35 Plate TR-8: El Centro Road & West El Camino Avenue - Geometric Improvements ..................................................................................... 18-36 Plate CI-1: Cumulative Projects Within the Vicinity of UWSP.....................................22-9 List of Tables
Table ES-1: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation...................................... ES-3 Table PD-1: Land Use Summary ............................................................................... 2-30 Table PD-2: Commercial Mixed Use Development Assumptions............................... 2-35 Table PD-3: Subsequent Permits, Approvals, Review, and Consultation Requirements ....................................................................................... 2-61 Table ALT-1: Infill Corridors ......................................................................................... 3-7 Table ALT-2: No Project/Existing Zoning ................................................................... 3-14 Table ALT-3: Reduced Density .................................................................................. 3-23 Table ALT-4: Reduced Footprint ................................................................................ 3-33 Table ALT-5: Alternatives Impact Summary and Comparison.................................... 3-42 Table ALT-6: Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives.................................. 3-44 Table AG-1: Farmland in Sacramento County ............................................................. 5-3 Table AG-2: Agricultural Soil Evaluation .................................................................... 5-11 Table AG-3: UWSP Farmland Conversion................................................................. 5-21 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-6 PLNP2018-00284
Table AQ-1: Health Effects of Main Criteria Pollutants................................................. 6-3 Table AQ-2: Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Data (2020-2022) ............................. 6-9 Table AQ-3: National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards and Major Sources................................................................................................. 6-13 Table AQ-4: Sacramento County Attainment Status .................................................. 6-15 Table AQ-5: Construction Emissions Modeling Timeline Assumptions ...................... 6-28 Table AQ-6: Unmitigated Maximum Project Construction Emissions – Phase 1........ 6-39 Table AQ-7: Mitigated Maximum Project Construction Emissions – Phase 1 ............ 6-40 Table AQ-8: Unmitigated Maximum Project Construction Emissions – Subsequent Phases.............................................................................. 6-40 Table AQ-9: Unmitigated Maximum Project Operation Emissions ............................. 6-42 Table AQ-10: Mitigated Maximum Project Operation Emissions................................ 6-43 Table AQ-11: Health Effects from Project-Generated Criteria Pollutants ................... 6-45 Table AQ-12: Construction-Related Health Risk ........................................................ 6-47 Table AQ-13: Mitigated Construction-Related Health Risk......................................... 6-48 Table AQ-14: Operational Health Risk ....................................................................... 6-49 Table BR-1: Proportion of Land Cover Classifications Within the UWSP Area and Crosswalk with NBHCP Land Cover Classifications ............................... 7-5 Table BR-2: Special-Status and NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species Evaluated for Potential Occurrence in the UWSP Area ........................ 7-13 Table BR-3: Evaluation of Habitat Conservation Plan Covered Species.................... 7-77 Table CC-1: Sacramento County GHG Emissions....................................................... 8-3 Table CC-2: Maximum Unmitigated Construction GHG emissions (MTCO2e per Year)..................................................................................................... 8-27 Table CC-3: Unmitigated Operational GHG emissions (MTCO2e per Year).............. 8-29 Table CC-4: Residential VMT per Capita and Office VMT per Employee .................. 8-30 Table CC-5: Effect of Project’s Regional Retail on VMT – Baseline Conditions......... 8-31 Table CC-6: Consistency with Applicable GHG Reduction Actions in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update ............................................................................ 8-40 Table CUL-1: Previously Recorded Resources Within a 1/4 Mile of the UWSP Area ...................................................................................................... 9-19 Table CUL-2: Built Environment Resources in the UWSP Area Older than 50 Years ............................................................................................... 9-20 Table EN-1: Construction Energy Use Associated with the UWSP Phase 1 Construction........................................................................................ 10-18 Table EN-2: Construction Energy Use Associated with the UWSP Phases 2–4 Construction........................................................................................ 10-18 Table EN-3: Operational (Annual) Energy Use at Project Buildout ..........................10-21 Table HAZ-1: Breach 5 Effects at Critical Evacuation Route Locations ...................12-23 Table HAZ-2: Breach 6 Effects at Critical Evacuation Route Locations ...................12-24 Table LU-1: UWSP Consistency with General Plan Policy....................................... 14-21 Table LU-2: UWSP LU-120 Consistency.................................................................. 14-24 Table NOI-1: Typical Noise Levels............................................................................. 15-3 Table NOI-2: Summary of Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurement Results.................................................................................................. 15-8 Table NOI-3: Existing Traffic Noise along Roads in the Project Vicinity................... 15-11 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-7 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-4: Summary of Ambient Vibration Monitoring Results for the Plan Area . 15-14 Table NOI-5: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.............................................. 15-15 Table NOI-6: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration...................................... 15-16 Table NOI-7: Noise Standards for New Uses Affected by Traffic and Railroad Noise Sacramento County Noise Element.......................................... 15-18 Table NOI-8: Non-Transportation Noise Standards Sacramento County Noise Element Median (L50) / Maximum (Lmax)1 ........................................ 15-20 Table NOI-9: Requirements for Acoustical Analyses Prepared in Sacramento County ............................................................................ 15-21 Table NOI-10: Measures of a Substantial Increase in Transportation Noise Exposure............................................................................................. 15-27 Table NOI-11: Typical Maximum Noise Levels from Construction Equipment ......... 15-30 Table NOI-12: Vibration Levels for Construction Activity.......................................... 15-35 Table NOI-13: Predicted Traffic Noise Level Increases at Existing Sensitive Receptors – Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions.................. 15-37 Table NOI-14: Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels along Proposed Roadways within the Upper Westside Specific Plan Area................................... 15-52 Table PH-1: Regional Population Trends (2010−2022).............................................. 16-3 Table PH-2: City and County Population Growth (2010−2022).................................. 16-3 Table PH-3: Housing Units by Type in Unincorporated Sacramento County ............. 16-4 Table PH-4: SACOG Population, Employment, and Housing Projections for the Sacramento Region .............................................................................. 16-6 Table PH-5: SACOG Population, Employment, and Housing Projections for Unincorporated Sacramento County..................................................... 16-6 Table PS-1: Natomas Unified School District Schools, Enrollment, and Capacities... 17-4 Table PS-2: Natomas Unified School District Schools, Enrollment, and Capacities in the UWSP Area................................................................................. 17-4 Table PS-3: Student Generation Rates for Single-Family Detached, SingleFamily Attached, and Multi-family Units in the Plan Area.................... 17-13 Table PS-4: Student Generation Associated with the Proposed UWSP................... 17-16 Table PS-5: Parkland Associated with the Proposed Plan....................................... 17-18 Table TR-1: Project Trip Generation ........................................................................ 18-29 Table TR-2: VMT per Capita and per Employee ...................................................... 18-30 Table TR-3: Regional Retail Effect on VMT ............................................................. 18-31 Table TR-4: Roadway Widening Effect on VMT....................................................... 18-32 Table UT-1: Summary of the City of Sacramento’s Post-1914 Water Rights .............20-4 Table UT-2: Maximum Diversion Schedule (acre-feet per year) in the Settlement Contract between the City and Reclamation.........................................20-5 Table UT-3: City of Sacramento Groundwater Supplies.............................................20-6 Table UT-4: City of Sacramento Maximum Total Water Demands through 2045 (acre-feet per year)...............................................................................20-9 Table UT-5: Comparison of City of Sacramento Multiple-Dry-Year Supply and Demand, 2025 through 2045 (acre-feet per year)...............................20-10 Table UT-6: Water Demand for the Proposed UWSP..............................................20-29 Table UT-7: UWSP Land Use and Sewer ESDs ......................................................20-30 Table UT-8: Solid Waste Generation for the Proposed UWSP ................................20-31 Table of Contents
Upper Westside Specific Plan TOC-8 PLNP2018-00284
Table CI-1: Cumulative Project List............................................................................22-2 Table CI-2: Cumulative Cancer Risk ........................................................................22-18 Table CI-3: Acreage of Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Development in the Natomas Basin .............................................................................22-21 Table CI-4: Proportion of Available Reserve Lands Remaining After Build-out of Existing and Planned Development ....................................................22-31 Table CI-5: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels Year 2040 with Weekday P.M. Full Buildout of Project Mixed Uses ...........................................................22-46 Table CI-6: Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels along Roadways Affecting Development within the Plan Area Upper Westside Specific Plan......22-52 Table CI-7: Cumulative Water Demand within the City of Sacramento’s Service Area ....................................................................................................22-72 List of Appendices
INT-1 Notice of Preparation
PD-1 Proposed General Plan Text Amendments
AQ-1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis
BIO-1 Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment Report BIO-2 Biological Resources Assessment
BIO-3 Plant and Wildlife Species Lists for the Project Site EN-1 Energy Estimates Summary Report
HAZ-1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
HYD-1 Master Drainage Study
HYD-2 Upper Westside Flood Inundation Propagation
Procedural/Technical Memorandum
NOI-1 Environmental Nosie and Vibration Report
TR-1 Transportation Impact Analysis
TR-2 Local Transportation Analysis
UT-1 Water Supply Analysis
UD-1 Urban Decay Analysis
Upper Westside Specific Plan 1 PLNP2018-00284

LIST OF ACRONYMS
°F degrees Fahrenheit
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
2030 General Plan Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030 AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACM asbestos-containing materials
A.D. Anno Domini
ADWF average dry-weather flow
AF acre-feet
AFY acre-feet per year
AFY/du acre-feet per year per dwelling unit
AG Agriculture land use designation
Ag Buffer agricultural buffer
ALUCP airport land use compatibility plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
APPA Airport Planning Policy Area
AQMP air quality mitigation plan
AR Agricultural Residential land use designation
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BMP best management practice
B.P. years before present
Btu British thermal units
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California ambient air quality standards
CAISO California Independent System Operator
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2 PLNP2018-00284
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
California Register California Register of Historical Resources CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP climate action plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CAS climate adaptation strategy
CBC California Building Code
CC Community College land use designation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDPH California Department of Public Health
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CGP Construction General Permit
CGS California Geological Survey
CHP California Highway Patrol
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System City City of Sacramento
CKH Act Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act
CMS Changeable Message Sign
CMU Commercial Mixed Use
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 3 PLNP2018-00284
CMU-ET Commercial Mixed Use—East Triangle District
CMU-TC Commercial Mixed Use—Town Center District
CMU-YS Commercial Mixed Use—Young Scholars District
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CNU California Northstate University
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COLE coefficient of linear extensibility
Conference Year extremely dry water year
Construction General
Permit
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
County County of Sacramento
County DWR Sacramento County Department of Water Resources CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CREC controlled recognized environmental condition
CSA‐10 County Service Area 10
CSGMP Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVFPP Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
CVP Central Valley Project
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel(s)
dBA A-weighted decibel(s)
dbh diameter at breast height
DDT dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane
DNL day/night average sound level
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 4 PLNP2018-00284
Draft EIR draft environmental impact report
DSDG Development Standards and Design Guidelines
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
du dwelling units
du/ac dwelling units per acre
DWMR Sacramento County Department of Waste Management and Recycling
DWR California Department of Water Resources
E/HC Employment/Highway Commercial
EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone
EIR environmental impact report
EMFAC Emission Factor
ENGEO ENGEO Incorporated
EOP emergency operations plan
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act EPS Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

EQ Zapp California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application
ESD equivalent single-family dwelling units
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
EUI Energy Use Intensities
EV electric vehicle
EVSE electric vehicle supply equipment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FHZ Flood Hazard Zone
FICON Federal Interagency Committee on Noise
Final EIR final environmental impact report
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 5 PLNP2018-00284
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FR Federal Register
FRAP Forest Resource Assessment Program
Friant Ranch Guidance Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Projects in the Sac Metro Air District
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTE full-time equivalent
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program
FWTP E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant
G/UF Greenbelt/Urban Farm land use designation
GC General Commercial
GDF gasoline dispensing facility
General Plan Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030 GHG greenhouse gas
GLO General Land Office
GMP groundwater management plan
GSA groundwater sustainability agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Program
GUF Greenbelt/Urban Farm
GVWR gross vehicle weight rating
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWP global warming potential
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HARP 2 Hotspot Analysis Reporting Program Version 2 (California Air Resources Board)
HASP health and safety plan
HCD California Department of Housing and Community
Development
HCP habitat conservation plan
HDR High Density Residential
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HMBP hazardous materials business plan
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 6 PLNP2018-00284
HRA health risk assessment
HREC historical recognized environmental condition
HS High School land use designation
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
Hz hertz
I-5 Interstate 5
I-80 Interstate 80
ICE Intersection Control Evaluation
IEPR integrated energy policy report
in/sec inch(es) per second
ISA International Society of Arboriculture
ITS intelligent transportation system
K-8 Kindergarten through 8th Grade Schools land use
designation
kV kilovolt(s)
kWh kilowatt-hours
L50 the noise level equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a specified time (the median noise level)
L90 the noise level equaled or exceeded 90 percent of a specified time (the background noise level, averaged)
LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission
LBP lead-based paint
lbs. pounds
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LDIGR Local Land Development and Intergovernmental Review LDR Low Density Residential
LED light-emitting diode
Leq equivalent sound level
LEV low-emissions vehicle
LID Low Impact Design, low-impact development
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 7 PLNP2018-00284
Lmax instantaneous maximum noise level
LMDR Low Medium Density Residential
LOS level of service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LRSP Local Roadway Safety Plan
LSA Lake and Streambed Alteration
LTA Local Transportation Analysis
LUST leaking underground storage tank
LZ lighting zone
M&I Municipal and Industrial
MAP Metro Air Park
MAP HCP Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDR Medium Density Residential
MEIR maximally exposed individual receptor
MERV Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
MG million gallons
mgd million gallons per day
MMBtu million British thermal units
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
msl mean sea level
MSP Municipal Stormwater Permit
MTCO2E metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MTIP Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
MTP/SCS Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
MW magnitude
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8 PLNP2018-00284
MW megawatt(s)
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NARS North Area Recovery Station
NASb North American Subbasin
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NBHCP Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
NCIC North Central Information Center
NCMWC Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
NECPA National Energy Conservation Policy Act
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NLIP Natomas Levee Improvement Program
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NNPS New Natomas Pump Station
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
NUSD Natomas Unified School District
NZE net zero energy
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OS Open Space land use designation
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9 PLNP2018-00284
OS-C Open Space–Canal land use designation
OS-W Water Surface overlay
OSHA U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Ozone Attainment Plan Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan
P Parks land use designation
PA public address
PC performance criteria
PBID Property/Business Improvement District
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PEL permissible exposure limit
PER Sacramento County Office of Planning and Environmental Review
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PFFP Public Facilities Financing Plan
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Phase I assessment Phase I Environmental Site Assessment PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
PJD Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
pre-1914 rights water rights established before 1914
PRMMP paleontological resources monitoring and mitigation plan proposed plan Upper Westside Specific Plan
PSA purveyor-specific agreement
PTO Permit to Operate
PV photovoltaic
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10 PLNP2018-00284
Raney Raney Planning & Management Inc.

RAST Risk Assessment Standalone Tool
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RD 1000 Reclamation District 1000
RD-20 land zoning of 20 dwelling units per net acre
REC recognized environmental condition
Reclamation U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Regional Board Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Regional San Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District RHMA rubberized hot-mix asphalt
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
ROWM Right of Way Management
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RT Regional Transit
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
S Schools land use designation
SAB State Allocation Board
SACDOT Sacramento County Department of Transportation
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit
SacSewer Sacramento Area Sewer District
SAFCA Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
SafeTREC Safe Transportation Research & Education Center SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SASD Sacramento Area Sewer District
SB Senate Bill
SCATP Sacramento County Active Transportation Plan
SCBMP Sacramento County Bicycle Master Plan
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11 PLNP2018-00284
SCEMD Sacramento County Environmental Management
Department
SCPMP Sacramento County Pedestrian Master Plan
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SCWA Sacramento County Water Agency
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SEIR subsequent environmental impact report
SEL sound exposure level
SEMS Standardized Emergency Management System
SFD Sacramento Fire Department
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SGA Sacramento Groundwater Authority
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SGMP soil and groundwater management plan
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SHSP strategic highway safety plan
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMF Sacramento International Airport
SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SPA Special Planning Area
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
SPLS Sacramento Public Library System
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SRTP short range transit plan
SRWTP Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant
SRWWTP Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
SSC California Species of Special Concern
SSIA State Systemwide Investment Approach
SSMP site-specific management plan
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12 PLNP2018-00284
SSQP Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership
Staff Report Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP storm water pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TAG Transportation Analysis Guidelines
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TCL Tribal Cultural Landscape
TCP traffic control plan
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TMA Transportation Management Association
TNBC The Natomas Basin Conservancy
TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons
TPHd total petroleum hydrocarbons–diesel
TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbons–gasoline
TPHmo total petroleum hydrocarbons–motor oil
TPZ Tree Protection Zone
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
TSM transportation systems management
UARP Upper American River Project
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
UFC Uniform Fire Code
UIFR unimpaired flow into Folsom Reservoir
ULOP Urban Level of Protection
Unified Program Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
UPA Urban Policy Area
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
List of Acronyms
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13 PLNP2018-00284
USB Urban Services Boundary
U.S.C. United States Code
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWFP Upper Westside Financing Plan
UWMP urban water management plan
UWSP Upper Westside Specific Plan
VdB vibration decibels
VHDR Very High Density Residential
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VLDR Very Low Density Residential
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
West Drainage Canal Witter Canal
WFA Water Forum Agreement
WGCEP Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities WHO World Health Organization
WQ water quality
WSA water supply assessment
WSP Water Shortage Policy
ZEV zero-emission vehicle

Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-1 PLNP2018-00284

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject of this environmental impact report (EIR) is a project known as Upper Westside Specific Plan. The Upper Westside Specific Plan area is located in the northwest portion of unincorporated Sacramento County adjacent to the existing city of Sacramento communities of North and South Natomas.

The following environmental impact and mitigation summary table (Table ES-1:

Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation on page 1-3) briefly describes the project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to eliminate or reduce the impacts.

The residual impact after mitigation is also identified. Detailed discussions of each of the identified impacts and mitigation measures, including pertinent support data, can be found in the specific topic sections in the remainder of this report.

This report identifies significant and unavoidable impacts associated with aesthetics (related to degradation of existing views and visual quality, substantial degradation of existing visual character or quality, and new sources of light); agricultural resources (related to conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses); air quality (related to a conflict with an applicable air quality plan during project operation, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors during project operation, and exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants during project operation); cultural resources (related to historical and archaeological resources, including human remains); noise (related to an increase in traffic noise at existing sensitive receptors, an increase in stationary noise from plan components at existing receptors, and an increase stationary noise from plan components at proposed sensitive receptors); population and housing (related to the inducement of substantial unplanned population growth); transportation (related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and hazards due to design or incompatible uses); and tribal cultural resources.

This report has identified potential project-related impacts associated with air quality (related to a conflict with an applicable air quality plan during project construction, emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors during construction, and exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants during construction); biological resources (related to loss of special-status plant species, giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, special-status bird species [including burrowing owl and Swainson’s hawk], birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, nesting raptors, pallid bat, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, protected trees and canopy, jurisdictional wetlands and waters, native wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites, as well as conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources); climate change (related to the generation of greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions during construction and operation and conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions); geology, soils, and paleontology (related to paleontological resources), hazards and hazardous materials (related to known contaminated sites); hydrology and water quality (related to violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or substantial degradation of surface or groundwater quality); noise (related to construction noise, construction vibration, an Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-2 PLNP2018-00284
increase in stationary noise from plan components at existing sensitive receptors, an increase in traffic noise at proposed sensitive receptors, and an increase in stationary noise from plan components at proposed sensitive receptors); and transportation (related to a conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system and hazards due to design or incompatible uses) as significant or potentially significant, which could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of recommended mitigation measures.

Impacts associated with agricultural resources (related to a conflict with existing agricultural use and zoning and other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use); air quality (related to objectionable odors); biological resources (related to conflicts with applicable habitat conservation plans); energy; geology, soils, and paleontology (related to strong seismic ground shaking, seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction, soil erosion, unstable soil, and expansive soils); hazards and hazardous materials (related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials, hazardous emissions or use of hazardous materials near schools, and the impairment and interference with an emergency operations plan); hydrology and water quality (related to a decrease in groundwater supplies, interference with recharge, or impediment to sustainable groundwater management, substantial alteration of drainage patterns, addition of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, impedance or redirection of flood flows, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation, and a conflict with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan); land use; noise (related to an increase in stationary noise from plan components at existing receptors and noise from existing airport operations); population and housing (related to displacement of housing); public services and recreation; transportation (related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, vehicle miles traveled [VMT], hazards due to design or incompatible uses, and emergency access); and utilities are considered less than significant.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-3 PLNP2018-00284
Table ES-1: Executive Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

AESTHETICS
AE-1: Degradation of Existing Views. The proposed UWSP
would convert agricultural and rural lands to urban uses consisting of buildings of different heights and densities, open space and recreational corridors, and urban roadway
infrastructure. As a result, this proposed development would block distant views of the horizons in all directions from most areas within the UWSP area. To sensitive viewer groups, particularly existing residents within and on the periphery of the UWSP area, this blockage of views would be considered a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and a significant impact. Aside from implementation of development standards and design guidelines already required for the proposed UWSP, no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the magnitude of the visual changes that would occur. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, which would occur in existing rights-of-way (ROWs) and would not include new structures that would
substantially alter or obstruct scenic views.

PS No feasible measures available SU
AE-2: Substantially Degrade Existing Visual Character or Quality. The proposed UWSP would result in the
development of a largely agricultural and rural area with residential, commercial, mixed use, office, school, park, open space, roadways, and other urban uses. To sensitive viewer groups, particularly existing residents within and on the periphery of the UWSP area, this could be perceived as a PS No feasible measures available SU
1 PS = Potentially Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable LTS = Less Than Significant Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-4 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
substantial degradation of visual character and quality and a significant impact. Aside from implementation of development standards and design guidelines already required for the proposed UWSP, no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the magnitude of the visual changes that would occur.

Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, which would occur within existing ROWs and would not include new structures or other physical elements that would substantially degrade existing visual character or quality.

AE-3: New Sources of Light or Glare. The proposed UWSP
would introduce new sources of light, including stadium lighting associated with a new high school, to an area with relatively few lighting sources. In addition, the proposed UWSP would also introduce new sources of glare from
reflective elements such as glass and rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panels. Although spillover lighting, excessive lighting, and glare would be minimized due to the strict lighting standards that would be adopted as part of the project, implementation of the proposed UWSP 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. Due to the amount of development and lighting proposed, this would be a significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AE-3 would ensure that outdoor lighting associated with development allowed under the proposed UWSP is designed in accordance with Section 140.7, Prescriptive Requirements for Outdoor Lighting, in the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which specifies wattage allowance per lighting application based on lighting zones. However, because the proposed plan complies with PS AE-3: The UWSP shall be amended to require all lighting applications subject to 2022 Building Efficiency Standards Section 140.7 to use fixtures approved by DarkSky
International.

SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-5 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
applicable County policies and standards aimed to minimize adverse light and glare, and because of the scale of proposed development, no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce this impact. For this reason, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, which would occur within existing ROWs and would not include substantial new sources of adverse light or glare.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURSES
AG-1: Conversion of Farmland to Nonagricultural Uses.

Sacramento County General Plan Policy AG-5 specifies that projects resulting in the conversion of more than 50 acres of farmland shall be mitigated, except as specified by the policy, based on a 1:1 ratio for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. Implementation of the proposed UWSP
would result in the conversion of approximately 1,372 acres of farmland subject to mitigation pursuant to General Plan Policy AG-5, and even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1, which would require preservation of farmland at a 1:1 ratio, there would still be a substantial net-loss of agricultural production within Sacramento County as a result of the proposed UWSP. Therefore, this impact would be
significant and unavoidable.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, which would occur within existing ROWs and would not convert farmland to nonagricultural uses.

PS AG-1 The project proponent shall mitigate the loss of farmland within the plan area, except as otherwise specified in General Plan Policy AG-5 (as amended with UWSP
approval), based on a 1:1 ratio through the specific planning process or individual project entitlement requests to provide in-kind or similar resource value protection (such as
easements for agricultural purposes).. The impact acreage requiring offset shall be based on the most current Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program at the time of the County’s approval. Preservation land must be in-kind or of similar resource value.

SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-6 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
AG-2: Conflict with Existing Agricultural Use and Zoning.

Though a significant portion of land in the UWSP area would be rezoned toward non-agricultural uses, such rezoning
would not conflict with surrounding urban uses as the
proposed UWSP includes a 30- to 50-foot-wide open space buffer corridor along the western perimeter of the
Development Area to help alleviate future conflicts between agricultural operation and future urban uses. Regarding land within a Williamson Act contract, the UWSP area includes one parcel under a Williamson Act contract, which would continue to be designated as Agricultural Cropland with implementation of the proposed UWSP and would be within the 534-acre agricultural buffer to the west of the
Development Area that is proposed as part of the proposed UWSP. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would not conflict
with existing agricultural use and zoning, and this impact would be less than significant.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, which would occur within existing ROWs and would not conflict with existing agricultural use and zoning.

LTS None required NA
AG-3: Other Changes Which Could Result in Conversion
of Farmland to Nonagricultural Use. The proposed UWSP
would concentrate development within the established UWSP area and would not extend infrastructure to areas beyond the identified growth boundary. Furthermore, infrastructure would not be sized to serve development offsite. This impact would be less than significant.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, which would occur within existing ROWs and would not result in other changes which could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-7 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

AIR QUALITY
AQ-1: Conflict With or Obstruct Implementation of an
Applicable Air Quality Plan
Construction. Construction of the proposed UWSP could
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable air quality plan as unmitigated emission levels during construction would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. However, with the implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1a, which includes requirements to be implemented during construction activities, including idling restrictions, engine maintenance requirements, use of low emissions engines (i.e., Tier 4 Final), and a requirement that all portable equipment over 50 horsepower have either a valid SMAQMD permit or a valid statewide Portable Equipment
Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB, emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction would not exceed applicable significance thresholds. As a result, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS AQ-1a: Prior to the initiation of ground disturbance, the project applicant shall ensure that all heavy-duty off-road diesel-powered equipment to be used in the construction of the project (including owned, leased, and subcontractor equipment) shall be CARB Tier 4 Final or cleaner. Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid
District Permit to Operate or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program placard and sticker issued by CARB for equipment tracking purposes. These
requirements shall also be included on improvement plans and submitted for review and approval by Sacramento
County
LTS
Operation. Operation of the proposed UWSP could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable air quality plan as emission levels during operation would exceed applicable thresholds of significance.

However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1b, which would require that the project applicant comply with the provisions of the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) prepared for the project, which includes a list of all feasible measures that the proposed UWSP can implement to reduce operational emissions, emission levels during
PS AQ-1b: Prior to the approval of project improvement plans, the project applicant shall comply with the provisions of the SMAQMD AQMP prepared for the proposed UWSP and
incorporate all requirements into the UWSP’s conditions of approval. The measures included in the AQMP are
summarized as follows:
• Natural gas use shall be prohibited in all residential land uses; and
• The project shall implement a Transportation
Management Association (TMA), such as Jibe North
SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-8 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
operation would still exceed applicable thresholds of
significance. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Natomas (for more information, visit https://jibe.org/). The TMA must comply with the following criteria, and is
subject to approval by Sacramento County and
SMAQMD:
­ The TMA must be legally constituted as a non-profit
organization, a Property/Business Improvement
District, or a government entity with a non-revocable
funding mechanism, such as a community finance
district, dedicated to TMA operations and services.
­ The TMA must provide a minimum level of
transportation demand management services to
employees and residents within the area covered by
the AQMP sufficient to achieve the emission
reductions claimed by the measure. Services must be
enumerated and funded to the satisfaction of the lead
agency and SMAQMD.

In addition to the measures identified in the AQMP, the following measures shall also be implemented:
• Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coatings during
Operation. Project sponsors shall include in all building rules and/or building operation plans (as applicable,
depending on the parcel) a requirement that all future
interior and exterior spaces be repainted only with “supercompliant” VOC (i.e., ROG) architectural coatings beyond SMAQMD requirements (i.e., Rule 442: Architectural
Coatings). “Super-compliant” coatings refer to paints that meet the more stringent regulatory limits in South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, which
requires a standard of 10 grams VOC per liter or less
(http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/compliance/
architectural-coatings/super- compliant-coatings). Project sponsors shall be required to submit documentation to
the County demonstrating compliance with this measure.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-9 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
With regard to third-party occupant owners and tenants, compliance with this measure shall be enforced through
home-owner association rules and bylaws and tenant
agreements that identify this project requirement.
• Best Available Emissions Controls for Stationary
Emergency Generators. To reduce emissions of ROG,
NOx, and TACs associated with operation of future
projects, project applicants shall implement the following measures. These features shall be submitted to the
County for review and approval, and shall be included on the project drawings submitted for the constructionrelated permit(s) or on other documentation submitted to the County prior to the issuance of any building permits:
­ Permanent stationary emergency generators installed
on-site shall have engines that meet or exceed CARB
Tier 4 Off-Road Compression Ignition Engine
Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 13,
Section 2423). If the CARB adopts future emissions
standards that exceed the Tier 4 requirement, the
emissions standards resulting in the lowest ROG and
DPM emissions shall apply.
­ As non-diesel-fueled emergency generator
technology becomes readily available and cost
effective in the future, and subject to the review and
approval of the County fire department for safety
purposes, non-diesel-fueled generators shall be
installed in new buildings, provided that alternative
fuels used in generators, such as biodiesel,
renewable diesel, natural gas, or other biofuels or
other non-diesel emergency power systems, are
demonstrated to reduce ROG, NOx, and DPM
emissions compared to diesel fuel.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-10 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
­ For each new diesel backup generator permit
submitted to the air district, project applicants shall submit the anticipated location and engine
specifications to the planning department for review
and approval prior to issuance of a permit for the
generator.

Once operational, all diesel backup generators shall
be maintained in good working order for the life of the equipment, and any future replacement of the diesel
backup generators must be consistent with these
emissions specifications. The operator of the facility
at which the generator is located shall maintain
records of the testing schedule for each diesel
backup generator for the life of that diesel backup
generator and shall provide this information for
review to the planning department within three
months of requesting such information.
• Promote Use of Green Consumer Products. To reduce
ROG emissions associated with future projects, project
sponsors shall provide education for residential and
commercial tenants concerning green consumer
products. Prior to receipt of any certificate of occupancy, project sponsors shall develop electronic correspondence to be distributed by email annually and upon any new
lease signing to residential and/or commercial tenants of each building on the project site that encourages the
purchase of consumer products that generate lower than
typical VOC emissions. The correspondence shall
encourage environmentally preferable purchasing.
• Operational Truck Emissions Reduction. Project
sponsors shall incorporate the following measures into
the project design and construction contracts (as
applicable) to reduce ROG and NOx emissions
associated with operational trucks, along with the
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-11 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
potential health risk caused by exposure to TACs. These featuresshall be submitted to the planning department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits and shall be included on the project drawings
submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the County. Emissions from
project-related diesel trucks shall be reduced by
implementing the following measures:
­ Equip all truck delivery bays with electrical hook-ups for diesel trucks at loading docks to accommodate
plug-in electric truck transport refrigeration units
(TRUs) or auxiliary power units during project
operations.
­ Provide a notice on the lease to all new tenants or
owners of the project or any portion thereof requiring
any truck-intensive uses on the site, such as large
grocery stores or distribution facilities with their own fleet of trucks, to use TRUs and auxiliary power units
that are electric plug-in capable and trucks that use
advanced exhaust technology (e.g., hybrid) or
alternative fuels.
­ Encourage the use of trucks equipped with diesel
TRUs to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Tier 4 emission standards.
­ Prohibit TRUs from operating at loading docks for
more than 30 minutes, and post signs at each loading
dock presenting this TRU limit.
­ Prohibit trucks from idling for more than two minutes, and post “no idling” signs at the site entry point, at all loading locations, and throughout the project site.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-12 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any project
structure with parking, the project applicant shall
demonstrate compliance with the 2022 CALGreen Tier 2
voluntary electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements or the mandatory requirements of the most recently adopted version of the County building code, whichever is more
stringent. The installation of all EV charging equipment shall be included on project drawings submitted for
construction-related permit(s) or on other documentation submitted to the County.

AQ-2: Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors. Construction of the proposed UWSP and
offsite improvements could result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard as unmitigated emission levels during construction would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1a, which includes requirements to be implemented during construction activities, including idling restrictions, engine maintenance requirements, use of low emissions engines (i.e., Tier 4 Final), and a requirement that all portable equipment over 50 horsepower have either a valid SMAQMD permit or a valid statewide PERP placard and
sticker issued by CARB, emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction would not exceed the applicable
significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1a LTS
AQ-3: Long-term Operational Emissions of Criteria Air
Pollutants and Precursors. Operation of the proposed
UWSP would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is PS Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1b SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-13 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard as emission levels during
operation would exceed applicable thresholds of significance, and even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ1b, which would require that the project applicant comply with the provisions of the UWSP AQMP, which includes a list of all feasible measures that the proposed UWSP can implement to reduce operational emissions, emission levels during
operation would still exceed applicable thresholds of
significance. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

AQ-4: Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to TACs
Construction. While TAC emissions associated with the
construction of the proposed UWSP would not result in noncancer, chronic hazard health risks or annual PM2.5 concentrations at nearby existing off-site receptors that exceed the thresholds of significance, the potential does exist for the construction of the proposed UWSP to result in a cancer risk at nearby existing off-site receptors that exceeds the threshold of significance. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1a, which would require that offroad equipment used during construction of the proposed UWSP meet Tier 4 final engine emission standards, DPM
emissions from construction equipment would not result in increased health risks at nearby existing off-site receptors that exceed significance thresholds. As a result, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1a LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-14 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Operation
Impact of TACs on Existing Off-Site Receptors
Nearby existing off-site sensitive receptors could be exposed to increased DPM emissions associated with increased traffic on I-80 generated by the proposed UWSP. However, even
with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1b, which is discussed above, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a, which would require that the specific plan design guidelines and
development standards of the proposed UWSP include
consideration of CARB’s land use siting recommendations found in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:

A Community Health Perspective, and Mitigation Measure
AQ-4b, which would require the installation of a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV 13) filter in the HVAC systems for the existing sensitive receptors to the south of the project site, across I-80, the health risk to existing sensitive receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1b
AQ-4a: The specific plan design guidelines and development standards of the proposed UWSP shall include consideration of recommendations in land use siting found in CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health
Perspective. These include the following:
• Prohibit siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of urban roads carrying 100,000 vehicles per day.
• Prohibit siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of a large gasoline station (defined as a facility with a
throughput of 3.6 million gallons per year or greater). A 50-foot separation is recommended for typical gasolinedispensing facilities. • Prohibit siting new sensitive land uses within 300 feet of any dry-cleaning operation using perchloroethylene. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500 feet.

For operations with three or more machines, consult the local air district. Do not site new sensitive land uses in the same building with dry-cleaning operations that use
perchloroethylene.
• Obtain facility-specific information where there are
questions about siting a sensitive land use close to an industrial facility, including the amount of pollutant emitted and its toxicity, distance to nearby receptors, and types of emissions controls in place.

AQ-4b: Coordinate with existing off-site homeowners
adjacent to the proposed UWSP site that are within 1,000 feet of the I-80 right-of-way and offer financial assistance for the use of MERV 13 air filters. Financial assistance will be provided for the purchase of up to two filters per year, or per SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-15 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
manufacturer recommendations. The UWSP applicants will
establish an online procurement system (or similar) to
facilitate the purchase and distribution of the filters to residents electing to participate in the program.

Impact of TACs on Future On-Site Receptors
While TAC emissions associated with operation of the
proposed UWSP would not result in non-cancer hazard
health risks or PM2.5 concentrations at future proposed residences within the UWSP area that exceed the thresholds of significance, traffic generated by the proposed UWSP would result in a cancer risk at future proposed residences within the UWSP area that exceed the significance threshold.

However, even with the implementation of Mitigation
Measures AQ-1b and AQ-4a discussed above, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4c, which would require that a minimum MERV
13 filter be included in the HVAC systems for all sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools) within 1,000 feet of Interstate 80, the health risk to existing sensitive receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1b and AQ-4a
AQ-4c: For future proposed sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of I-80, the project applicant shall implement measures that include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Install, operate, and maintain in good working order a central HVAC system or other air intake system in the
building, or in each individual unit, that meets or exceeds a MERV of 13 or higher. The HVAC system shall include
the following features: Installation of a high-efficiency filter and/or carbon filter to filter particulates and other
chemical matter from entering the building. Either highefficiency particulate air filters or American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers - certified 85 percent supply filters shall be used.
• Maintain, repair, and/or replace the HVAC system on an ongoing and as needed basis or prepare an operation
and maintenance manual for the HVAC system and the
filter. The manual shall include the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule. This
manual shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for residential projects and/or distributed to the building maintenance staff. In addition, the
applicant shall prepare a separate homeowners’ manual.

The manual shall contain the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement schedule for the HVAC
system and the filters.

SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-16 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Locate individual and common exterior open space and
outdoor activity areas proposed as part of individual
projects as far away as possible within the project site boundary, facing away from major freeways, and shielded from the air pollution source (i.e., the roadway) by
buildings or otherwise buffered to further reduce air
pollution for project occupants.
• Locate air intakes and design windows to reduce PM
exposure (e.g., windows nearest to the roadway do not
open).
• Plant trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution source. Trees that are best suited to
trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following species: pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima),
cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii), hybrid popular
(Populus deltoids x trichocarpa), California pepper tree (Schinus molle), and redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).

AQ-5: Exposure to Objectionable Odors. With adherence
to applicable State regulations and SMAQMD rules,
substantial objectionable odors would not be expected to occur during either construction and/or operational activities.

As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BR-1: Pre-construction Baseline Biological Resources
Report.

Because the proposed UWSP is anticipated to be built -out in phases by different applicants over an estimated 20 years, different suites of mitigation measures may be required specific to the potential biological resources associated with phases of the build-out. In addition, land cover, land use, and -- BR-1: Pre-construction Baseline Biological Resources Report
Before the construction phase–specific development
applications are deemed complete by the County, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Baseline Biological Resources Report documenting current land cover, land use, plant and wildlife habitat, and the locations of potential jurisdictional --
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-17 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
consequently, plant and wildlife habitat may change during the intervening years relative to what is documented in this EIR. To identify whether, when, and where each measure
applies, Mitigation Measure BR-1 is provided, which requires that a pre-construction baseline biological resources report be prepared for each phase of development.
aquatic resources, native and non-native trees, and any other biological resources needed to reach a conclusion regarding which of the following mitigation measures are required for the specific project phase.

BR-2: Loss of Special-Status Plant Species. Construction within the UWSP area could result in direct temporary or permanent impacts on Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria
sanfordii), if present. However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel regarding special-status plant species that could be present in the construction area; designing and implementing a comprehensive, adaptive
Weed Control Plan to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plants during construction; and conducting a rare plant survey and avoiding special-status species where
feasible; and, if avoidance is not feasible, implementing salvage and relocation of the plants, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-2a through BR-2c, this impact would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS BR-2a: Worker Environmental Awareness Program
All project personnel involved in ground disturbing activities will receive a comprehensive Worker Environmental
Awareness Program (WEAP) presentation on the first day on a site prior to the initiation of construction provided by a qualified biologist. The WEAP presentation will provide an overview of sensitive biological resources that may be
encountered on site. The conservation status, natural history, and habitat requirements of each protected species will be reviewed and a photograph for each species will be provided for a clearer understanding of what to be watchful for while on a site. Resource and regulatory permits will be summarized, and specific conservation and species-specific avoidance and minimization measures will be reviewed. Penalties for failure to comply with all project permits will be reviewed. All project personnel involved in ground-disturbing activities shall sign an acknowledgement form indicating they have received the training, understood the training and agreed to abide by all the conditions of the project permits. The biological monitor will maintain a construction notebook with original copies of all training sign-in sheets and will provide trainings to new personnel on their first day on a site.

BR-2b: Weed Control Plan
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant for each phase of the UWSP area development shall prepare a weed control plan for review and approval by the
Environmental Coordinator. Prior to the start of construction LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-18 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
activities, the applicant shall implement a comprehensive, adaptive weed control plan for invasive weed management pre-construction, during construction, and for three years post-construction. The weed control plan shall only apply to UWSP properties that are within 100 feet of NBHCP and
SAFCA reserve areas (e.g., the Alleghany Reserve and the Cummings Reserve) and the levee for the West Drainage
Canal (Witter Canal) toe drain (refer to Plate BR-2), and shall include the following:
• A pre-construction weed inventory (i.e., location, area, and density by species) shall be conducted in the spring (February–April) by surveying all areas subject to grounddisturbing activity, including but not limited to staging areas, access roads, and areas subject to grading.
• Weed populations that are rated High for negative
ecological impact in the California Invasive Plant Council database shall be mapped and described according to
density and area covered.
• In areas subject to ground disturbance associated with project activities, weed infestations shall be treated prior to construction according to control methods and
practices for invasive weed populations, such as
described in Weed Control in Natural Areas in the
Western United States. The timing of weed control
treatment shall be determined for each plant species
based on its life history and reproduction with the goal of controlling populations before they start producing seeds. • Surveying and monitoring shall occur annually for years one to three post-construction. Post-construction weed
cover shall not exceed the combined total area of weed
cover documented in the pre-construction weed
inventory, except for areas otherwise managed by a third party with a controlling easement, such as areas
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-19 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
managed by Reclamation District 1000 along the West
Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) toe drain.
• An annual report of completed maintenance shall be
submitted to the County.
• Weed control treatments shall include all legally permitted herbicide, and manual and mechanical methods. The
application of herbicides shall be in compliance with all state and federal laws and regulations under the
prescription of a pest control advisor and implemented by a Licensed Qualified Applicator.
• During project pre-construction and construction, vehicles and all equipment shall be washed (including wheels,
undercarriages, and bumpers) prior to commencing work
in off-road areas.

BR-2c: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Rare Plant
Species
Adequate measures shall be taken to avoid inadvertent take of Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii) and other special-status plants by implementing the following steps. • Prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, including clearing and grubbing, and/or grading, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a properly timed special-status plant survey for Sanford’s arrowhead within the species’ suitable habitat within the project work limits. The survey will follow the CDFW Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Plan Populations
and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), or the
most recent guidelines.
• If the survey concludes that Sanford’s arrowhead or other special-status plant species are present within the project work limits, the biologist shall establish an adequate
buffer area for each plant population to exclude activities Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-20 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
that directly remove or alter the habitat of, or result in indirect adverse impacts on, the special-status plant
species. A qualified biologist shall oversee installation of a temporary, plastic mesh-type construction fence
(Tensor Polygrid or equivalent) at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) tall around any established buffer areas to prevent
encroachment by construction vehicles and personnel.

The qualified biologist shall determine the exact location of the fencing. The fencing will be strung tightly on posts set at maximum intervals of 10 feet (3 meters) and will be checked and maintained weekly until all construction is complete.

The buffer zone established by the fencing will be marked by a sign stating:
­ “This is habitat of [list rare plant(s)] and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by [the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended/
California Endangered Species Act/California Native
Plant Protection Act].”
• As required by the CDFW Guidelines for Assessing the
Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered Plants and Natural Communities, a qualified
botanist shall determine the potential presence and
distribution of sensitive natural communities.
• If direct impacts on special-status plants cannot be
avoided, the project applicant shall prepare a plan for the County’s review minimizing the impacts by one or more of the following methods: (1) salvage and replant plants at the same location following construction; (2) salvage and relocate the plants to a suitable off-site location with longterm assurance of site protection; (3) collect seeds or other propagules for reintroduction at the site or
elsewhere; or (4) payment of compensatory mitigation,
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-21 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
e.g., to a mitigation bank. As necessary, all necessary approvals from USFWS/CDFW will be obtained for any
impacts to special-status plant species protected under FESA or CESA.
• The success criterion for any seeded, planted, and/or relocated plants shall be full replacement at a 1:1 ratio after five years. Monitoring surveys of the seeded,
planted, or transplanted individuals shall be conducted annually for a minimum of five years to ensure that the success criterion can be achieved at year five. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the County. If it appears the success criterion would not be met after five years,
contingency measures may be applied. Such measures
shall include but are not limited to additional seeding and planting; altering or implementing weed management
activities; or introducing or altering other management activities.

BR-3: Loss of Giant Garter Snake. Construction within the UWSP area could result in a permanent loss of giant garter snake habitat and/or direct mortality to individual giant garter snakes. However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel; conducting construction activity during the active period for giant garter snake (May 1 through September 30), unless approved by CDFW to work outside of that period; conducting pre-construction surveys; dewatering giant garter snake habitat for at least 15 days prior to excavation or filling; designating avoided giant garter snake habitat; requiring the presence of a biological monitor during grading activities; removing temporary fill or construction debris from the site following construction, and compensating for permanent impacts on giant garter snake habitat, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-2a and BR-3, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a.

BR-3: Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Impacts on
Giant Garter Snake
Project applicants shall obtain authorization for take of giant garter snake from USFWS and CDFW and implement all
measures required therein to avoid, minimize, and
compensate for impacts to giant garter snake.

In addition, to avoid and minimize impacts, where
construction activities will be conducted within 200 feet of aquatic giant garter snake habitat, project applicants shall:
• Provide construction personnel with environmental
awareness training (per BR-2a, “Worker Environmental
Awareness Program”);
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-22 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Restrict construction activities to the giant garter snake active season;
• Conduct preconstruction habitat surveys;
• Dewater aquatic habitat prior to construction;
• Conduct preconstruction surveys for giant garter snake presence;
• Minimize vegetation clearing and avoid retained habitat; • Monitor ground-disturbing construction activities; and/or • Remove temporary fill and construction debris.

To compensate for unavoidable permanent loss of aquatic giant garter snake habitat, project applicants shall either: (i) create, restore, or enhance, and preserve and manage
suitable aquatic and associated upland habitat to provide giant garter snake habitat at a 1:1 or greater ratio (mitigation acreage to impact acreage), (ii) preserve and manage rice fields as habitat for giant garter snake at a 2:1 or greater ratio, and/or (iii) provide compensatory giant garter snake habitat of equal or greater ecological value as established in separate authorizations or permits by the USFWS and
CDFW. Mitigation to compensate for losses of giant garter snake habitat may be fulfilled through a combination of these options assuming minimum ratios are met.

These mitigation measures are described further below.
• Secure Authorization from the USFWS and CDFW for the
Incidental Take of Giant Garter Snake
Before the commencement of any initial groundbreaking
activity within 200 feet of aquatic giant garter snake
habitat, project applicants shall secure take authorization from the USFWS and CDFW. The applicant shall fulfill all conditions of the biological opinion and/or incidental take permit(s) issued for the project. Unless CDFW or USFWS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-23 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
require other measures, the avoidance and minimization
measure under “Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Giant
Garter Snake,” below, shall be implemented; and unless
CDFW or USFWS require compensatory mitigation of
equal or greater ecological value to giant garter snake, the compensatory mitigation measure “Compensate for
Permanent Impacts to Giant Garter Snake Habitat,”
below, shall be implemented.
• Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Giant Garter Snake
Unless CDFW or USFWS requires other measures to
avoid and minimize impacts to giant garter snake, the
following measures shall apply to construction activities within 200 feet of aquatic giant garter snake habitat:
­ Restrict Construction Activities to the Giant Garter
Snake Active Season. All construction activity
involving disturbance within 200 feet of aquatic giant
garter snake habitat, such as site preparation and
initial grading, is restricted to the period between
May 1 and September 30.
­ Conduct Pre-construction Habitat Surveys. Preconstruction surveys for giant garter snake shall be completed within 24 hours of the start of initial ground disturbance with 200 feet of aquatic giant garter
snake habitat for all development projects by a
qualified biologist approved by USFWS and CDFW. If
any giant garter snake habitat is found within a
specific site, the following additional measures shall
be implemented to minimize disturbance of habitat
and harassment of giant garter snake, unless such
project is specifically exempted by USFWS and
CDFW.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-24 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
 Dewatering Aquatic Habitat prior to Construction.

Between April 15 and September 30, all irrigation
ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitats shall be
completely dewatered, with no puddled water
remaining, for at least 15 consecutive days prior
to the excavation or filling in of the dewatered
habitat, and prior to ground-disturbing activities
within 200 feet of aquatic giant garter snake
habitat.
 Conduct Pre-construction Surveys for Giant
Garter Snake Presence. For sites that contain
giant garter snake habitat, no more than 24 hours
prior to start of construction activities (site
preparation and/or grading), the project area shall
be surveyed for the presence of giant garter
snake. If construction activities stop on the
project site for a period of two weeks or more, a
new giant garter snake survey shall be completed
no more than 24 hours prior to the re-start of
construction activities.
 Minimize Vegetation Clearing and Avoid
Retained Habitat. The applicant shall confine
clearing to the minimal area necessary to
facilitate construction activities and shall flag and
designate avoided giant garter snake habitat
within or adjacent to the project site as
Environmentally Sensitive Areas.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas shall be avoided
by all construction personnel.
 Monitor Ground-Disturbing Construction
Activities. A qualified biological monitor shall be
present during initial grading activities within 200
feet of aquatic giant garter snake habitat to
ensure that construction activities do not
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-25 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
encroach into unauthorized areas. If a live giant
garter snake is found during construction
activities, the biological monitor shall immediately
notify USFWS and CDFW. The biological monitor
shall have the authority to stop construction in the
vicinity of the snake should the biological monitor
have reason to believe “take” of giant garter
snake could occur if construction proceeds.

The monitor shall remain in the area for the
remainder of the workday to make sure the snake
is not harmed or, if it leaves the site, does not
return. Escape routes for giant garter snake shall
be determined in advance of construction, and
snakes shall always be allowed to leave on their
own. If the snake does not leave on its own within
one working day, the biological monitor shall
consult with the USFWS and CDFW to determine
any necessary additional measures.

The biological monitor shall also report any giant
garter snake mortality within one working day to
USFWS. Any project-related activity that results
in giant garter snake mortality shall cease until
the activity has been modified to the extent
practicable to avoid future mortality.
 Remove Temporary Fill and Construction Debris.

Because fill, or construction debris may be used
by giant garter snake as an over-wintering site
(hibernaculae), upon completion of the current
phase of construction activities, any temporary fill
and/or construction debris from the site shall be
removed. If this material is situated near
undisturbed giant garter snake habitat and it is to
be removed between October 1 and April 30, it
shall be inspected by a qualified biologist to
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-26 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
ensure that giant garter snakes are not using it as
hibernaculae.
­ Compensate for Permanent Impacts to Giant Garter
Snake Habitat
Prior to the approval of grading permits, improvement
plans or building permits, whichever of these
approvals occurs first, project applicants shall
compensate for permanent loss of giant garter snake
aquatic and upland habitat within 200 feet of giant
garter snake aquatic habitat. Unless take
authorizations from CDFW or USFWS require
compensatory mitigation of equal or greater
ecological value to giant garter snake, compensatory
mitigation shall be as follows.
 Compensatory mitigation shall be provided
through creation, preservation, and management
of suitable aquatic and associated upland habitat
for giant garter snake; and/or preservation and
management of rice fields or other suitable
aquatic habitat, as habitat for giant garter snake.
 Mitigation sites shall be located outside of the
Natomas Basin and in the American Basin
Recovery Unit as defined in the Recovery Plan for
the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas)
(USFWS 2017).

This mitigation may be provided through:
• Purchase of credits from a CDFW- and USFWS-approved
conservation bank;
• Payment to an existing in-lieu fee program;
• Creation, restoration, or enhancement, and preservation and management of suitable aquatic and associated
upland habitat for giant garter snake; or
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-27 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Preservation and management of existing giant garter
snake habitat through acquisition of fee-title or a
conservation easement and funding for long-term
management of giant garter snake habitat at a site.

Mitigation through creation, restoration, enhancement,
preservation, and management of suitable aquatic and
associated upland giant garter snake habitat, or purchase of credits for aquatic and associated upland habitat suitable for giant garter snake (e.g., constructed marsh) shall be at a ratio of at least 1:1 (mitigation aquatic and upland habitat to permanently lost aquatic and upland habitat), and mitigation through preservation and management of rice fields will be at a ratio of at least 2:1.

For mitigation provided through acquisition of fee title or a conservation easement, the following requirements must be satisfied:
• The selection of mitigation site(s) shall be approved by the County in coordination with CDFW and USFWS.
• The form and content of the easement, and the amount of the endowment for long-term management, shall be
acceptable to the County, CDFW, and USFWS, and the
easement shall prohibit any activity that substantially impairs or diminishes the land’s capacity as suitable giant garter snake habitat and protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain giant garter snake habitat, in
accordance with then-current water allocations and in
coordination with USFWS.
• A habitat management plan shall be approved by the
County in coordination with CDFW and USFWS. This
plan shall describe long-term management and provide
the schedule for monitoring and management actions,
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-28 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and an approach to adaptively manage its
implementation.
• An endowment shall be established to cover the costs of implementing the habitat management plan. The amount
and structure of the endowment shall be acceptable to
CDFW, USFWS, and the County.

For mitigation that creates, restores, or enhances suitable aquatic and associated upland giant garter snake habitat, a restoration plan shall be developed, approved by the
USFWS, CDFW, and the County. The restoration plan shall describe baseline conditions, restoration design and
construction, short-term management and monitoring, and success criteria.

BR-4: Loss of Northwestern Pond Turtle. Construction
within the UWSP area could result in a permanent loss of northwestern pond turtle habitat and/or direct mortality to individual northwestern pond turtles. However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel; conducting pre-construction surveys; dewatering giant garter snake habitat, which is also northwestern pond turtle habitat, for at least 15 days prior to excavation or filling; requiring the presence of a biological monitor during grading activities; and protecting northwestern pond turtle encountered on the site during construction and allowing northwestern pond turtle to leave on its own, or coordinating with USFWS and CDFW if it does not leave on its own, as required by Mitigation
Measures BR-2a and BR-4, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a
BR-4: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Northwestern Pond
Turtle
As recommended in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP), take of the northwestern pond turtle as a result of habitat destruction during construction activities, including the removal of irrigation ditches and drains, and during ditch and drain maintenance, will be minimized by the dewatering requirement described under BR-4. In addition:
• For sites that contain northwestern pond turtle habitat, no more than 24 hours prior to start of construction activities (site preparation and/or grading), the project area shall be surveyed for the presence of northwestern pond turtle.

If construction activities stop on the project site for a period of 14 days or more, a new northwestern pond
turtle survey shall be completed no more than 24 hours
prior to the re-start of construction activities.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-29 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Clearing shall be confined to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities.
• If dewatering for 15 days has occurred, as described
under BR-2, or if wildlife exclusion fencing has been
installed to prevent western pond turtle from entering the construction area (including access roads and staging
areas), a qualified biological monitor shall be present during initial grading activities within 200 feet of aquatic northwestern pond turtle habitat to ensure that
construction activities do not encroach into unauthorized areas.
• If dewatering for 15 days has not occurred, and wildlife exclusion fencing has not been installed, a qualified
biological monitor shall be present during all grading
activities within 200 feet of aquatic northwestern pond turtle habitat to monitor for and protect the species, if present.
• If a live northwestern pond turtle is found during
construction activities, the biological monitor shall
immediately notify USFWS and CDFW. The biological
monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the vicinity of the turtle. The turtle shall be monitored and given a chance to leave the area on its own. If the turtle does not leave on its own within one working day, the
biological monitor shall consult with the USFWS and
CDFW to determine any necessary additional measures.

The biological monitor shall also report any northwestern pond turtle mortality within one working day to USFWS.

Any project-related activity that results in northwestern pond turtle mortality shall cease so that this activity can be modified to the extent practicable to avoid future
mortality.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-30 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• If a live northwestern pond turtle is found during
construction activities, the USFWS and CDFW and the
project’s biological monitor shall be immediately notified.

The biological monitor shall stop construction in the
vicinity of the turtle, monitor the turtle, and allow the turtle to leave on its own. The monitor shall remain in the area for the remainder of the workday to make sure the turtle is not harmed or, if it leaves the site, does not return.

Escape routes for northwestern pond turtle should be
determined in advance of construction, and turtles should always be allowed to leave on their own. If a northwestern pond turtle does not leave on its own within one working day, further coordination with USFWS and CDFW is
required.

BR-5: Loss of Special-Status Bird Species (other than
Burrowing Owl and Swainson’s Hawk), Birds Protected
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Nesting Raptors.

Construction within the UWSP area and offsite improvements areas could negatively impact special-status bird species (other than burrowing owls and Swainson’s hawk), birds
protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and nesting raptors through the removal of trees and vegetation, tree trimming, and/or demolition of buildings while an active bird nest is present. In addition, earth moving, operation of heavy equipment, and increased human presence could result in noise, vibration, and visual disturbance. However, by
providing environmental training to construction personnel; limiting construction to the non-nesting season when feasible or, if avoiding the nesting season is not feasible, conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and establishing no-disturbance buffers around any active nests to ensure they are not disturbed by construction; and repeating the preconstruction surveys when work resumes after being suspended for seven days, as required by Mitigation
PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a
BR-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting Birds
• Mitigation Measure BR-5 applies to projects that include removal of trees or vegetation, tree trimming, or use of heavy equipment (e.g., earthwork, demolition).
• A qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct preconstruction nesting surveys during the avian nesting breeding season (approximately February 1 to August
31) within 7 days prior to construction. Surveys shall be performed for the project area, vehicle and equipment
staging areas, and suitable habitat within 250 feet to
locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and
within 500 feet to locate any active raptor (bird of prey) nests.
• A pre-construction survey report of findings shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and submitted to the County for review and approval prior to initiation of
construction within the no-disturbance zone during the
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-31 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Measures BR-2a and BR-5, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
nesting season. The report shall either confirm absence of any active nests or shall confirm that any young within a designated no-disturbance zone have fledged and
construction can proceed.
• If no active nests are identified during the survey period, or if construction activities are initiated during the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), construction may proceed with no restrictions.
• If bird nests are found, an adequate no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the nest location and
construction activities shall be restricted within the buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that any
young birds have fledged and are able to leave the
construction area. Required setback distances for the nodisturbance zone shall be established by the qualified biologist and may vary depending on species, line-ofsight between the nest and the construction activity, and the birds’ sensitivity to disturbance. As necessary, the nodisturbance zone shall be fenced with temporary orange construction fencing if construction is to be initiated on the remainder of the development site.
• Any birds that begin nesting within the project area and survey buffers amid construction activities shall be
assumed to be habituated to construction-related or
similar noise and disturbance levels and no-disturbance zones shall not be established around active nests in
these cases; however, should birds nesting within the
project area and survey buffers amid construction
activities begin to show disturbance associated with
construction activities, no-disturbance buffers shall be established as determined by the qualified wildlife
biologist.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-32 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Any work that must occur within established nodisturbance buffers around active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse effects in response to project work within the buffer are observed and the biologist determines the activities are likely to compromise the nest’s success, work within the nodisturbance buffer shall halt until the nest occupants have fledged. If the qualified biologist determines that the activities are unlikely to compromise the nest’s success, work can continue.

BR-6: Loss of Burrowing Owl. Construction within the
UWSP area and offsite improvements areas could negatively impact burrowing owl by destroying occupied burrows or nest sites. In addition, earth moving, operation of heavy
equipment, and increased human presence could result in noise, vibration, and visual disturbance.

However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel; conducting focused burrowing owl surveys, and if burrowing owls are detected, avoiding disturbance to
individuals and their burrows; conducting take avoidance surveys immediately prior to the start of construction; and, where on-site avoidance is not possible, providing
compensatory mitigation for disturbance and/or destruction of burrows, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-2a and BR6, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a
BR-6: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Western Burrowing
Owl
To avoid impacts on potential burrowing owl and their habitat, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. • A qualified biologist shall conduct focused burrowing owl surveys in suitable habitat in the area where project
activities will occur, plus the surrounding 500 feet, where accessible, in accordance with the number of visits,
timing, and survey methods in Appendix D of CDFW’s
Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Staff Report), published March 7, 2012. Surveys shall be repeated if
project activities are suspended or delayed more than 14 days.
• Pursuant to the Staff Report, four survey visits shall be conducted during the breeding season (February 1 to
August 31), including at least one survey between
February 15 and April 15, and at least three surveys at least three weeks apart, between April 15 and July 15,
with at least one visit after June 15.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-33 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Non-breeding season surveys shall be conducted during four site visits, spread evenly throughout the nonbreeding season. • If no burrowing owls are detected, no further measures are required. If active burrowing owl burrows are
detected, the following avoidance minimization, and
mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to
initiating project related activities that may impact
burrowing owls.
­ Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during
nesting season (February 1 through August 31)
unless a qualified biologist approved by CDFW
verifies through non-invasive measures that either (1)
the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation;
or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are
foraging independently and are capable of
independent survival.
­ If nest sites are found, CDFW shall be contacted
regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may
include on-site avoidance through establishment of
a 300-foot buffer from the nest site during the
breeding season (February 1 through August 31), or
implementation of a relocation effort for the
burrowing owl if the birds have not begun egg-laying
and incubation or the juveniles from the occupied
burrows are foraging independently and are capable
of independent survival. If on-site avoidance is
required, the location of the buffer zone will be
determined by a qualified biologist. The applicant
shall mark the limit of the buffer zone with yellow
caution tape, stakes, or temporary fencing. The
buffer will be maintained throughout the construction
period.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-34 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
­ If relocation of the burrowing owl is approved for the site by CDFW, the applicant shall hire a qualified
biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the
burrowing owl to a suitable site. The relocation plan
must include: (1) the location of the nest and
burrowing owl proposed for relocation; (2) the
location of the proposed relocation site; (3) the
number of burrowing owls involved and the time of
year when the relocation is proposed to take place;
(4) the name and credentials of the biologist who will
be retained to supervise the relocation; (5) the
proposed method of capture and transport for the
burrowing owl to the new site; (6) a description of the site preparations at the relocation site (e.g.,
enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time or long-term vegetation control);
and (7) a description of efforts and funding support
proposed to monitor the relocation. Relocation
options may include passive relocation to another
area of the site not subject to disturbance through
one-way doors on burrow openings, or construction
of artificial burrows in accordance with the Staff
Report.
• Take avoidance surveys may also be conducted. An
initial take avoidance survey to determine whether any
burrowing owl are using the site for foraging or nesting shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to initiating ground-disturbing activities, using the methods outlined in Appendix D of the Staff Report. Implementation of
avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered
by positive owl presence on the site where project
activities will occur. Implementation of additional
avoidance and minimization measures would be triggered
by positive owl presence on the site where project
activities will occur. The development of avoidance and Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-35 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
minimization approaches would be informed by
monitoring the burrowing owls. Burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days. Time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take
avoidance surveys, including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground
disturbance.
• Where on-site avoidance is not possible, disturbance
and/or destruction of occupied burrows shall be offset
through development of suitable habitat on upland
reserves. Such habitat shall include creation of new
burrows with adequate foraging area (a minimum of 6.5
acres) or 300 feet radii around the newly created burrows.

Additional habitat design and mitigation measures are
described in the Staff Report.

BR-7: Loss of Swainson’s Hawk. Construction within the
UWSP area and offsite improvements areas could negatively impact Swainson’s hawk through direct disturbance of active nests during tree removal and indirect disturbance to nests such as noise, vibration, and increased human activity.

Conversion of agricultural land to developed/landscaped land in the UWSP area would also potentially result in the loss of nesting territories, displacement of nesting pairs, reduction in reproductive potential, or decreased survival rates, particularly for Swainson’s hawk nesting within 1 mile of the UWSP area, but also for Swainson’s hawk nesting outside of the UWSP area. However, by providing environmental training to
construction personnel; conducting focused pre-construction Swainson’s hawk surveys if construction activities will begin during the nesting season; and if active nests are found prior to the start of construction, developing an avoidance and minimization plan, which may include establishing a work schedule and no-disturbance buffer during critical nesting periods; having a biological monitor conduct regular
PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a
BR-7a: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Nesting
Swainson’s Hawk
Project applicants for each construction phase shall avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on Swainson’s hawk as described below.
• Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Swainson’s Hawk
­ Avoid Construction Activities during the Nesting
Season. If construction activities will begin during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 20 to
September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct
surveys in accordance with the Recommended
Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk
Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley
(Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
2000) or the current California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)-approved protocol. All potential
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-36 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
monitoring of the nest during construction activities and halt construction if construction activities are disturbing the nest; and providing compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for project-related loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-2a, BR-7a, and BR-7b, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. nest trees within 0.5 mile of the proposed project
footprint shall be visually examined for potential
Swainson’s hawk nests, if accessible.
­ Document Survey Results. If no active Swainson’s
hawk nests are identified on or within 0.5 mile of the
proposed project, the project applicant shall submit a
letter report documenting the survey methodology
and findings to the County and CDFW, and no
additional mitigation measures are required. If an
active Swainson’s hawk nest is found on or within 0.5
mile of the project footprint, a survey report shall be submitted to the County and CDFW, and an
avoidance and minimization plan shall be developed
and implemented (see below).
­ Develop and Implement Avoidance and Minimization
Plan. An avoidance and minimization plan shall be
developed and implemented in coordination with
CDFW prior to the start of construction. The
avoidance and minimization plan shall include
measures to minimize impacts on active Swainson’s
hawk nest(s) depending on the location of the nest
relative to the project construction footprint. These
measures shall include, but are not limited to:
 Establish Buffer Zone and Work Schedule. A
buffer zone and work schedule shall be
established to avoid impacting the nest during
critical periods. If possible, no work will occur
within 200 yards of the nest while it is in active
use.
 Conduct Nest Monitoring. A qualified biologist
shall conduct regular monitoring of the nest
during construction activities, and monitor all
work within 200 yards of the nest to ensure that
no work occurs within 200 yards of the nest
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-37 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
during incubation or within 10 days after hatching
(Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee
2000).
 Halt Construction if Nesting Birds Are Disturbed.

In the event that the project biologist determines
that the construction activities are disturbing the
nest, construction activities shall be halted until
CDFW is consulted and recommended measures
to avoid disturbance to active nests are
implemented.

BR-7b : Compensate for Permanent Impacts on
Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat
• Compensation for the permanent loss of foraging habitat shall be determined for each development phase. The
applicant for each development phase shall retain a
Qualified Biologist to verify, map, and quantify (acres) foraging habitat (including annual grasses and forbs, field crops, grain and hay, partially irrigated crops, and truck crops), that would be permanently impacted by the
current development phase.

Prior to the approval of either grading permits or building permits, whichever is first, project applicants for each construction phase shall compensate for permanent loss
of foraging habitat through the preservation of foraging habitat. This compensatory mitigation shall be at a ratio of at least 1:1 (mitigation habitat to permanently lost habitat). Mitigation sites shall be located outside, and within 10 miles of, the Natomas Basin.

This mitigation may be provided through purchase of
credits from an CDFW-approved conservation bank, or
through protection of habitat, including acquisition of a conservation easement and funding long-term
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-38 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
administration, monitoring, and enforcement of the
easement.

Mitigation provided through acquisition of a conservation easement must satisfy the following requirements:
­ The mitigation site(s) shall be subject to consultation with CDFW and approved by the County.
­ The form and content of the easement shall be
acceptable to the County and CDFW, prohibit
activities that substantially impair or diminish the
land’s suitability as Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, and protect any existing water rights necessary to
maintain foraging habitat in agricultural production.
­ An endowment in an amount, form, and structure
acceptable to the County and CDFW shall be
established for administering, monitoring, and
enforcing the conservation easement.

BR-8: Loss of Pallid Bat. Daytime construction activities in the UWSP area could result in direct impacts to roosting bats if they were disturbed, killed, or injured by removal or trimming of a tree in which they were roosting; the offsite improvement areas are not located in or adjacent to pallid bat habitat. If roosting bats are present, construction noise could result in indirect impacts due to disturbance, avoidance, or abandonment of roosts. If tree removal in the UWSP area were to occur during periods of winter torpor or maternity roosting, any bats present would likely not survive the disturbance. However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel; conducting a pre-construction habitat assessment in the UWSP area; and if potential roosting
habitat and/or active bat roosts are present, conducting initial building demolition, relocation, and any tree work (trimming or removal) when bats are active; or if seasonal avoidance is infeasible, conducting a pre-construction survey of potential PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a
BR-8: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Pallid Bat
A qualified biologist who is experienced with bat surveying techniques (including auditory sampling methods), behavior, roosting habitat, and identification of local bat species shall be consulted prior to building or bridge demolition, building relocation activities, or tree work to conduct a preconstruction habitat assessment of the project area (focusing on buildings to be demolished or relocated) to characterize potential bat habitat and identify potentially active roost sites.

No further action is required should the pre-construction habitat assessment not identify bat habitat or signs of potentially active bat roosts within the project area (e.g., guano, urine staining, dead bats).

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-39 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
bat roost sites; establishing no-disturbance buffers around active bat roost sites; disturbing buildings and trees with potential bat roosting habitat or active roosts only under fair weather conditions, under the supervision of a qualified biologist, and following a two-step removal process to prevent bats from returning to the roost site prior to complete removal, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-2a and BR-8, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The following measures shall be implemented should
potential roosting habitat or potentially active bat roosts be identified during the habitat assessment in bridges or
buildings to be demolished or relocated, or in trees adjacent to construction activities that could be trimmed or removed within the UWSP area:
• In areas identified as potential roosting habitat during the habitat assessment, initial bridge or building demolition, relocation, and any tree work (trimming or removal) shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the
periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15, to the extent feasible. These periods avoid the bat maternity roosting season and period of winter torpor.
• If seasonal avoidance of potential roosting habitat is infeasible, the qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys of potential bat roost sites identified during the initial habitat assessment no more than 14
days prior to bridge or building demolition or relocation, or any tree trimming or removal.
• If active bat roosts or evidence of roosting is identified during pre-construction surveys for bridge or building
demolition and relocation or tree work, the qualified
biologist shall determine, if possible, the type of roost and species. A no-disturbance buffer shall be established
around roost sites until the end of the seasonal avoidance windows identified above, or until the qualified biologist determines roost sites are no longer active. The size of the no-disturbance buffer would be determined by the
qualified biologist and would depend on the species
present, roost type, existing screening around the roost site (such as dense vegetation or a building), as well as the type of construction activity that would occur around the roost site.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-40 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Bridges, buildings, and trees with potential bat roosting habitat or active roosts shall be disturbed only under clear weather conditions when precipitation is not forecast for three days and when daytime temperatures are at least
50 degrees Fahrenheit.
• The demolition or relocation of bridges or buildings
containing or suspected to contain potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roosts shall be done under the
supervision of the qualified biologist. When appropriate, bridges or buildings shall be partially dismantled to
significantly change the roost conditions, causing bats to abandon and not return to the roost, likely in the evening and after bats have emerged from the roost to forage.

Under no circumstances shall active maternity roosts be disturbed until the roost disbands at the completion of the maternity roosting season or otherwise becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified biologist.
• Trimming or removal of existing trees with potential bat roosting habitat or active (non-maternity or hibernation) bat roost sites shall follow a two-step removal process, which shall occur during the time of year when bats are active, as discussed above.
­ On the first day and under supervision of the qualified biologist, tree branches and limbs not containing
cavities or fissures in which bats could roost shall be cut using chainsaws or other handheld equipment.
­ On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be
trimmed or removed, using either chainsaws or other
equipment (e.g., excavator or backhoe).
­ All felled trees shall remain on the ground for at least 24 hours prior to chipping, off-site removal, or other
processing to allow any bats to escape, or shall be
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-41 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
inspected once felled by the qualified biologist to
ensure no bats remain within the tree and/or
branches.

BR-9: Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Construction
activities associated with the proposed development in the UWSP area could disturb elderberry shrubs that provide
habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle. However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel; and conducting a pre-construction survey prior to construction related ground disturbance; and implementing measures
consistent with the USFWS’s Framework for Assessing
Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), dated May 2017, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-2a, BR-9a and BR-9b, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure BR-2a.

BR-9a: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
• A pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to construction-related ground disturbance.

If such a survey determines that valley elderberry
longhorn beetle habitat is present (elderberry shrub within the project footprint), and if exit holes are present in stems greater than 1 inch in diameter, the County shall require the developer to follow the following appropriate measures to avoid take and minimize of individuals:
­ If elderberry shrubs are found on or adjacent to the
site, a 100-foot-wide avoidance buffer (measured
from the dripline of the plant) will be established
around all elderberry shrubs with stems greater than
1 inch in diameter at ground level and will be clearly
identified in the field by staking, flagging, or fencing. ­ No construction activities involving mechanized
equipment will occur within the buffer areas. Human
access may be permitted in the buffer, provided that
it does not cause disturbance to the shrubs.
• Compensatory mitigation for adverse effects may include the transplanting of elderberry shrubs during the dormant season (November 1 to February 15), if feasible, to an
area protected in perpetuity as well as required additional elderberry and associated native plantings as approved
by the USFWS.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-42 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• If off-site compensation includes the dedication of
conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures will be included in the mitigation plan and must occur with full endowments for management in
perpetuity. The plan will include information on
responsible parties for long-term management, holders of conservation easements, long-term management
requirements, and other details, as appropriate, for the preservation of long-term viable populations.

BR-9b: Transplant Elderberry Shrubs
• If elderberry plants cannot be avoided, or if project activities will result in the death of stems or the entire shrub, they shall be transplanted during the dormant
season (November 1 to February 15) to an area protected in perpetuity and approved by the USFWS.
• The elderberry shrub will be cut back 3 to 6 feet from the ground or to 50 percent of its height (whichever is taller) by removing branches and stems above this height. The
trunk and all stems measuring 1 inch or greater in
diameter at ground level will be replanted. Any leaves
remaining on the plant will be removed.
• A hole will be excavated of adequate size to receive the transplant.
• The elderberry shrub will be excavated using a Vermeer® spade, backhoe, front-end loader, or other suitable
equipment, taking as much of the root ball as possible, and will be replanted immediately. The plant will only be moved by the root ball. The root ball will be secured with wire and wrapped with damp burlap. The burlap will be
dampened as necessary to keep the root ball wet. Care
will be taken to ensure that the soil is not dislodged from around the roots of the transplant. Soil at the transplant Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-43 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
site will be moistened prior to transplant if the soil at the site does not contain adequate moisture.
• Replacement seedling plants will be provided at a ratio of 2 to 1 to 5 to 1 depending on the extent of valley
elderberry longhorn beetle utilization of the plants moved or lost. An 1,800-square-foot area will be provided for each transplanted elderberry shrub or every five
elderberry seedling plants.

BR-10: Loss of Protected Trees and Canopy. The UWSP
area contains trees potentially protected by the Sacramento County Tree Preservation Ordinance. Furthermore, the offsite improvements areas may also include trees potentially
protected by the Sacramento County Tree Preservation
Ordinance. Construction activities have the potential to damage or destroy protected trees without measures to
protect them. However, by conducting a tree survey to
document the species, size, and condition of all trees within the respective project footprints and any trees to be removed prior to the approval of improvement plans or building
permits for individual projects; installing tree protection fencing to avoid damage to the trees and their root system; prohibiting placement of parked vehicles, construction
equipment, stockpiles, etc., within the driplines of native trees; avoiding any soil-disturbing activities within the dripline of native trees; and requiring pruning to be done under supervision of an ISA-Certified Arborist, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-10a and BR-10b, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Construction of individual projects considered under the proposed UWSP is expected to result in a loss of tree canopy of non-native trees. However, with the creation of new tree canopy equivalent to the acreage of non-native tree canopy removed through on-site mitigation or through funding
PS BR-10a: Native Tree Removal
Before the construction phase–specific development
applications are deemed complete, project applicants for each construction phase shall conduct a tree survey by an ISA-Certified Arborist. The tree survey will document the species, size, and condition of all trees within the respective project footprint and any trees to be removed will be
individually identified. The removal of native trees shall be compensated for by planting in-kind native trees equivalent to the dbh inches lost, based on the ratios listed below. On-site preservation of native trees that are less than 6 inches (< 6 inches) dbh may also be used to meet this compensation
requirement. Native trees include valley oak (Quercus
lobata), interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), blue oak (Q. douglasii), or oracle oak (Q. morehus), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California black walnut (Juglans
californica), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), gray pine (Pinus sabiniana), California white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), boxelder (Acer negundo), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Gooding’s willow (S. gooddingii), red willow (S. laevigata), arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis), shining willow (S. lucida), Pacific willow (S. lasiandra), and dusky willow (S. melanopsis).

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-44 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
contributed to the Sacramento Tree Foundation’s Greenprint program in an amount proportional to the amount of tree canopy lost, as required by Mitigation Measure BR-10c, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Replacement tree planting shall be completed prior to
approval of grading or improvement plans, whichever comes first.

Equivalent compensation based on the following ratio is required:
• One preserved native tree < 6 inches dbh on-site = 1 inch dbh
• One D-pot seedling (40 cubic inches or larger) = 1 inch dbh
• One 15-gallon tree = 1 inch dbh
• One 24-inch box tree = 2 inches dbh
• One 36-inch box tree = 3 inches dbh
Prior to the approval of improvement plans or building
permits, whichever occurs first, a replacement tree planting plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect and shall be submitted to the
Environmental Coordinator for approval. The replacement tree planting plan(s) shall include the following minimum elements:
• Species, size, and locations of all replacement plantings and < 6-inch dbh trees to be preserved.
• Method of irrigation.
• If planting in soils with a hardpan/duripan or claypan layer, include the Sacramento County Standard Tree
Planting Detail L-1, including the 10-foot-deep boring hole to provide for adequate drainage.
• Planting, irrigation, and maintenance schedules.
• Identification of the maintenance entity and a written agreement with that entity to provide care and irrigation of the trees for a 3-year establishment period, and to
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-45 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
replace any of the replacement trees which do not survive during that period.
• Designation of a 20-foot root zone radius and landscaping to occur within the radius of trees < 6 inches dbh to be preserved on-site.

No replacement tree shall be planted within 15 feet of the driplines of existing native trees or landmark size trees that are retained on-site, or within 15 feet of a building foundation or swimming pool excavation. The minimum spacing for
replacement native trees shall be 20 feet on-center.

Examples of acceptable planting locations are publicly owned lands, common areas, and landscaped frontages (with
adequate spacing). Generally unacceptable locations are utility easements (public utility easements sewer, storm drains), under overhead utility lines, private yards of singlefamily lots (including front yards), and roadway medians.

Native trees < 6 inches dbh to be retained on-site shall have at least a 20-foot-radius suitable root zone. The suitable root zone shall not have impermeable surfaces, turf/lawn, dense plantings, soil compaction, drainage conditions that create ponding (in the case of oak trees), utility easements, or other overstory tree(s) within 20 feet of the tree to be preserved.

Trees to be retained shall be determined to be healthy and structurally sound for future growth, by an ISA-Certified Arborist subject to Environmental Coordinator approval.

If tree replacement plantings are demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the Environmental Coordinator to be infeasible for any or all trees removed, then compensation shall be through payment into the County Tree Preservation Fund.

Payment shall be made at a rate of $325.00 per dbh inch removed but not otherwise compensated, or at the prevailing rate at the time payment into the fund is made.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-46 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
BR-10b: Native Tree Construction Protection
For the purpose of this mitigation measure, a native tree is defined as anyone of the following species: valley oak
(Quercus lobata), interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), blue oak (Q. douglasii), oracle oak (Q. morehus), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California black walnut (Juglans
californica), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), gray pine (Pinus sabiniana), California white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), boxelder (Acer negundo), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Gooding’s willow (S. gooddingii), red willow (S. laevigata), arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis), shining willow (S. lucida), Pacific willow (S. lasiandra), and dusky willow (S. melanopsis) having a diameter at breast height, or dbh, of at least 6 inches, or if it has multiple trunks of less than 6 inches each, a combined dbh of at least 10 inches.

With the exception of the trees removed and compensated for through Mitigation Measure BR-10a, above, all native trees on the project site, all portions of adjacent off-site native trees that have driplines that extend onto the project site, and all off-site native trees that may be impacted by utility installation and/or improvements associated with this project, shall be preserved and protected as follows:
• A circle with a radius measurement from the trunk of the tree to the tip of its longest limb shall constitute the dripline protection area of the tree. Limbs must not be cut back to change the dripline. The area beneath the dripline is a critical portion of the root zone and defines the
minimum protected area of the tree. Removing limbs that make up the dripline does not change the protected area.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-47 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Chain-link fencing or a similar protective barrier shall be installed 1 foot outside the driplines of the native trees prior to initiating project construction, to avoid damage to the trees and their root system.
• No signs, ropes, cables (except cables that may be
installed by a certified arborist to provide limb support) or any other items shall be attached to the native trees.
• No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile home/office, supplies, materials or facilities shall be driven, parked, stockpiled, or located within the driplines of the native trees.
• Any soil disturbance (scraping, grading, trenching, and excavation) is to be avoided within the driplines of the native trees. Where this is necessary, an ISA-Certified Arborist will provide specifications for this work, including methods for root pruning, backfill specifications, and
irrigation management guidelines.
• All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed outside the driplines of native trees. Trenching within protected tree driplines is not permitted. If utility or irrigation lines must encroach upon the dripline, they
should be tunneled or bored under the tree under the
supervision of an ISA-Certified Arborist.
• If temporary haul or access roads must pass within the driplines of oak trees, a roadbed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the root zone. The
roadbed shall be installed from outside of the dripline and while the soil is in a dry condition, if possible. The
roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to
maintain a 6-inch depth.
• Drainage patterns on the site shall not be modified so that water collects or stands within, or is diverted across, the dripline of oak trees.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-48 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• No sprinkler or irrigation system shall be installed in such a manner that it sprays water within the driplines of the oak trees.
• Tree pruning that may be required for clearance during construction must be performed by an ISA-Certified
Arborist or Tree Worker and in accordance with the
American National Standards Institute A300 pruning
standards and the ISA “Tree Pruning Guidelines.”
• Landscaping beneath the oak trees may include nonplant materials such as boulders, decorative rock, wood chips, organic mulch, and non-compacted decomposed
granite. Landscape materials shall be kept 2 feet away
from the base of the trunk. The only plant species that shall be planted within the driplines of the oak trees are those that are tolerant of the natural semi-arid environs of the trees. Limited drip irrigation approximately twice per summer is recommended for the understory plants.
• Any fence/wall that will encroach into the dripline
protection area of any protected tree shall be constructed using grade beam wall panels and posts or piers set no
closer than 10 feet on center. Posts or piers shall be
spaced in such a manner as to maximize the separation
between the tree trunks and the posts or piers to reduce impacts on the trees.
• For a project constructed during the months of June, July, August, and September, deep-water trees by using a
soaker hose (or a garden hose set to a trickle) that slowly applies water to the soil until water has penetrated at least 1 foot in depth. Sprinklers may be used to water
deeply by watering until water begins to run off, then
waiting at least an hour or two to resume watering
(provided that the sprinkler is not wetting the tree’s trunk).

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-49 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Deep-water every two weeks and suspend watering two
weeks between rain events of 1 inch or more.

BR-10c: Non-Native Tree Canopy
Removal of non-native tree canopy for development shall be mitigated by creation of new tree canopy equivalent to the acreage of non-native tree canopy removed. New tree
canopy acreage shall be calculated using the Sacramento County Department of Transportation’s 15-year shade cover values for tree species. Preference is given to on-site mitigation, but if this is infeasible, then funding shall be contributed to the Sacramento Tree Foundation’s Greenprint program in an amount proportional to the tree canopy lost (as determined by the 15-year shade cover calculations for the tree species to be planted through the funding, with the cost to be determined by the Sacramento Tree Foundation).

BR-11: Loss of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters.

Within the UWSP area, jurisdictional waters and potentially jurisdictional waters would be directly and permanently impacted by filling. Within the offsite improvement areas, work over or adjacent to the West Canal Drainage could
directly impact potentially jurisdictional waters if the bike trail bridge crossing included bridge supports below top of bank or in the channel and if the stormwater discharge and levee bank armoring occurred below top of bank. Shading of open water due to the new bridge over the West Canal Drainage would also be considered a direct impact. Indirect impacts could occur due to construction-related erosion or spills resulting in deleterious materials entering jurisdictional waters. However, by requiring a preliminary wetland
delineation and, if jurisdictional wetlands and waters are identified, avoiding the features to the extent practical, or if jurisdictional wetlands and waters cannot be avoided,
restoring temporary impacts to pre-project conditions, and PS BR 11: Avoidance of Impacts on Wetlands and Waters
The applicant and its contractors shall minimize impacts on waters of the United States and waters of the state, including wetlands, by implementing the following measures:

Wetlands identified in the preliminary jurisdictional delineation report shall be avoided through project design, if feasible. All identified avoidance and protection measures shall be
included on the plans for proposed demolition, grading, and/or building permits for construction activities within the UWSP area.

The project shall be designed to avoid, to the extent practical, work within wetlands and/or waters under the jurisdiction of USACE, the Central Valley RWQCB, and/or CDFW. If
applicable, permits or approvals shall be sought from the above agencies, as required. Where wetlands or other water features must be disturbed, the minimum area of disturbance LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-50 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
compensating permanent impacts through the creation,
restoration, enhancement, or preservation of equivalent habitat, as required by Mitigation Measure BR-11, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
necessary for construction shall be identified and the area outside avoided.

Before the start of construction within 50 feet of any wetlands and drainages, appropriate measures shall be taken to
ensure protection of the wetland from construction runoff or direct impact from equipment or materials, such as the
installation of a silt fence, and signs indicating the required avoidance shall be installed. No equipment mobilization, grading, clearing, or storage of equipment or machinery, or similar activity, shall occur until a qualified biologist has inspected and approved the fencing installed around these features. The construction contractor for the specific
construction activity to be undertaken shall ensure that the temporary fencing is maintained until construction activities are complete. No construction activities, including equipment movement, storage of materials, or temporary spoils
stockpiling, shall be allowed within the fenced areas
protecting wetlands.

Where disturbance to jurisdictional wetlands or waters cannot be avoided, any temporarily affected jurisdictional wetlands or waters shall be restored to pre-construction conditions or better at the end of construction, in accordance with the requirements of USACE, Central Valley RWQCB, and/or
CDFW permits. Compensation for permanent impacts on
wetlands or waters shall be provided at a 1:1 ratio, or as agreed upon by CDFW, USACE, and the Central Valley
RWQCB, as applicable. Compensation for loss of wetlands may be in the form of permanent on-site or off-site creation, restoration, enhancement, or preservation of habitat, or agency-approved mitigation/conservation credits. To that end, the restoration sites shall, at a minimum, meet the following performance standards by the fifth year after restoration:

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-51 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Wetlands restored or constructed as federal wetlands
meet the applicable federal criteria for jurisdictional wetlands, and wetlands restored or constructed as state wetlands meet the state criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. • Channelized habitat restored or constructed on-site to address the conversion of ditch habitat meet criteria as jurisdictional waters of the United States and/or state, as applicable.
• Native vegetation cover shall be at least 70 percent of the baseline native vegetation cover in the impact area.
• No more cover by invasive species shall be present
relative to the pre-project baseline in the impact area.

Restoration or compensation shall be detailed in a Wetlands and Waters Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which shall be developed before the start of construction and in coordination with permit applications and/or conditions from applicable regulatory agencies. Such a mitigation and monitoring plan shall meet USACE requirements for mitigation plans pursuant to 33 CFR 332.4(c) (https://www.sac.usace.army.mil/Portals/ 43/docs/regulatory/Requirements_for_a_Mitigation_Plan.pdf) and comport with the SWRCB’s State Supplemental Dredge
or Fill Guidelines, Subpart J, regarding compensatory
mitigation plans
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/
adopted_orders/resolutions/2019/040219_10_procedures_cle an_v032219_conformed_final.pdf). At a minimum, the plan shall include:
• Name and contact information for the property owner of the land on which the mitigation will take place.
• Identification of the water source for supplemental
irrigation, if needed.
• Identification of depth to groundwater.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-52 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Topsoil salvage and storage methods for areas that
support special-status plants.
• Site preparation guidelines to prepare for planting,
including coarse and fine grading.
• Plant material procurement, including assessment of the risk of introduction of plant pathogens through the use of nursery-grown container stock vs. collection and
propagation of site-specific plant materials, or use of seeds.
• A planting plan outlining species selection, planting locations, and spacing for each vegetation type to be
restored.
• Planting methods, including containers, hydroseed or
hydromulch, weed barriers, and cages, as needed.
• Soil amendment recommendations, if needed.
• An irrigation plan, with proposed rates (in gallons per minute), schedule (i.e., recurrence interval), and seasonal guidelines for watering.
• A site protection plan to prevent unauthorized access, accidental damage, and vandalism.
• Weeding and other vegetation maintenance tasks and
schedule, with specific thresholds for acceptance of
invasive species.
• Performance standards, as referenced above, by which
successful completion of mitigation can be assessed
relative to a relevant baseline or reference site, and by which remedial actions will be triggered.
• Success criteria that shall include the minimum
performance standards described in 1-4 of this measure, above.
• Monitoring methods and schedule.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-53 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Reporting requirements and schedule.
• Adaptive management and corrective actions to achieve the established success criteria.
• An educational outreach program to inform operations
and maintenance departments of local land management
and utility agencies of the mitigation purpose of restored areas to prevent accidental damages.

The Wetlands and Waters MMP shall be developed before
the start of construction and in coordination with permit applications and/or conditions from applicable regulatory oversight agencies. The plan shall be submitted to the
County, prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit that would include construction activities that would have direct impacts on wetlands and/or waters.

BR-12: Loss of Wildlife Movement and Nursery Sites.

While the UWSP area likely does not support a self-sustaining giant garter snake breeding population, individual giant garter snakes likely use the UWSP area as dispersal habitat. As construction of individual projects considered under the proposed UWSP would presumably involve removal (filling) of irrigation ditches and adjacent ground disturbance, these actions would constitute a permanent loss of giant garter snake dispersal habitat. However, through creation,
preservation, and management of marsh, or preservation and management of rice fields, as habitat for giant garter snake; or enhancing or restoring connectivity of giant garter snake habitat, as required by Mitigation Measure BR-3, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The UWSP area is within the Pacific Flyway, and as such supports some migratory bird species. Construction-related direct impacts on migratory birds could result from the removal of vegetation while an active bird nest is present. In PS Implement Mitigation Measures BR-2a, BR-3, and BR-5 LTS Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-54 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
addition, earthmoving, operation of heavy equipment, and increased human presence could result in noise, vibration, and visual disturbance. These conditions could indirectly result in nest failure (disturbance, avoidance, or
abandonment that leads to unsuccessful reproduction), or could cause flight behavior that would expose a migratory adult to predators. These activities could cause birds that have established a nest before the start of construction to change their behavior or even abandon an active nest,
putting their eggs and nestlings at risk for mortality. However, by providing environmental training to construction personnel; limiting construction to the non-nesting season when feasible or, if avoiding the nesting season is not feasible, conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and establishing no-disturbance buffers around any active nests to ensure they are not disturbed by construction; and repeating the preconstruction surveys when work resumes after being suspended for seven days, as required by mitigation
measures BR-2a and BR-5, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

BR-13: Conflict With Any Local Policies or Ordinances
Protecting Biological Resources. The UWSP area includes tree species of sufficient size to be protected under the County’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance, and implementation of the proposed UWSP could potentially
affect these trees. In addition, Sacramento County has
adopted a Swainson’s Hawk ordinance, which provides for the voluntary means for mitigation impacts on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat. The proposed UWSP would
permanently impact over 40 acres of Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat, which, if not mitigated according to the County’s Swainson’s Hawk Impact Mitigation Program, would be permanently lost. However, by complying with the
County’s tree preservation ordinance and by complying with PS Implement Mitigation Measures BR-7b, BR-10a, BR-10b, and BR-10c
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-55 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
the Swainson’s Hawk Impact Mitigation Program, including providing compensatory mitigation at a 1:1 ratio for projectrelated loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, as required by Mitigation Measures BR-7b and BR-10a through BR-10c, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

BR-14: Conflict With Natomas Basin HCP and Metro Air
Park HCP. The Natomas Basin HCP and Metro Air Park HCP
are adopted conservation plans with respective plan areas that cover portions of the Natomas Basin. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-9 would avoid and
minimize impacts to covered species in the Natomas Basin HCP and Metro Air Park HCP and have been designed to
avoid conflicts with the strategies and provisions of the respective HCPs. Given these considerations, the proposed UWSP and required offsite improvements would not conflict with the provisions of existing adopted HCPs, and the overall impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA

CLIMATE CHANGE
CC-1: Generation of GHG Emissions
Construction. Construction of the proposed UWSP and
offsite improvements could result in GHG emissions that exceed the SMAQMD significant threshold. However, with the requirement that the applicant reduce construction-related GHG emissions below the SMAQMD threshold, as required
by Mitigation Measure CC-1a, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS CC-1a: Prior to the initiation of construction for each subsequent development project, the applicant for each
project shall demonstrate that construction-related GHG emissions for all construction activities in each year of construction would be reduced to less than 1,100 MTCO2e per year. The project applicant shall submit proof to the County’s Department of Planning and Environmental Review that construction emissions are reduced to less than 1,100 MTCO2e per year.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-56 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The project applicant(s) shall reduce construction-related GHG emissions through implementation of the following
options for reducing GHG construction emissions:
• Modify the construction schedule to reduce the intensity of construction to lower emissions;
• Minimize the overlap of construction phases of
development;
• Use zero-emission off-road equipment for all off-road equipment used during construction, if commercially
available. Available technologies currently include
battery-electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies.

Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electricity if available. Electric equipment shall include, but is not limited to, concrete/industrial saws, sweepers/scrubbers, aerial lifts, welders, air compressors, fixed cranes,
forklifts, and cement and mortar mixers, pressure
washers, and pumps. To qualify for an exception, the
Applicant shall provide the County with evidence
supporting its conclusion that electric equipment is not commercially available and shall use the next cleanest
piece of off-road equipment in terms of GHG emissions.
• All portable engines, such as generators, shall be electric.

If grid electricity is not available, propane or natural gas generators shall be used.
• Use of renewable diesel for construction fuel rather than diesel, provided that renewable diesel fuel reduces
tailpipe GHG emissions compared to non-renewable
diesel fuel;
• Improve fuel efficiency from construction equipment by:
­ Minimizing idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no
more than three minutes (five-minute limit is required
by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title 13, Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-57 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code
of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site;
and
­ Using equipment with new technologies (repowered
engines, electric drive trains).
• Perform on-site emission reductions such as
implementing on-site material hauling with trucks
equipped with on-road engines (if determined to be less emissive than the off-road engines) or real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable on-site emission reductions;
• Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power;
• Use a CARB-approved low carbon fuel for construction
equipment; (NOX emissions from the use of low carbon
fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated.)
• Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle vans, transit passes and/or secure bicycle parking for construction
worker commutes;
• Reduce electricity use in the construction office by using LED bulbs, powering off computers every day, and
replacing heating and cooling units with more efficient ones;
• Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and
demolition debris (goal of at least 75 percent by weight); • Minimize the amount of concrete for paved surfaces or utilize a low carbon concrete option;
• Produce concrete on-site if determined to be less
emissive than transporting ready mix;
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-58 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Use SmartWay certified trucks for deliveries and
equipment transport; and
• Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control.
• Any other best technology available in the future may be included, provided that the Project applicant submits
documentation to the County demonstrating that (1) the
technology would result in comparable GHG emissions
reductions and (2) it would not increase other air pollutant emissions or exacerbate other impacts, such as noise.

This may include new alternative fuels or engine
technology for certain off-road equipment (such as
electric or hydrogen fuel cell equipment) that is not
available as of 2024.
• For purposes of this mitigation measure, zero-emission offroad equipment shall ordinarily be considered “commercially available” if the vehicle is capable of serving the intended purpose and is included in the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Equipment (ACE)
List, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/msei/offroad-advance-clean-equipment, included in California Air Resources Board’s Clean Off-Road Equipment Voucher
Incentive Project (CORE) catalog,
https://californiacore.org/equipmentcatalog/, or listed as available in the US on the Global Commercial Vehicle
Drive to Zero Off-Road Zero-Emission Technology
Inventory (ZETI) inventory,
https://globaldrivetozero.org/tools/zeti-offroad/. The County shall be responsible for the final determination of
commercial availability, based on all the facts and
circumstances at the time the determination is made. For the County to make a determination that such vehicles are commercially unavailable, the operator must submit
documentation from a minimum of three (3) zero-emission Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-59 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
off-road equipment dealers identified on the ACE or CORE websites demonstrating the inability to obtain the required zero-emission off-road equipment needed within 6 months.

The project applicant may elect to implement any combination of the foregoing measures to reduce construction-related GHG emissions below 1,100 MTCO2e per year. All GHG
emissions and reductions must be quantified using models and methods generally consistent with this Draft EIR (such as the CalEEMod model). The County shall be responsible for the final determination for feasibility regarding any of the measures identified above that the applicant(s) deem to be infeasible. The determination shall be based on all the facts and circumstances at the time the determination is made. For the County to make a determination that any of the measures are infeasible, the applicant(s) must submit documentation to the County to demonstrate infeasibility. For example,
documentation could be provided from equipment providers in the area that describes the inability to obtain the required materials or vehicles needed within 6 months, or that the magnitude of additional costs or lost profitability that would be associated with implementation of the measure would be
sufficiently severe.

If the quantified reduction measures do not reduce
construction-related GHG emissions for subsequent
development projects to below 1,100 MTCO2e per year,
offsite carbon credits may be purchased and retired for those years to make up the difference. “Carbon credit” means an instrument issued by an Approved Registry and shall
represent the past reduction or sequestration of 1 MTCO2e achieved by a GHG emission reduction project or activity within the U.S. “Approved Registry” means: (i) the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, the Verified Carbon Standard, or the Clean Development Mechanism; (ii) any registry established by SMAQMD. The purchase of off- Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-60 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
site carbon credits shall be negotiated with the County and SMAQMD at the time that credits are sought.

Carbon Credit Standards: Carbon credits can result from activities that reduce, avoid, destroy or sequester an amount of GHG emissions in an off-site location to offset the
equivalent amount of GHG emissions occurring elsewhere.

For the purpose of mitigation, carbon credits shall consist of direct emission reductions or sequestration that are used to offset the proposed UWSP's direct and indirect emissions. All carbon credits shall be purchased from a carbon offset
registry approved by CARB, which at present include the following: the American Climate Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra (formerly Verified Carbon Standard). The carbon credits shall be verifiable by the County and
enforceable in accordance with the registry’s applicable standards, practices, or protocols. The carbon credits must substantively satisfy all six of the statutory “environmental integrity” requirements as set forth in both subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2) of California Health and Safety Code §38562: real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and
additional.

Carbon credits shall be purchased and retired and emissions must be offset for each year a subsequent development
project exceeds the 1,100 MTCO2e threshold. Such credits shall not allow the use of offset projects originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by Sacramento County and/or the SMAQMD.

All offset credits shall be verified by an independent verifier who meets stringent levels of professional qualification (i.e., ANAB Accreditation Program for Greenhouse Gas Validation/ Verification Bodies or a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead
Verifier accredited by CARB), or an expert with equivalent qualifications to the extent necessary to assist with the Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-61 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
verification. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event that an approved registry becomes no longer
accredited by CARB and the offset credits cannot be
transferred to another accredited registry, the project applicant shall comply with the rules and procedures for retiring and/or replacing offset credits in the manner specified by the applicable protocol or other applicable standards including (to the extent required) by purchasing an equivalent number of credits to recoup the loss.

Geographic location: Carbon credits shall be obtained from GHG reduction projects that occur in the following locations in order of priority to the extent available: (1) within proximity to the proposed UWSP site; (2) within Sacramento County; (3) within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin; (4) the State of California; and (5) the United States of America. Any carbon credits used for mitigation are subject to the approval of the County.

Operation. To demonstrate that a project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change during operation, the SMAQMD recommends
implementation of local measures known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 Best Management Practices (BMPs). Tier 1 BMPs require
that projects be designed and constructed without natural gas infrastructure (BMP 1) and that all projects meet current CALGreen Tier 2 standards, except that all EV capable
spaces should instead be EV ready (BMP 2). If Tier 1 BMPs cannot be fully implemented, then emissions, including
natural gas emissions, should be estimated; on-site
measures should be implemented to the maximum extent
feasible; the project should have the capacity to be all-electric in the future; and BMP 2 requirements should be met. If GHG emissions exceed the SMAQMD significance threshold after applying Tier 1 BMPs, then the project must implement
SMAQMD’s Tier 2 BMP (BMP 3), which requires projects to PS CC-1b: Prior to the approval of project tentative maps for each individual subsequent development project, the
applicant shall implement the following measures:
• Consistent with SMAQMD’s GHG BMP 1, natural gas
shall be prohibited in all residential land uses; and
• The applicant shall reduce GHG emissions associated
with each phase of the proposed UWSP at a rate of 1.42
MTCO2e per year per thousand square feet of nonresidential development (5,996 MTCO2e per year divided by the modeled total of 4,214 thousand square feet of
non-residential development = 1.42 MTCO2e per year per
thousand square foot of nonresidential development).

Prior to the approval of improvement plans or grading
permits, each future development project implemented
under the proposed UWSP shall prepare a GHG
Reduction Plan. The purpose of the plan is to document
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-62 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
reduce applicable project residential and office VMT by 15 percent compared to existing average residential and worker VMT per capita, respectively; and there shall be no increase in retail VMT.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-1b, which places prohibitions on natural gas infrastructure for certain uses allowed under the proposed UWSP and requires the
purchase of off-site carbon credits to make up the difference for all natural gas use, and Mitigation Measure CC-1c, which requires that EV ready parking spaces be provided at the ratio found in the CALGreen Tier 2 standards, would ensure that BMPs 1 and 2 are implemented. However, even with the implementation of these BMPs, operational GHG emissions associated with the proposed UWSP would still exceed the SMAQMD significance threshold, thus triggering the
implementation of BMP 3. However, according to the
transportation impact analysis prepared for the proposed UWSP, residential and office VMT associated with the project would be 15 percent below the existing average residential and worker VMT per capita, respectively. Furthermore, the retail components associated with the proposed UWSP,
which are situated for regional service, would reduce VMT by shortening travel distances for residents to regional retail destinations. For these reasons, the proposed UWSP would comply with BMP 3 and the associated impact would be less than significant.

GHG emissions reduction for each future development
project through project specific GHG reduction measures on-site and to demonstrate that the project will achieve the required reduction of 1.42 MTCO2e per year per
thousand square feet of non-residential development to
meet the total reduction of 5,996 MTCO2e per year upon
complete buildout of the proposed UWSP.

The GHG Reduction Plan shall quantify how the
individual development projects will achieve this
performance standard at the time of buildout of the
project. The GHG Reduction Plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the County’s Environmental Coordinator
and SMAQMD. The GHG Reduction Plan shall include a
summary of all GHG-reduction measures that would be
implemented by the project and a quantification of the
approximate GHG emissions reductions that will be
associated with each action and mitigation measure GHG
emission reductions can be achieved through any
combination of the following on-site mitigation options as long as the reductions are quantified and shown to meet the performance standard:
­ Prohibit natural gas infrastructure in a portion of the nonresidential buildings.
­ Require on-site renewable energy generation for
nonresidential buildings in excess of Code
requirements to reduce indirect emissions associated
with grid-supplied electricity. Specific actions may
include on-site carbon-zero renewable energy
capable of serving energy needs of any urban
development within the project, including energy
needed for streetlights, sewer pumps, drainage
pumps, traffic signals, and water pumps; and
residential photovoltaic systems designed to be
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-63 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
scalable over time to accommodate varying energy
demands.
­ Procure renewable energy from off-site sources
within California via purchases from one or more of
the following, depending on regulatory feasibility and
availability: (a) SMUD; (b) a community choice
aggregator such as the joint SMUD agreement with
Valley Clean Energy and the East Bay Community
Energy; or (c) other renewable energy provider.
­ Procure and retire Renewable Energy Certificates
(also known as RECs, green tags, Renewable
Energy Credits, Renewable Electricity Certificates, or
Tradable Renewable Certificates) for projects or
activities located in California.
­ Reduce electricity demand through implementation of
reasonable and feasible design measures, such as:
• electrify loading docks to reduce emission from
engine idling of transport refrigeration units; and
• install all-electric appliances, including water
heaters and heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems;
­ Institute a composting and recycling program in
excess of local standards; and
­ Implement an Urban Forestry Management Plan to
reduce the urban heat island effect.
­ Implement on-site or funding off-site carbon
sequestration projects (such as tree plantings or
reforestation projects).
­ Reduce VMT traveled by project residents and
employees through implementation of reasonable
and feasible design measures, such as:
 improve or increase access to transit;
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-64 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
 increase access to common goods and services,
such as groceries, schools, and daycare;
 incorporate affordable housing into the project;
 orient the project toward transit, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities;
 improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit
service;
 provide traffic calming;
 provide bicycle parking;
 limit or eliminate parking supply;
 unbundle parking costs;
 provide parking cash-out programs;
 implement roadway pricing;
 implement or provide access to a commute
reduction program;
 provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ridesharing programs;  provide transit passes;
 shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to
carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing
ride-matching services;
 providing telework options;
 providing incentives or subsidies that increase
the use of modes other than single-occupancy
vehicle;
 providing on-site amenities at places of work,
such as priority parking for carpools and
vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and
locker rooms;
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-65 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
 providing employee transportation coordinators at
employment sites; and
 providing a guaranteed ride home service to
users of non-auto modes.
­ If Sacramento County has adopted a Communitywide
CAP, comply with the provisions of the adopted CAP,
including any applicable carbon neutrality
requirement.
­ Should new and quantifiable GHG emission reduction
technology become available, the applicant may
achieve the required GHG emissions reduction
through other means, subject to review and approval
by Sacramento County and the SMAQMD.

If the above on-site and off-site mitigation options are not sufficient to achieve the required GHG reduction, off-site carbon credits may be purchased to make up the
difference. “Carbon credit” means an instrument issued
by an Approved Registry and shall represent the past
reduction or sequestration of 1 MTCO2e achieved by a
GHG emission reduction project or activity within the U.S. “Approved Registry” means: (i) the Climate Action
Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, the Verified
Carbon Standard, or the Clean Development Mechanism;
(ii) any other entity approved by CARB to act as an
“offset project registry” under the state’s Cap-and-Trade Program; or (iii) any registry established by SMAQMD.

The purchase of off-site mitigation credits shall be
negotiated with the County and SMAQMD at the time that
credits are sought.

Carbon Credit Standards: Carbon credits can result from activities that reduce, avoid, destroy or sequester an
amount of GHG emissions in an off-site location to offset the equivalent amount of GHG emissions occurring
elsewhere. For the purpose of mitigation, carbon credits Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-66 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
shall consist of direct emission reductions or
sequestration that are used to offset the proposed
UWSP's direct and indirect emissions. All carbon credits shall be purchased from a carbon offset registry
approved by CARB, which at present include the
following: the American Climate Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra (formerly Verified Carbon Standard).

The carbon credits shall be verifiable by the County and enforceable in accordance with the registry’s applicable standards, practices, or protocols. The carbon credits
must substantively satisfy all six of the statutory
“environmental integrity” requirements applicable to the CARB Cap-and-Trade Program, generally as set forth in
both subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2) of California Health and Safety Code §38562: real, permanent, quantifiable,
verifiable, enforceable, and additional.

Carbon credits shall be retired and emissions must be
offset for every operational year the project is consuming natural gas. Such credits shall be based on CARBapproved protocols that are consistent with the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 95972 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not allow the use of offset projects originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by Sacramento County and/or the SMAQMD.

All offset credits shall be verified by an independent
verifier who meets stringent levels of professional
qualification (i.e., ANAB Accreditation Program for
Greenhouse Gas Validation/Verification Bodies or a
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Lead Verifier accredited by
CARB), or an expert with equivalent qualifications to the extent necessary to assist with the verification.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-67 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in the event that an approved registry becomes no longer
accredited by CARB and the offset credits cannot be
transferred to another accredited registry, the project applicant shall comply with the rules and procedures for retiring and/or replacing offset credits in the manner
specified by the applicable protocol or other applicable standards including (to the extent required) by purchasing an equivalent number of credits to recoup the loss.

Geographic location: Carbon credits shall be obtained
from GHG reduction projects that occur in the following locations in order of priority to the extent available: (1) within proximity to the proposed UWSP site; (2) within
Sacramento County; (3) within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin; (4) the State of California; and (5) the United
States of America. Any carbon credits used for mitigation are subject to the approval of the County.

CC-1c: Consistent with SMAQMD’s GHG BMP 2, prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any project
structure with parking, the project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen Code) Tier 2 voluntary electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements, except all EV capable spaces (i.e., capable of supporting future EVSE) shall instead be EV ready (i.e., EVSE installed), or the mandatory requirements of the most recently adopted version of the County of Sacramento building code, whichever is more stringent. The installation of all EV charging equipment shall be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit(s) or on other documentation submitted to the County.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-68 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Compliance with Mitigation Measures CC-1a, CC-1b, and
CC-1c shall be ensured by the County’s Department of
Planning and Environmental Review.

CC-2 Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or
Regulation. The proposed UWSP could conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs such as the 2022 Scoping Plan Update adopted by CARB, which establishes the framework for achieving the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels and a roadmap for the state to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG
emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045 (as directed by AB 1279). Operation of the proposed UWSP would not align with all of the recommended project attributes outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not be consistent with the state’s GHG goals. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CC-1b and CC-1c, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures CC-1b and CC-1c LTS

CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1: Historical Resources. Based on the results of the background research there are historical resources and
potential historical resources within the UWSP area.

Construction of development or infrastructure associated with the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements could partially or completely destroy these resources, resulting in a
significant impact.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires that each individual project inventory and evaluate historical resources within the affected area, and if historical resources are discovered, develop an PS CUL-1: Conduct Inventory and Significance Evaluation of Architectural Resources.

Before each individual development phase or off-site element subject to approval under CEQA, the project proponent shall retain the services of a Secretary of the Interior qualified architectural historian to conduct an inventory and
significance evaluation of architectural resources in the affected area. The architectural historian will conduct an inventory that includes the following:
• Map(s) and verbal description of the project-specific area that delineates both the horizontal and vertical extents of SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-69 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
approach to avoid or minimize impacts. However, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid a historical resource, and the resource may need to be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of actions under the
proposed UWSP are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measure, or an equally
effective mitigation measure, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
where a project could result in impacts, including both direct and indirect, on cultural resources.
• A review of maps and aerial photos to see if existing buildings, roads, or other built features are in the projectspecific area. • If so, and the age of these features is either unknown or is known to be older than 45 years, an inventory and
evaluation shall be completed that includes
documentation of the resource on the appropriate
California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and an evaluation for California Register eligibility (i.e., whether they qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).
• If California Register-eligible resources are present, an assessment of potential project impacts shall be
conducted. Where possible, the project shall be
configured or redesigned to avoid impacts on eligible or listed resources. Alternatively, resources may be
preserved in place if possible, as suggested under
California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Where impacts cannot be avoided, an analysis shall be
completed of whether the project’s potential impacts on the historical resource would be consistent with the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and applicable guidelines.

If potentially significant impacts on historical resources are identified, an approach for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be developed before project implementation and in coordination with interested parties (e.g., historical societies, local communities). Typical measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
• Modifying the project to avoid impacts on historical
resources.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-70 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Documentation of historical resources, to the standards of and to be included in the Historic American Buildings
Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, or
Historic American Landscapes Survey, as appropriate. As described in the above standards, the documentation
shall be conducted by a qualified architectural historian, defined above, and shall include large-format
photography, measured drawings, written architectural
descriptions, and historical narratives. The completed
documentation shall be submitted to the U.S. Library of Congress.
• Relocation of historical resources in conformance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
• Monitoring construction-related and operational vibrations at historical resources.
• For historical resources that are landscapes, preservation of the landscape’s historic form, features, and details that have evolved over time, in conformance with the
U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Guidance for the
Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
• Development and implementation of interpretive
programs or displays, and community outreach.

CUL-2: Archaeological Resources. Based on the results of the background research there are indigenous and historicera archaeological resources present within the UWSP area as well as the potential for previously unrecorded
archaeological resources to be in the area. Construction of development or infrastructure associated with the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements could partially or completely destroy these resources, resulting in a significant impact.

PS CUL-2a: Conduct Inventory and Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Resources.

Before each individual development phase or off-site element subject to approval under CEQA, the project proponent shall retain the services of a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist to conduct an inventory and significance
evaluation of archaeological resources in the project-specific area. The archaeologist will conduct an inventory, including a SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-71 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-2a, which requires that each individual project inventory and evaluate archaeological resources within the affected area, and if archaeological resources are discovered, develop an approach to avoid or minimize impacts, and
Mitigation Measure 2b, which discusses steps to take if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during
construction or operation. However, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid an archaeological resource, and the resource may need to be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of actions under the proposed UWSP are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measures, or equally effective mitigation measures, would reduce the significant impact to a less-thansignificant level in all cases. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
review of the Cultural Resources Conservation Strategy, (HELIX 2022) that includes the following:
• Map(s) and verbal description of the project-specific area that delineates both the horizontal and vertical extents of where a project could result in impacts, including both direct and indirect, on cultural resources.
• Communication with consulting California Native
American tribes to determine whether any indigenous
archaeological resource or tribal cultural resources could be affected by the project. Project proponents shall
request a list of consulting tribes from the County and coordinate determination of tribal cultural resources
according to Mitigation Measure TCR-1a. For projects
requiring additional CEQA review, consultation shall be completed pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.
• An updated records search of the project-specific area from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.
• An archaeological sensitivity analysis to assess the
potential for buried archaeological resources using
geologic and historic maps, soils data, and other sources. • An archaeological field survey that includes, at a
minimum, a pedestrian survey. If the archaeological
sensitivity analysis suggests a high potential for buried archaeological resources, a subsurface survey may also
be required. Any archaeological resources identified
during the survey shall be recorded on the appropriate
California Department of Parks and Recreation 523
forms.

Based on the results of the inventory, when monitoring has been recommended for construction-related grounddisturbing activity, a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist shall develop a monitoring plan to ensure that Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-72 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
the procedures for unanticipated discoveries are addressed expeditiously and in accordance with the plan. The plan shall be reviewed by the consulting Native American tribe(s) and the County. The plan will include (but not be limited to) the following components:
• Training program for all construction and field workers involved in site disturbance; on-site personnel shall
attend a mandatory pre-project training led by a Secretary of the Interior-qualified archaeologist and consulting
Native American tribe(s). The training will outline the general cultural sensitivity of the area and the procedures to follow in the event cultural materials and/or human
remains are inadvertently discovered.
• Where monitoring will be completed and under what
circumstances based on soil types, geology, distance to known sites, and other factors.
• Person(s) responsible for conducting monitoring
activities, including a request to consulting Native
American tribe(s) for a tribal monitor. If tribal monitors do not respond within 24 hours of the notification for
monitoring or are unavailable, the project proponent will notify the County that contact was made with no
response received.
• How the monitoring shall be conducted and the required format and content of monitoring reports;
• Schedule for submittal of monitoring reports and
person(s) responsible for review and approval of
monitoring reports;
• Protocol for notifications in case of encountering cultural resources, as well as methods of dealing with the
encountered resources (e.g., collection, identification, curation);
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-73 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Methods to ensure security of cultural resources sites; • Protocol for notifying local authorities (i.e. Sheriff, Police) should site looting and other illegal activities occur during construction.

During the course of the monitoring, the archaeologist and tribal monitor may adjust the frequency—from continuous to intermittent—of the monitoring based on the conditions and professional judgment regarding the potential to impact resources.

If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for California Register eligibility (i.e., whether they qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or unique archaeological resources, as defined in PRC Section 21083.2). Such evaluation may require
archaeological testing (excavation), potentially including laboratory analysis.

If California Register-eligible resources are present, an assessment of potential project impacts shall be conducted.

Where possible, the project shall be configured or redesigned to avoid impacts on eligible or listed resources. Alternatively, resources may be preserved in place, if possible, as
suggested under California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Where impacts cannot be avoided, an analysis shall be conducted of whether the project’s potential impacts would materially alter the resource’s physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register.

If potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources that qualify as historical resources (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) and/or unique archaeological resources (per PRC Section 21083.2) are identified, an approach for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be developed, in coordination with interested or consulting parties (e.g., Native Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-74 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
American representatives, historical societies, or local communities as appropriate). Typical measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
• Modify the project to avoid impacts on resources.
• Plan parks, green space, or other open space to
incorporate the resources.
• Develop and implement a detailed archaeological
resources management plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from archaeological resources before any excavation at the resource’s location.

Treatment for most archaeological resources consists of (but is not necessarily limited to) sample excavation,
artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the resource to be affected by the project.
• Develop and implement interpretive programs or displays, and conduct community outreach.

CUL-2b: Implement Measures to Protect Archaeological
Resources during Project Construction or Operation.

Before the start of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent shall retain Secretary of Interior-qualified cultural resources specialist to conduct training for construction workers, to educate them about the possibility of
encountering buried cultural resources, and inform them of the proper procedures should cultural resources be
encountered. This training shall be provided to all new workers within their first week of employment at the project site, along the linear facilities routes, and at laydown areas, roads, and other ancillary areas. The training shall be prepared in consultation with consulting Native Americans Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-75 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and shall incorporate the traditions and beliefs of local Native American groups into the presentation.

If cultural materials are encountered during construction or operation of any project implemented under the UWSP, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The County of Sacramento and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist shall inspect the discovery and notify the lead agency of their initial
assessment. If the qualified archaeologist determines that the resource is or is potentially indigenous in origin, the lead agency shall consult with consulting Native American tribes to assess the find and determine whether it is potentially a tribal cultural resource.

If potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources that qualify as historical resources (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) and/or unique archaeological resources (per PRC Section 21083.2) are identified, an approach for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be developed, in coordination with interested or consulting parties (e.g., Native American representatives, historical societies, or local communities as appropriate). Typical measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
• Modify the project to avoid impacts on resources.
• Plan parks, green space, or other open space to
incorporate the resources.
• Develop and implement a detailed archaeological
resources management plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from archaeological resources before any excavation at the resource’s location.

Treatment for most archaeological resources consists of Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-76 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
(but is not necessarily limited to) sample excavation,
artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the resource to be affected by the project.
• Develop and implement interpretive programs or displays, and conduct community outreach.

CUL-3: Human Remains. Based on the background
research, there is the potential that the UWSP area has been used for human burial purposes and the possibility of
encountering human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, during project-related ground
disturbing activities cannot be entirely discounted.

Construction of development allowed under the proposed
UWSP and offsite improvements could partially or completely destroy these remains, resulting in a significant impact.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which discusses steps to take if unknown human remains are discovered during construction or
operation. However, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid human remains and they may be altered or
destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of such actions are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measure, or an equally effective mitigation measure, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. For these reasons, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

PS CUL-3: Implement Measures to Protect Human Remains
during Project Construction or Operation.

If human remains are encountered during construction of any project implemented under the UWSP, all work shall
immediately halt within 100 feet of the find, and the lead agency shall contact the Sacramento County Coroner to
evaluate the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1). If the coroner determines that the remains are Native American in origin, the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c) and PRC Section 5097.98. Per PRC Section 5097.98, the County shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to
generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are
located is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the County has discussed and conferred, as prescribed PRC Section 5097.98, with the most likely
descendants and the property owner regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-77 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
ENERGY
EN-1: Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy During Project Construction. The proposed
UWSP is not expected to result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of fuel or energy during construction as the use of diesel fuel and gasoline during construction would not be substantial relative to the total sales of transportation fuels in Sacramento County and all project construction equipment and vehicles would be subject to vehicle and equipment fuel efficiency standards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
EN-2: Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy During Project Operation. The proposed UWSP is not expected to result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy during operation as the project-related increase in electricity consumption is not expected to adversely affect local and regional energy supplies, or to require additional generation capacity beyond the statewide planned increase to accommodate projected energy demand growth. Furthermore, given the proximity of the UWSP area to existing urban areas and amenities (e.g., jobs, shopping, entertainment), the proposed UWSP would use less fuel for transportation
compared to a project on the urban fringe. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
EN-3: Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable
Energy or Energy Efficiency. The proposed UWSP would
not conflict with applicable energy standards and plans, including the County’s CAP. The proposed UWSP would
comply with existing energy standards and plans, including LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-78 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
state and local standards designed to minimize the use of fuel in construction vehicles, maximize energy efficiency in buildings, and encourage the use of renewable energy. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY
GEO-1: Strong Seismic Ground Shaking. Strong seismic
ground shaking could occur within the UWSP area due to the presence of the Huntington-Berryessa fault system, as well as other active faults located farther away. However, as new development and the offsite improvements would be subject to the California Building Code (CBC) and County building codes, which require that structural elements undergo
appropriate design-level geotechnical evaluations prior to final design and construction, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
GEO-2: Seismic Related Ground Failure, including
Liquefaction. Based on the available data, new development within the UWSP area, including the offsite improvements, could be subject to soil liquefaction, depending on the soil conditions of a particular site. However, as any new
development, including offsite improvements, would be
subject to the seismic design criteria of the CBC and County building codes, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
GEO-3: Soil Erosion. Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements
would include ground-disturbing activities that could increase the risk of erosion or sediment transport, if not managed appropriately. However, with preparation and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifies BMPs to control stormwater from construction work LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-79 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
sites, as required by the NPDES Construction General
Permit, this impact would be less than significant.

GEO-4: Unstable Soil. The potential for development
allowed under the proposed UWSP to be affected by the
damaging effects of liquefaction and subsidence is present.

However, as the final design-level geotechnical investigations for individual projects would be required to analyze sitespecific conditions, and provide specific measures to address relevant site preparation, design, or other requirements consistent with the current version of the CBC, should any potential hazards be identified, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
GEO-5: Expansive Soils. Natural Resources Conservation
Service data indicate that most of the soils underlying the UWSP area have a low to high expansion potential. As
project design and construction activities for individual onsite and offsite projects would be required to comply with CBC and County building code regulations and requirements and would employ standard engineering and building practices common to construction projects throughout California (e.g., soil removal and replacement with engineered soil), this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
GEO-6: Paleontological Resources. There is moderate to
high potential for the UWSP area to contain significant paleontological resources, and construction of development or infrastructure associated with the proposed UWSP could partially or completely destroy these resources. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-6, which requires that qualified technical specialists provide oversight and worker training, and that clear parameters for resource monitoring and steps to be executed if a paleontological PS GEO-6a: Project Paleontologist
The project applicant for each individual project shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist (qualified paleontologist) meeting the SVP standards as set forth in the “Definitions” section of Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources prior to the approval of grading permits. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the project kick-off meeting and project progress meetings on a regular basis, shall report to LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-80 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
resource is discovered be provided, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The offsite improvements would only disturb relatively shallow soils that have already been disturbed; paleontological resources are not anticipated in the offsite improvement locations.
the site in the event potential paleontological resources are encountered, and shall implement the duties outlined below.

GEO-6b: Worker Training
Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare paleontological
resources sensitivity training materials for use during Projectwide Worker Environmental Awareness Training (or equivalent). The paleontological resources sensitivity training shall be conducted by a qualified environmental trainer working under the supervision of the qualified paleontologist.

In the event construction crews are phased, additional
trainings shall be conducted for new construction personnel.

The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the UWSP site and the procedures to be followed if they are found, as outlined in an approved Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (discussed below).

The Project Applicant shall retain documentation
demonstrating that all construction personnel attended the training prior to the start of work on the site and shall provide the documentation upon request.

GEO-6c: Paleontological Monitoring
The qualified paleontologist shall prepare, and the project applicant shall implement, a paleontological resources
monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP). The project
applicant shall submit the plan to the County for review and approval at least 30 days prior to the start of construction.

This plan shall address specifics of monitoring and mitigation and comply with the recommendations of the SVP, as follows:
• The qualified paleontologist shall identify, and the project applicant or its contractor(s) shall retain, qualified
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-81 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
paleontological resource monitors (qualified monitors)
meeting the SVP standards.
• The qualified paleontologist and/or the qualified monitors under the direction of the qualified paleontologist shall conduct full-time paleontological resources monitoring for all ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed sediments in the UWSP area that have high
paleontological sensitivity. This includes any disturbance below 6 feet in Holocene-age deposits, and any depth of excavation into the Riverbank Formation. The PRMMP
shall clearly map these portions of the project based on final design.
• If multiple pieces of heavy equipment are in use
simultaneously but at diverse locations, each location will need to be individually monitored.
• Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to
evaluate and recover the fossil specimens, establishing a 50-foot buffer.
• If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work or location and regardless of whether the site is being monitored, work at the discovery location shall cease in a 50-foot radius of the discovery until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
• The qualified paleontologist shall determine the
significance of any fossils discovered and shall determine the appropriate treatment for significant fossils in
accordance with the SVP standards.
• Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-82 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and mitigation report to document the results of the
monitoring effort and any curation of fossils.

GEO-6d: Significant Fossil Treatment
If any find is deemed significant, as defined in the SVP standards, the qualified paleontologist shall salvage and prepare the fossil for permanent curation with a certified repository with retrievable storage following the SVP
standards.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1: Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials.

Construction. Routine use of substances commonly used
during construction of the proposed UWSP and offsite
improvements could pose a hazard to people or the
environment. However, this impact would be less than
significant through compliance with numerous laws and
regulations that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous building materials during construction.

LTS None required NA
Operation. Routine use of substances commonly used
during operation of the proposed UWSP could pose a hazard to people or the environment. The offsite improvements
would not use hazardous materials. However, this impact would be less than significant through compliance with
numerous laws and regulations that govern the
transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous building materials during operation.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-83 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZ-2: Accidental Release of Hazardous Materials.

Construction. Some buildings and structures proposed for removal and demolition under the proposed UWSP may
include hazardous building materials, such as asbestoscontaining materials, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls. If improperly managed, the demolition activities could result in exposures to construction workers, the public, and the environment. The offsite improvements would not encounter structures with hazardous materials. However, this impact would be less than significant through compliance with numerous laws and regulations that govern the
transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction.

LTS None required NA
Operation. Residences and retail operations allowed under the proposed UWSP would use and store small quantities of chemicals typical in residences and retail stores, such as household cleaning solutions, paints and thinners, and fuel and motor fuel that could pose a risk to people with the UWSP area if not properly managed. The offsite
improvements would not use hazardous materials. However, this impact would be less than significant through compliance with numerous laws and regulations that govern the
transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation.

LTS None required NA
HAZ-3: Hazardous Emissions or Use of Hazardous
Materials Near Schools. There are three existing schools within 0.25 mile of the UWSP area, and hazardous materials utilized during the construction of future development within the UWSP area and offsite improvements could be routed
past these schools, thus potentially exposing school children, school staff, and workers to hazardous materials in the event of an accident or spill. However, as numerous regulations LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-84 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
address the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction, this impact would be less than significant.

HAZ-4: Known Contaminated Sites. The Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I assessment)
prepared for the UWSP area identified four closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup sites, and despite the status of these sites as closed, it is still possible that construction workers, the public, and the environment could be exposed to hazardous materials if they are encountered during construction and not properly handled. None of the offsite improvement locations are known to contain
contamination. Furthermore, residual pesticides from
agricultural land use, lead, arsenic, sumps/tanks, septic systems, ACM, LBP, and PCBs are all potentially present within the UWSP area, although not under any of the offsite improvement locations. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, which requires that a Phase 1 assessment be prepared prior to the demolition of any
existing buildings and prior to ground-disturbing activities on land previously used for industrial and commercial uses, as well as any land listed as an active hazardous materials cleanup site; Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b, which requires the preparation of a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) if the Phase 1 assessment for a site identifies hazardous materials issues; and Mitigation Measure HAZ-4c, which
requires the preparation of a Soil and Groundwater
Management Plan to support the HASP, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS HAZ-4a: Site Investigation
Future entitlement applications on land previously used for industrial and commercial uses, past or current agricultural land uses, as well as listed active and closed hazardous materials cleanup sites, shall complete a Phase I
environmental site assessment for that property in
accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E1527 for those active hazardous materials sites to ascertain their current status prior to the application being deemed complete.

If the Phase I assessment identifies any hazardous conditions that may present risks to human health or the environment, prior to start of ground-disturbing activities, including grading, trenching, or excavation, or structure demolition, a subsurface site investigation shall be performed to evaluate for the presence of residual pesticides from agricultural land use, ACM, LBP, PCBs, or any other hazardous building materials.

Additionally, near surface soil samples shall be collected to determine if lead, arsenic, or organochlorine pesticides are present.

Finally, the former gas/oil well present within the UWSP area in the vicinity of the intersection of Radio Road and El Centro Road shall be located, and the well seal confirmed prior to development to ensure that development does not break the well seal. In addition, the Well Abandonment Report and attached well location information provided by California Geologic Energy Management Division shall be provided in any Phase I assessment that may encounter the abandoned well.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-85 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZ-4b: Health and Safety Plan
For those properties for which the Phase I assessment
identified hazardous materials issues, prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, including grading, trenching, or excavation, or structure demolition, the project applicant shall require that the construction contractor(s) retain a qualified professional to prepare a site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) in accordance with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (8 CCR Section 5192).

The HASP shall be implemented by the construction
contractor to protect construction workers, the public, and the environment during all ground-disturbing and structure
demolition activities. The HASP shall include designation of a site health and safety officer, a summary of the anticipated risks, a description of personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, and procedures to follow if evidence of potential soil or groundwater contamination is encountered.

HAZ-4c: Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
In support of the HASP described in Mitigation Measure HAZ1b, for any property within the UWSP area that is identified in a Phase I assessment, and for which a HASP has been
prepared, the project applicant shall require that its
contractor(s) develop and implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) for the management of soil and
groundwater before any ground-disturbing activity. The
SGMP shall describe the hazardous materials that may be encountered, the roles and responsibilities of on-site workers and supervisors, training for site workers focused on the recognition of and response to encountering hazardous
materials, and protocols for the materials (soil and/or Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-86 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
dewatering effluent) testing, handling, removing, transporting, and disposing of all excavated materials and dewatering effluent in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner.

HAZ-5: Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Emergency Operations Plan.

Construction. While no road closures are planned during the construction of individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements, road work and/or other
construction activities associated with the construction of this development could cause traffic congestion and/or interrupt the flow of traffic. However, this impact would be less than significant with the preparation of a Traffic Control Plan.

LTS None required NA
Operation. Once development allowed under the proposed
UWSP is constructed, no lane closures or restrictions would be required for operations. Furthermore, the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would provide additional roadway infrastructure to and through the project area, enhancing the level of emergency access to the area. Finally, an inundation study prepared for the Natomas Basin found that
development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not
substantially impair emergency response or evacuation in the event of a flood. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-87 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYD-1: Violation of Water Quality Standards, Waste
Discharge Requirements, or Substantial Degradation of
Surface or Groundwater Quality
Construction. The proposed UWSP and offsite
improvements could violate water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, or substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during construction. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ4c and HDY-1, and adherence to existing regulatory controls (e.g., NPDES construction general permit requirements), this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a, HAZ-4b, and HAZ4c HYD-1: Before approval of future tentative maps, the Project Applicant or future developer(s) shall submit a drainage study in accordance with the requirements outlined in the
Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership’s 2018
Stormwater Quality Design Manual (or subsequent updates).

The study shall describe permanent stormwater quality
treatment facilities capable of treating stormwater to the satisfaction of County DWR.

LTS
Operation. The proposed UWSP and offsite improvements
could violate water quality standards, waste discharge
requirements, or substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality during operation. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ4c and HYD-1, and adherence to existing regulatory controls governing runoff and stormwater during operation, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a, HAZ-4b, HAZ-4c and HYD-1
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-88 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYD-2: Decrease Groundwater Supplies, Interfere with
Recharge, or Impede Sustainable Groundwater
Management
Construction. Water demand during construction of the
proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or impede
sustainable management of groundwater resources as water for construction use would be brought in from offsite sources (e.g., using water trucks) and presumably could be obtained at least in part through reclaimed water sources. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Operation. The City of Sacramento would serve the potable water demands of the proposed UWSP, and the City has
determined that it can meet the water supply demand of the proposed UWSP during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over a 20-year dry period. The offsite improvements would not use groundwater supplies. Thus, the impact
relative to groundwater supplies would not be substantial.

Furthermore, with the incorporation of design features, such as Low Impact Development design and sustainability
measures, development within the UWSP area would not
substantially interfere with recharge or impede conditions for groundwater sustainability. In addition, the offsite roadway improvements would comply with Caltrans road design
requirements that would route stormwater runoff into the existing stormwater drainage system, as it does now for those locations. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-89 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYD-3: Substantial Alteration of Drainage Patterns,
Addition of Impervious Surfaces Resulting in Erosion,
Siltation, Increased Runoff, or Impedance or Redirection of Flood Flows. The proposed UWSP would not result in
erosion, siltation, increased runoff, or impedance or
redirection of flood flows as the proposed project would comply with existing regulations and would include project design features to control stormwater. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
HYD-4: In a Flood Hazard Zone, Risk Release of
Pollutants Due to Project Inundation. The proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation as nearby levees provide protection from a 100-year flood event and are currently being improved to provide protection from a 200-year flood event. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
HYD-5: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of a
Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater
Management Plan. The proposed UWSP would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable water quality control plan and sustainable groundwater management plan as compliance with existing regulations would maintain water quality and groundwater supplies in furtherance of these plans. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA

LAND USE
LU-1: Physically Divide an Established Community. The
proposed UWSP would not physically divide an established community as the proposed project would not include any features that could serve as a barrier to site access, nor would it remove any features that currently provide access to LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-90 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
surrounding communities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LU-2: Conflict with Sacramento County’s Land Use
Plans. The proposed UWSP would not conflict with
Sacramento County’s Land Use Plans as Consistency with
the 2030 General Plan is required by State law. Furthermore, no zoning, tentative maps, parcel maps, or public works projects can be approved, adopted, or undertaken unless they are consistent with the adopted UWSP. For these
reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
LU-3: Conflict with Sacramento County’s Urban Policy
Area/General Plan Growth Management Policy. The
proposed UWSP would not conflict with Sacramento County’s Urban Policy Area/General Plan Growth Management Policy (General Plan Policy LU-120) as the proposed project would comply with each performance criteria (PC-1 through PC-10) and performance metric (CB-1 through CB-5) outlined in
Policy LU-120. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
LU-4: Conflict With SACOG Blueprint And MTP/SCS.

Although the UWSP area and the proposed UWSP are not
anticipated for development in either the Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS, the proposed UWSP would not conflict
with these plans as it aligns with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint and the County’s smart growth policy LU-120. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant
LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-91 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
NOISE
NOI-1: Generate Construction Noise. Construction of
development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would result in a substantial temporary
increase in noise levels at nearby existing sensitive receptors, thus resulting in a significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, which would ensure that all feasible noise reduction strategies for noisegenerating construction activity would be applied, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS NOI-1: Prior to the approval of any grading or siteimprovement plans for new construction within the UWSP area, the project applicant shall prepare a Master
Construction Noise Reduction Plan, to be implemented as development occurs throughout the UWSP area to address
demolition and construction of buildings within 500 feet of residential uses. The primary purpose of the Plan is to establish a performance standard that limits localized
increases in daytime construction noise levels to 10 dBA or less over existing ambient noise at noise-sensitive land uses.

The baseline noise levels for this standard may be adapted using the daytime and nighttime L50 values presented in Table NOI-2 based on generalized proximity. The plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, or the Director’s designee, for review and approval, and implementation of the identified measures shall be required as a condition of each grading or siteimprovement plan approval. This Master Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall consider the following noise reduction measures:
• Schedule: Loud activities such as rock breaking and pile driving shall occur only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., every day (with pile driving and rock breaking to start no earlier than 9:00 a.m. on weekends). Similarly, other
activities with the potential to create extreme noise levels exceeding 90 dBA shall be avoided where possible.

Where such activities cannot be avoided, they shall also occur only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Any
proposed nighttime construction activities, such as
nighttime concrete pours or other nighttime work
necessary to achieve satisfactory results or to avoid traffic LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-92 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
impacts, shall undergo review and approval by the
Director of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, or the Director’s designee.
• Site Perimeter Barrier: To reduce noise levels for work occurring adjacent to residences, schools, or other noisesensitive land uses, a noise barrier(s) shall be constructed on the edge of the work site facing the
receptor(s). Barriers shall be constructed either with two layers of 0.5-inch-thick plywood (joints staggered) and Krail or other support, or with a limp mass barrier material weighing 2 pounds per square foot. If commercial barriers are employed, such barriers shall be constructed of
materials with a Sound Transmission Class rating of 25 or greater.
• Stationary-Source Equipment Placement: Stationary
noise sources, such as generators and air compressors,
shall be located as far from adjacent properties as
possible. These noise sources shall be muffled and
enclosed within temporary sheds, shall incorporate
insulation barriers, or shall use other measures as
determined by the Director of Planning, Building, and
Code Enforcement, or the Director’s designee, to provide equivalent noise reduction from stationary noise sources. • Stationary-Source Equipment Local Barriers: For
stationary equipment, such as generators and air
compressors, that will operate for more than one week
within 500 feet of a noise-sensitive land use, the project contractor shall provide additional localized barriers
around such stationary equipment that break the line of sight to neighboring properties.
• Temporary Power: The project applicant shall use
temporary power poles instead of generators, where
feasible.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-93 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Construction Equipment: Exhaust mufflers shall be
provided on pneumatic tools when in operation for more
than one week within 500 feet of a noise-sensitive land use. All equipment shall be properly maintained.
• Truck Traffic: The project applicant shall restrict individual truck idling to no more than two consecutive minutes per trip end. Trucks shall load and unload materials in the construction areas, rather than idling on local streets. If truck staging is required, the staging area shall be located along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noise-sensitive receivers, where such
locations are available.
• Methods: The construction contractor(s) shall consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools, such as
pile driving, and shall locate these activities away from the property line, as practicable. Alternative methods of pile installation, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. Piles could be
pre-drilled, as practicable, and a wood block placed
between the hammer and pile to reduce metal-to-metal
contact noise and “ringing” of the pile.
• Noise Complaint Liaison: A noise complaint liaison shall be identified to field complaints regarding construction noise and interface with the project construction team.

Contact information shall be distributed to nearby noisesensitive receivers. Signs that include contact information shall be posted at the construction site.
• Notification and Confirmation: Residents within 500 feet shall be notified by certified mail at least one month
before the start of extreme noise-generating activities (to be defined in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan).

The notification shall include, at a minimum, the
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-94 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information.
• Nighttime Construction: If monitoring confirms that
nighttime construction activities substantially exceed the ambient noise level (to be defined for receptors near each nighttime construction area in the site-wide Master
Construction Noise Reduction Plan) and complaints occur regularly (generally considered to be two or more per
week), additional methods shall be implemented, such as installing additional storm windows in specific residences and/or constructing additional local barriers. The specific approach shall be refined as the construction activities and noise levels are refined.
• Complaint Protocol: Protocols shall be implemented for receiving, responding to, and tracking received
complaints. A noise complaint liaison shall be designated by the applicant and shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The
community liaison shall determine the cause of the noise complaint and require that measures to correct the
problem be implemented. Signage that includes the
community liaison’s telephone number shall be posted at the construction site and the liaison’s contact information shall be included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.

NOI-2: Generate Construction Vibration. Existing sensitive structures near the UWSP area would not be affected by
substantial ground-borne vibration during project
construction, including offsite improvements. This impact would be less than significant.

The proposed offsite improvements would occur within
existing ROWs (e.g., within existing roadway corridors, facility footprints, and/or underground). The proposed offsite
PS NOI-2: All entry and receiving pits for jack-and-bore or horizontal directional drilling activities requiring the installation of sheet piles shall be located by project engineers at a distance of 50 feet or more from the nearest residential use or modern structure to avoid annoyance and damage impacts.

Additionally, a distance of 65 feet from historic structures shall be maintained.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-95 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
improvements would occur within existing ROWs. Potential jack-and-bore methods of extending water lines beneath I-80 may require installation of sheet piles using vibratory techniques at entry and exit pits.

NOI-3: Increase in Traffic Noise at Existing Sensitive
Receptors. Traffic generated by development allowed under the proposed UWMP would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels at nearby existing sensitive receptors, thus resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI3a would require that speed reductions be considered along El Centro Road to determine feasibility and that a cost-benefit analysis be performed to determine the feasibility of barriers along Arena Boulevard while Mitigation Measure NOI-3b
would require the use of rubberized asphalt or another
equally effective type of noise-reducing pavement within the Specific Plan area. However, the availability of feasible mitigation along many other offsite segments is limited and largely unavailable from a cost, engineering, or safety standpoint, may not fully mitigate noise impacts, or could require the consent of the impacted receptor. As such, the successful implementation of these measures cannot be
guaranteed, and thus, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The proposed offsite improvements would occur within
existing ROWs (e.g., within existing roadway corridors, facility footprints, and/or underground). Potential improvements or expansion of the I-80 interchange at West El Camino Avenue may require subsequent noise analysis by Caltrans and/or the Federal Highway Administration if such improvements would result in freeway lane or ramp relocations that would be closer to noise-sensitive receptors.

PS NOI-3a: Speed Reductions. The feasibility of speed
reductions on El Centro Road, north of Arena Boulevard, shall be considered with coordination with the Sacramento County Department of Transportation (DOT). Furthermore, the feasibility of erecting noise barriers for existing residential uses along Arena Boulevard between El Centro Road and
Duckhorn Drive shall be considered using a cost-benefit analysis to determine feasibility.

NOI-3b: Rubberized Asphalt. The County shall require the use of rubberized hot-mix asphalt (RHMA) or another equally effective type of noise-reducing pavement (a) along future arterial and thoroughfare roadway construction within the plan area and (b) at the time of the next repaving of the roadway segment. The RHMA overlay shall be designed with
appropriate thickness and rubber component quantity
(typically 15 percent by weight of the total blend), such that traffic noise levels are reduced by an average of 4 to 6 dB (noise levels vary depending on travel speeds, meteorological conditions, and pavement quality) as compared to noise
levels generated by vehicle traffic traveling on standard asphalt.

SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-96 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
NOI-4: Increase in Stationary Noise from Plan
Components at Existing Receptors.

Commercial Mixed-Use Parking Noise. The impact of
commercial mixed-use parking noise at nearby existing
sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime
exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Commercial Mixed-Use Delivery Truck Noise. The impact
of commercial mixed-use delivery truck noise at nearby
existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime and
nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Commercial Mixed-Use HVAC Equipment Noise. The
impact of commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment noise at
nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than
significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime
and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Employment/Highway Commercial Use Parking Noise.

The impact of employment/highway commercial use parking noise at nearby sensitive receptors would be less than
significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime
and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-97 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Employment/Highway Commercial Use Delivery Truck
Noise. The impact of employment/highway commercial use
delivery truck noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento
County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and
interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Employment/Highway Commercial Use HVAC Equipment
Noise. The impact of employment/highway commercial use
HVAC noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Employment/Highway Commercial Use Drive-Through
Restaurant Noise. The impact of employment/highway
commercial use drive-through restaurant noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime and
nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Employment/Highway Commercial Use Car Wash
Operations Noise. The impact of employment/highway
commercial use car wash operations noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime
exterior and interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-98 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
School Use Parking Noise. The impact of school use
parking noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be potentially significant given that the location of parking lots within the school use areas are currently unknown, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan
daytime and nighttime noise level limits. Further, noise levels from school parking areas could potentially exceed existing ambient conditions at nearby residential uses.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI4a, which would require the project applicant to submit an acoustical study that evaluates the potential noise generated by school component parking activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS NOI-4a: During subsequent application review for proposed school uses, when specific development plans are
completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a
qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school component parking activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls, necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/ 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan
requirements. Available methods of achieving this
performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 50 feet or more between parking areas and exterior
building locations, or erection of a sound wall between along the parking area perimeter shielding the school use.

LTS
Elementary School Use Playground and Playing Field
Noise. The impact of elementary school use playground and playing field noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant as noise levels at these receptors from this source would be below Sacramento
County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and
interior noise level limits and ambient noise level conditions.

LTS None required NA
High School Use Sports Fields and Stadium Noise. The
impact of high school use sports fields and stadium noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be potentially significant given that the nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses are residences located directly adjacent to the proposed high school site in the River View subdivision and, as the design of the high school site is unknown, noise levels at PS NOI-4b: During subsequent application review for proposed high school use sports fields and stadium noise uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project
applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that includes an analysis of stadium noise exposure at the
nearest existing noise-sensitive uses (residential) and SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-99 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
these receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and
nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits. Further, noise levels from stadium sporting events could potentially exceed existing ambient conditions at nearby residential uses.

However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4b, which would require the project applicant to submit an acoustical study that includes an analysis of stadium noise exposure at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable as previous studies have indicated that while available noise control mitigation for noise from stadium events may reduce associated noise levels, given the overall size of crowds and the potential for nighttime events, noise impacts cannot always be mitigated, depending on the
proximity of receptors.
identifies mitigation measures (as appropriate) to reduce stadium noise levels, including crowd and PA system noise, to a state of compliance with, a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. Available
methods of achieving this performance standard include
locating sports field as far from noise sensitive receptors as possible, erecting intervening structures between sports fields and existing noise sensitive receptors, and operational limits on amplified sound equipment.

Park Activity Noise. The impact of park activity noise at nearby existing sensitive receptors would be potentially significant as the west-central portion of the proposed 25.8- acre park proposed in the west-central portion of the UWSP area would include an outdoor pavilion area where amplified music events may occur. Although specific designs for this park have yet to be developed, the pavilion area would likely be located approximately one-half mile from the nearest residences to the west along Garden Highway. Given this setback distance, the County’s daytime noise standard of 50 dBA L50 (after application of the 5 dBA adjustment for sound consisting of music) could be exceeded if amplified sound levels were to exceed 80 dBA L50 at a reference distance of 100 feet from the music generation location (i.e., speakers).

PS NOI-4c: The applicant or operator of all amplified music events within the park shall prepare and implement a Noise Control Plan for operations at the proposed entertainment venues to reduce the potential for noise impacts from public address and/or amplified music. This Noise Control Plan shall contain the following elements:
• The sound generation area of the pavilion shall be
located as close as feasible to the eastern park boundary at Bryte Bend Road, and ideally at least 2,500 feet from the nearest residence to the west.
• All activities held at the pavilion consisting of amplified speech or music shall be limited to daytime hours of 7 am to 10 pm.

SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-100 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4c, which would require the applicant or operator of all amplified music events within the park to prepare and
implement a Noise Control Plan for operations at the
proposed entertainment venues to reduce the potential for noise impacts from public address systems and/or amplified music, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that noise impacts can always be sufficiently mitigated to achieve noise
standards, depending on proximity of receptors and the
operational volume of the performer.
• Amplified speech or music levels shall be maintained at or below a median level of 80 dBA L50 at a distance of
100 feet from the sound source (i.e., speakers).

NOI-5: Noise from Existing Airport Operations. The
UWSP area is located approximately three miles from the Sacramento International Airport. While the UWSP area is not located with the Noise Impact Area of the airport given this distance, it is located within Referral Area 2 of the Airport Influence Area, and thus subject to noise from aircraft overflights which has the potential to be a nuisance and could generate objections by residents and other sensitive
receptors. However, with the placement of standard
conditions of approval on all proposed residential uses, such as a minimum noise insulation standard and a disclosure requirement, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
NOI-6: Increase in Traffic Noise at Proposed Sensitive
Receptors.

Future Exterior Traffic Noise Levels. Traffic generated by development allowed under the proposed UWMP could
expose new onsite sensitive receptors to substantial exterior interior noise levels, thus resulting in a significant impact.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI6a, which presents a menu of available measures to be PS NOI-6a: To satisfy the Sacramento County General Plan 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard at the outdoor activity areas of future residential uses proposed within the plan area, the following noise mitigation measures shall be
implemented either singularly or in combination during project design as part of subsequent application review, depending LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-101 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
implemented to address compliance with General Plan
Policy NO-1 which establishes interior and exterior noise standards and guidelines for locating new development, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

The proposed offsite improvements would occur within
existing ROWs (e.g., within existing roadway corridors, facility footprints, and/or underground) and would not generate new vehicle trips.
on the level of sound attenuation required for the proposed location of residential uses.
• Residential outdoor activity areas may be located beyond the 65 dBA DNL noise contour distances shown in Table
NOI-14. This includes individual backyards of singlefamily residences and common outdoor use areas of multi-family residences.

OR
• Residential outdoor activity areas proposed within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour distances shown in Table NOI-14
may be screened from view of the roadway by intervening structures or sound barriers. If sound barriers are
proposed, project- specific grading plans need to be
considered to determine the location and heights of barrier necessary to achieve compliance with the County’s noise standards. With the exception of residences proposed in proximity to I-80, noise barriers along other roadways
would not need to exceed 6 feet in height to provide the required traffic noise attenuation. For residential uses located within 500 feet of I-80, a potential barrier height would need to be determined based on a detailed site
plan.

If noise barriers are to be constructed within the plan area, the traffic noise barriers shall take the form of a masonry wall, earthen berm, or combination of the two,
or, if reviewed and approved by an acoustical consultant as providing comparable performance prior to
construction, other materials may be acceptable (i.e.,
wood or wood composite fence with overlapping slat
construction).

OR
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-102 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
• Single-family residences may be oriented such that the front of the residence faces the roadway segment where
levels exceeding 65 dBA DNL would occur, thereby using
the residence to shield the backyard from the roadway
and creating a larger setback between the roadway
centerline and backyard outdoor activity area.

Future Interior Traffic Noise Levels. Traffic generated by development allowed under the proposed UWMP could
expose new onsite sensitive receptors to substantial interior noise levels, thus resulting in a significant impact. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-6b, which requires that project plans be reviewed to ensure that
appropriate construction upgrades (typically higher-rated STC values for windows) are specified to ensure compliance with the County’s interior noise standard at locations where residential building facades are proposed in future noise environments exceeding 70 dBA DNL, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS NOI-6b: At locations where residential building facades are proposed in future noise environments exceeding 70 dBA
DNL, project plans shall reflect the recommendations of an acoustical analysis to be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure that appropriate construction upgrades (typically higher-rated Sound Transmission Class values for windows) are specified to ensure compliance with the
County’s interior noise standard. Project plans and the acoustical report shall be provided to the Planning
Department during subsequent application review.

LTS
NOI-7: Increase in Stationary Noise from Plan
Components at Proposed Sensitive Receptors
Commercial Mixed-Use Parking Noise. The impact of
commercial mixed-use parking noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as noise levels at these nearby receptors from this source may exceed Sacramento County General Plan
daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7a, which would require the project applicant to submit an acoustical study that evaluates the potential noise generated by commercial mixed-use component parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as PS NOI-7a: As part of the subsequent application review process and prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed commercial mixed use land uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by commercial mixed-use component parking
activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls, necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-103 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan
requirements, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

Plan requirements. Available methods of achieving this
performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 150 feet or more between parking areas and exterior
building locations, or erection of a sound wall along the parking area perimeter shielding the adjacent residential uses.

Commercial Mixed-Use Delivery Truck Noise. The impact
of commercial mixed-use delivery truck noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as noise levels at these nearby receptors from this source may exceed Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7b, which would require that truck delivery unloading areas within commercial components be located 150 feet from
proposed residential uses, or alternatively, that specific measures be designed to shield noise and/or that restrictions be placed on the hours for commercial deliveries, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS NOI-7b: Truck delivery unloading areas within commercial components shall be 150 feet from proposed residential
boundaries. The combined commercial delivery truck
activities would result in an exposure of 42 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 150 feet. This would ensure compliance with the County’s requirement of exterior
nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and would satisfy the County’s requirement of interior
(anytime) noise level standards of 35 dB L50 and 55 dB Lmax with standard residential building construction.

Alternatively, specific design measures could be implemented that may include but are not limited to shielding from features integrated into site design, and/or restrictions on hours for commercial deliveries within the Commercial Mixed-Use areas.

Such measures shall be determined by a site-specific noise impact study that addresses Commercial Mixed-Use truck
delivery activities to be completed by a qualified noise consultant once site- specific development plans are
completed but must be designed to sufficiently achieve the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level
standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax.

LTS
Commercial Mixed-Use HVAC Equipment Noise. The
impact of commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment noise at
the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as noise levels at these nearby receptors from this source may exceed Sacramento PS NOI-7c: As part of the subsequent application review process and prior to the issuance of any building permit for
commercial mixed use and employment/highway commercial
uses within 100 feet of noise-sensitive land uses, the project applicant shall ensure that all mechanical equipment is LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-104 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and
interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7c, which would require the project applicant to ensure that all mechanical equipment is selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses by meeting a project-specific exterior nighttime noise performance standard of 50 dB L50, and an interior (anytime) noise level standard of 35 dB L50, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding
uses by meeting a project-specific exterior nighttime noise performance standard of 50 dB L50, and an interior (anytime) noise level standard of 35 dB L50, consistent with the
County’s General Plan requirements. Methods of achieving these standards include using low-noise-emitting HVAC
equipment, locating HVAC and other mechanical equipment within a rooftop mechanical penthouse, and using shields and parapets to reduce noise levels to adjacent land uses.

An acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified
acoustical engineer during final building design and submitted to the County as part of the subsequent application review process to evaluate the potential noise generated by building mechanical equipment and to identify the necessary design measures to be incorporated to meet the County’s standards.

Employment/Highway Commercial Parking Noise. The
impact of employment/highway commercial parking noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the proximity of these receptors to employment/highway commercial components
are unknown, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and
interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7d, which would require the project applicant to submit an acoustical study that evaluates the potential noise generated by employment/highway commercial parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan
PS NOI-7d: To address the project’s impact with respect to employment/highway commercial use parking noise at
proposed sensitive uses, prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed Employment/Highway Commercial land
uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Building
Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by employment/Highway Commercial land uses at the nearest
existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls, necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax,
consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements.

Available methods of achieving this performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 150 feet or more between parking areas and exterior building locations, or erection of a sound wall between along the parking area perimeter shielding the nearest proposed residential uses.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-105 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
requirements, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

Employment/Highway Commercial Delivery Truck Noise.

The impact of employment/highway commercial delivery truck noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the proximity of these receptors to employment/highway commercial
components are unknown, and thus noise levels at these
receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime
exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7e, which would require that truck delivery unloading areas within employment/highway commercial components be
located 150 feet from proposed residential uses, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS NOI-7e: Truck delivery unloading areas within employment/ highway commercial components shall be 150 feet from
proposed residential boundaries. The combined commercial delivery truck activities would result in an exposure of 42 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 150 feet. This would ensure compliance with the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and would satisfy County’s requirement of interior (anytime) noise level standards of 35 dB L50 and 55 dB Lmax with standard residential building construction. Such
construction would result in a noise reduction of
approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open.

Alternatively, if delivery unloading areas of employment/ highway commercial components are proposed within 150
feet from residential boundaries within the plan area, a noise impact study that addresses parking activities shall be completed by a qualified noise consultant once site-specific development plans are completed. The noise impact study shall include an analysis of Employment/Highway
Commercial parking area noise exposure at the nearest
proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential). The analysis shall include associated mitigation measures (as appropriate) to reduce Employment/Highway Commercial parking noise
levels to ensure compliance with the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-106 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Employment/Highway Commercial HVAC Equipment
Noise. The impact of employment/highway commercial
HVAC noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the
proximity of these receptors to employment/highway
commercial components are unknown, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the
conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7c again, which would require the project applicant to ensure that all mechanical equipment is selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses by meeting a projectspecific exterior nighttime noise performance standard of 50 dB L50, and an interior (anytime) noise level standard of 35 dB L50, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure NOI-7c. LTS
Employment/Highway Commercial Drive-Through
Restaurant Noise. The impact of employment/highway
commercial drive-through restaurant noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the proximity of these receptors to employment/highway commercial components are unknown,
and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General
Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7f, which would require the project applicant to ensure that restaurant drive-through lanes be 85 feet from proposed residences, which would be sufficient distance to meet the County’s exterior nighttime noise level standards of 45 dB L50 PS NOI-7f: Restaurant drive-through lanes within employment/ highway commercial components shall be 85 feet from
proposed residential boundaries which would be sufficient distance to meet the County’s requirement of exterior
nighttime noise level standards of 45 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax.

If employment/highway commercial components are
proposed within 85 feet from residential boundaries an
acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by employment/highway commercial drive-through operations at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) and to provide an analysis to identify the necessary noise controls that are included in the design to meet the County’s
LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-107 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and 65 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax, and if restaurant drive-through lanes are less than 85 feet from proposed residences, that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by drive-through operations at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) and identify any necessary noise controls needed to meet County requirements, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
requirements. Available methods of achieving the
performance standard include site design so the menu board/ speaker post and ordering patron windows are located on the building side away from receptor locations such that the building acts as a sound barrier or provision of a sound wall between ordering areas and sensitive receptors.

Employment/Highway Commercial Car Wash Operations
Noise. The impact of employment/highway commercial car
wash operations noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the proximity of these receptors to employment/highway
commercial components are unknown, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the
conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7g, which would require that a site-specific acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by car wash drying assembly and vacuum equipment at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) and to provide an analysis to identify the necessary noise controls necessary to meet the County’s exterior nighttime noise level standards of 45 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax, this impact would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level.

PS NOI-7g: As part of the subsequent application review process and prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed car wash uses proposed within Employment/Highway
Commercial components, when specific development plans
are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by car wash activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls, necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. The noise
impact study shall include an analysis of Employment/
Highway Commercial car wash drying assembly and vacuum
equipment operations noise exposure at the nearest
proposed noise-sensitive uses. The analysis shall include associated mitigation measures necessary to reduce
Employment/Highway Commercial car wash and vacuum
system operations noise levels to a state of compliance with applicable Sacramento County General Plan exterior and
interior noise level limits at nearby proposed sensitive receptors.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-108 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
After construction but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a second acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that shall monitor operational noise levels of the car wash facility demonstrating the operational noise of equipment with recommended
design measures achieves the performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements.

School Parking Noise. The impact of school parking noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the distance of these receptors to school components are unknown, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7h, which would require that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school component parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls, necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

PS NOI-7h: Prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed school uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Building Department an acoustical study prepared by a
qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school component parking activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/ 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan
requirements. Available methods of achieving this
performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 50 feet or more between parking areas and exterior
building locations of proposed residential uses, or erection of a sound wall along the parking area perimeter shielding the proposed residential use.

LTS
School Playground Noise. The impact of school playground noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as the distance of these receptors to school components are unknown, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan
daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits.

PS NOI-7i: Development Plans for future school components under the Specific Plan shall maintain a minimum setback of 90 feet of play area centroids from proposed residential boundaries within the plan area. When projected to a
distance of 90 feet, playground activity noise levels are calculated to be 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, which would meet the General Plan’s downward-adjusted exterior daytime noise level standards. After consideration of the exterior-to-interior LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-109 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7i, which would require that future school components maintain a minimum setback of 90 feet of play area centroids from proposed residential boundaries within the UWSP area, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. noise reduction provided by standard residential construction (approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open), predicted playground activity noise levels at a distance of 90 feet would also satisfy the General Plan’s downward adjusted interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax.

School Sports Stadium Noise. The impact of school sports stadium noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area would be potentially significant as future locations and sizes of outdoor playing fields/sports stadiums, PA system configurations, and associated distances to these receptors are unknown, and thus noise levels at these
receptors from this source may exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime standards.

However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-7j, which would require that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school stadium and sports field activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as previous studies have indicated that while available noise control mitigation for noise from stadium events may reduce associated noise levels, given the overall size of crowds and the potential for nighttime evets, noise impacts cannot always be mitigated, depending on proximity of receptors.

PS NOI-7j: Prior to issuance of a building permit for proposed school uses, when specific development plans are
completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Building Department an acoustical study prepared by a
qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school stadium and sports field activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan
requirements. Available methods of achieving this
performance standard include locating sports fields as far from proposed noise sensitive receptors as possible, erecting intervening structures between sports fields and proposed noise sensitive receptors, and operational limits on amplified sound equipment.

SU
Park Activity Noise. The impact of park activity noise at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area
would be potentially significant as future locations of playing fields/playgrounds and associated distances to adjacent PS NOI-7k: Active uses within park components shall designed to be 150 feet from proposed residential boundaries. Park activity would result in an exposure of 50 dB L50 and 60 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 150 feet. This would satisfy LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-110 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
residential uses are currently not known at this time, and thus noise levels at these receptors from this source may exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime standards.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI7k, which would require that active park components be designed to be 150 feet from proposed residences, which would be sufficient distance to meet the County’s exterior daytime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. the County’s requirement of exterior daytime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and would satisfy the County’s requirement of interior (anytime) noise level
standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax with standard
residential building construction. Such construction would result in a noise reduction of approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows
open.

Alternatively, when site-specific development plans are completed, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a
qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by park activity at the nearest noise-sensitive uses (residential) and to provide an analysis to identify the necessary noise controls that are included in the design to meet the County’s requirements. Available methods of
achieving this performance standard include locating play areas as far from noise sensitive receptors as possible, erecting intervening structures between sports fields and proposed noise sensitive receptors, and operational limits on amplified sound equipment.

NOI-8: Increase in Stationary Noise from Existing
Commercial Operations at Proposed Sensitive Uses
(Non-CEQA Assessment). The impact of noise from
activities at the existing Travel Plaza on the east side of El Centro Road adjacent to the westbound I-80 off-ramp at the nearest proposed residential uses within the UWSP area
would be potentially significant as noise levels at these nearby sensitive receptors from this source could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime and nighttime standards.

However, with the implementation of Noise Control Measure NOI-8, which would require that a noise impact study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant once site-specific -- NOI-8: To satisfy the Sacramento County General Plan 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard at the outdoor activity areas of future residential uses proposed within the plan area, a noise impact study that addresses Travel Plaza noise generation shall be completed by a qualified noise consultant once site-specific development plans are completed for the residential components of the project located adjacent to either El Centro Road near the Travel Plaza or on properties immediately adjacent to the Travel Plaza. The noise impact study shall include an analysis of existing Travel Plaza noise exposure at the nearest proposed uses within the plan area.

The analysis shall include associated measures (as
appropriate) to reduce Travel Plaza noise levels to a state of --
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-111 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
development plans are completed that addresses the impact of noise generated by the Travel Plaza on residential
components proposed adjacent to either El Centro Road near the Travel Plaza or on properties immediately adjacent to the Travel Plaza, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. compliance with applicable Sacramento County General Plan exterior and interior noise level limits at nearby proposed uses. Specific measures could include but are not limited to the following:
• The construction of solid noise barriers that effectively attenuate Travel Plaza noise exposure to a state of
compliance with the applicable noise limits at existing sensitive receptors.
• A site design that integrates intervening shielding and setbacks.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
PH-1: Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth.

As a condition of approval of the USWP, the proposed UWSP and subsequent development would be consistent with
Sacramento County 2030 General Plan policies related to urban growth and expansion of the UPA. Consequently, the proposed UWSP would not induce substantial unplanned
population growth as identified in the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan. However, the UWSP area and the
proposed UWSP were not anticipated for development in
either the SACOG Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS. As a result, while the proposed project aligns with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint and the County’s smart growth policy LU-120, it is ultimately inconsistent with SACOG plans, and thus would be considered to directly
induce substantial unplanned population growth in the region.

Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

PS None available SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-112 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
PH-2: Displacement of Housing. Agricultural residential homes are located within the northeastern portion of the UWSP area near El Centro Road and within the southwestern portion of the plan area along Garden Highway. The
proposed UWSP does not propose changes to these
properties, nor would the proposed UWSP uses cause the
displacement of nearby housing. Consequently, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
PS-1: Increase in Demand for Police Protection Services within Sacramento County. The Sacramento County
Sheriff’s Office currently provides law enforcement services within the UWSP area and would continue to do so upon
implementation of the proposed UWSP. A new sheriff’s
substation would be constructed as part of Phase 3 of the development plan; the two existing stations that currently serve the UWSP area are adequate to serve the plan area in the interim.

As the new sheriff’s substation is proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, its impacts are included as part of the
analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible.

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed sheriff’s substation have been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-113 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
PS-2: Increase Demand for Fire Protection Services
within Sacramento County. The City of Sacramento Fire
Department (SFD) currently provides fire protection services within the UWSP area and would continue to do so upon
implementation of the proposed UWSP. Although the nearest fire station is located centrally to provide adequate response times to future UWSP area residents, a new fire station within the plan area is needed based on SFD’s standard of one
station for every 16,000 new residents.

As a new fire protection facility is proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, its impacts are included as part of the
analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible.

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed fire station have been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
PS-3: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts
Associated with the Provision of Schools. The Natomas
Unified School District (NUSD) is currently responsible for providing education services throughout the UWSP area and would continue to do so upon implementation of the proposed UWSP. While the NUSD has existing capacity for the
elementary and middle school students generated by the
proposed UWSP, it does not have existing capacity for the high school students generated by the proposed project.

The proposed UWSP includes sites for three K-8 Schools (K8), a High School (HS), and a Community College (CC) within the Development Area. As new school facilities are proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, their impacts are included as LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-114 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory
requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed school facilities have been accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, pursuant to SB 50, the project would be required to pay school impact fees, which is considered full mitigation for any impacts to school services that would result from the proposed project. This impact would be less than significant.

PS-4: Cause Existing Parks to Physically Deteriorate,
Requiring Additional Parks to be Constructed. The
increase in resident population as well as employees
associated with the proposed UWSP would create an
additional demand for parks and recreation facilities within and outside of the UWSP area. As there are no parks
currently located directly within the UWSP area, nearby parks could be adversely affected by this increase in residents and employees.

A total of 170 acres of parks and amenities would be provided in the UWSP area, which exceeds the County’s standard of

5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As new park
facilities are proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, their impacts are included as part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other
construction-related regulatory requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed parks facilities have LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-115 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

PS-5: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts
Associated with the Provision of Parks and Recreation
Services. A total of 170 acres of parks and amenities would be constructed as part of the proposed UWSP parks
program. The physical impacts of the construction and
operation of these proposed parks are analyzed in the
appropriate technical sections of this EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
PS-6: Result in Substantial Adverse Physical Impacts
Associated with the Provision of Libraries. The
Sacramento Public Library System currently provides library services within the UWSP area and would continue to do so upon implementation of the proposed UWSP. Nearby library branches are not currently meeting the library system’s minimum standard for per capita library space, and the
addition of new residents by the proposed UWSP would
further exacerbate this deficiency.

A new library to be shared with the Los Rios Community
College District or NUSD is proposed within the Development Area to meet future demand. As this facility is proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, its impacts are included as part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment
resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant sections of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory
requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed library facility have been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-116 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation

TRANSPORTATION
TR-1: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance or Policy Addressing the Circulation System.

General Plan Consistency. The proposed UWSP is
consistent with several relevant General Plan circulation policies (e.g., Policies CI-9, CI-10, CI-13, and CI-32). This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Consistency with Other Plans and Policies
Caltrans Four Pillars of Traffic Safety
The proposed UWSP is consistent with the Four Pillars of Traffic Safety, which are included in Caltrans’ 2020-2024 Strategic Plan (i.e., Double Down on What Works, Accelerate Advanced Technology, Lead Safety Culture Change,
Integrate Equity). This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The impact with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be potentially significant as the proposed UWSP would not provide access for bicyclists/pedestrians along West El Camino Avenue and El Centro Road and along West El
Camino Avenue easterly to the I-80 interchange.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR1a, which would require the project applicant to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the El Centro Road/ West El Camino Avenue intersection and I-80/West El
Camino Avenue interchange, the carrying out of these
improvements would require approvals from Caltrans and the City of Sacramento as these facilities are under their control, PS TR-1a: The on-site bicycle improvements listed below are to be constructed as the adjacent roadway is built or
reconstructed (if already existing).

The project applicant shall implement the following bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the El Centro Road/West El Camino Avenue intersection and I-80/West El Camino
Avenue interchange. Bicycle improvements shall include:
• Class I multi-use path allowing two-way bicycle travel on the north side of West El Camino Avenue that would
extend from El Centro Road to the signalized Orchard
Lane intersection (within the City of Sacramento) east of I-80. Additional studies during the interchange design
SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-117 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and thus Sacramento County cannot compel those agencies to approve and allow construction of the specified
improvements. As a result, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
phase will be necessary to determine its exact alignment and how/whether it intersects the three on/off ramps atgrade or not. • Class I multi-use path on the west side of El Centro Road both north and south of West El Camino Avenue.
• Class II bike lanes in both directions of El Centro Road both north and south of West El Camino Avenue.
• Class II bike lanes in both directions of West El Camino Avenue west of El Centro Road (including an eastbound
bike lane that would be located between the left and
through lanes at the signal). This bike lane would operate with the eastbound left-turn phase, providing bicyclists with the ability to reach the triangular island to access the Class I multi-use path on the north side of West El
Camino Avenue.
• A Class II bike lane is currently shown in the eastbound direction of West El Camino Avenue from El Centro Road
extending across the interchange. Bicyclists in this lane need to navigate the merging area with vehicles desiring to travel onto the westbound I-80 diagonal on-ramp.

Additional discussion with Caltrans will be necessary
during the design phase of the interchange to determine whether this bike lane is desirable or not.

Transit Service and Facilities
The impact with respect to transit service and facilities would be potentially significant as the proposed UWSP would
substantially increase transit ridership demand that may not be fully accommodated by the proposed transit service as described in the transit plan that has been prepared for the Specific Plan. Additionally, the lack of planned fixed-route bus service may lead to an unmet demand for transit service.

PS TR-1b: The project applicant shall coordinate with the County and SacRT (or other transit operators) to provide the
additional transit facilities and services assumed in the transportation analysis, or a cost-effective equivalent level of transit facilities and services. Equivalent transit services may include, but are not limited to buses, vanpools, shuttles, or dial-a-ride service. Ultimately, transit service shall include 15- minute headways or equivalent during peak hours (Monday through Friday from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) and 30-minute headways during non-peak hours (Monday through Friday).

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-118 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures TR1b and TR-3a, which would require the project applicant to coordinate with the County and SacRT (or other transit
operators) to provide the additional transit facilities and services assumed in the transportation analysis, or a costeffective equivalent level of transit facilities and services, and require the project applicant to construct geometric and associated signal timing/phasing improvements (or an
equivalent or more effective set of alternate improvements subject to the determination of the environmental coordinator) at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange and at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection,
respectively, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

The implementation of the transit routes and service
frequency must be phased with development buildout of the proposed UWSP. This shall be accomplished through the
annexation to County Service Area 10, formation of a
transportation services district, or other secured funding mechanism. Such annexation or formation shall occur prior to recordation of any final small lot subdivision map for the proposed UWSP.

TR-2: Vehicle Miles Traveled. The proposed UWSP would
generate VMT per capita and per employee that are below the County’s applicable thresholds, and the net change in VMT due to regional retail and roadway widening
components would be negative (i.e., the increase in VMT resulting from roadway widenings would be offset by the reduction in VMT resulting from regional retail). This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
TR-3: Hazards Due to Design or Incompatible Uses
Roadway Safety/Design Standards. The proposed UWSP
would not cause a substandard rural roadway to exceed an ADT of 6,000 vehicles and would not add 600 or more vehicle trips to a substandard rural roadway that already carries 6,000 or more daily vehicles. This impact would less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-119 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Freeway Off-Ramp Queues Exceed Available Storage.

The impact with respect to freeway off-ramp queues would be potentially significant as the I-80 eastbound and westbound off-ramps at West El Camino Avenue (during one or both
peak hours) would not have sufficient storage to
accommodate the maximum queue lengths with the proposed UWSP despite the interchange’s assumed expansion with the proposed UWSP, and I-5 southbound off-ramp at J Street
(during the AM peak hour)
However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3a, which would require the project applicant to construct geometric and associated signal timing/phasing improvements (or an equivalent or more effective set of alternate
improvements subject to the determination of the
environmental coordinator) at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange and at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro
Road intersection, implementation of these improvements would require the cooperation Caltrans and the City of
Sacramento, which has jurisdiction over these facilities, and thus Sacramento County does not have the authority to
compel these jurisdictions to construct the needed
improvements. Therefore, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.

PS TR-3a: The project applicant shall construct the following geometric and associated signal timing/phasing
improvements (or an equivalent or more effective set of alternate improvements subject to the determination of the environmental coordinator) at the I-80/West El Camino
Avenue interchange and at the West El Camino Avenue/
El Centro Road intersection.

West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road Intersection
• Construct two channelized westbound" right-turn lanes (i.e., two approach lanes, triangular corner raised median, and two receiving lanes).
• Construct at-grade crosswalks on the north, south, and west legs (including a signalized crosswalk in the
westbound right-turn lanes). Prohibit pedestrian travel on the east leg.
• Modify the eastbound approach to consist of a single leftturn lane and the northbound approach to consist of a single through lane.
• Construct a third westbound left-turn lane.
• Modify the eastbound right-turn lane to become a shared through/right lane.

I-80 Westbound Ramps/West El Camino Avenue Intersection • Construct a third westbound right-turn lane on the offramp.

West El Camino Avenue between I-80 Westbound Ramps
and El Centro Road
• In the westbound direction, construct four travel lanes departing the westbound ramps intersection.
• In the eastbound direction, construct three receiving lanes departing El Centro Road that laterally transition SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-120 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
and then widen to four lanes approaching the westbound
ramps intersection.

Freeway On-Ramp Ramp Meter Queues Exceed Available
Storage. The impact with respect to freeway on-ramp meter queues would be potentially significant as the I-5 southbound diagonal on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue and I-5
southbound loop on-ramp and I-5 northbound diagonal onramp at Garden Highway would not have sufficient storage for queues.

Mitigation Measure TR-3b would require the project applicant to pay its proportionate fair share percentage toward
improvements at the I-5 southbound on-ramp at West El
Camino Avenue and I-5 southbound and northbound onramps at Garden Highway, which would be held in a custodial account by the County. At such a time that a lead agency (either City of Sacramento or Caltrans) indicates an intent to construct the specified (or other equally effective)
improvements, the County would transfer the fair share
payment to that appropriate agency. However, while this payment would represent the project’s fair share contribution toward the improvement, it would not assure that the
improvement would be constructed as the County does not have the authority to compel City of Sacramento or Caltrans to construct the needed improvements. As a result, the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

PS TR-3b: The project applicant shall pay its proportionate fair share percentage toward improvements at the I-5 southbound on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue and I-5 southbound and northbound on-ramps at Garden Highway.

SU
Increased Hazards at Project Access Intersections on
Garden Highway. The impact with respect to increased
hazards on project access intersections on Garden Highway would be potentially significant as the addition of project trips to these new/improved intersections could increase design hazards due to their geometric features. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3c, which would PS TR-3c: The project applicant shall construct the following improvements at project access intersections along Garden Highway:
• Garden Highway/San Juan Road – Construct exclusive
southbound left-turn lane.

LTS
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-121 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
require the project applicant to construct improvements at project access intersections along Garden Highway, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. • Garden Highway/Bryte Bend Road – Construct exclusive
northbound right-turn lane.
• Garden Highway/Radio Road – Construct exclusive
southbound left-turn lane.

Potential Safety Issues at I-80/West El Camino Avenue
Interchange Associated with Sacramento 49er Travel
Plaza Truck Stop. The impact with respect to potential safety issues at I-80/West El Camino Avenue Interchange
associated with Sacramento 49er Travel Plaza Truck Stop would be potentially significant due to the potential for vehicle collisions.

Mitigation Measures TR-3d and TR-3e would require the
project applicant to eliminate the 49er Travel Plaza driveway on West El Camino Avenue and replace the free-flowing
right-turn off-ramp movement with a signal-controlled
movement, respectively. However, while mitigation to
eliminate the 49er Travel Plaza driveway on West El Camino Avenue is feasible as it would occur completely within
Sacramento County roadways under County control,
mitigation to replace the free-flowing right-turn off-ramp movement with a signal-controlled movement is not as it would require approvals from Caltrans, which cannot be
assured by the County. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

PS TR-3d: The project applicant shall eliminate the 49er Travel Plaza driveway on West El Camino Avenue. Removal of this driveway would reduce the number of conflict points involving passenger vehicles, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

TR-3e: The project applicant shall replace the free-flowing right-turn off-ramp movement with a signal-controlled
movement. This would eliminate the weaving movement and also slow travel speeds on westbound West El Camino
Avenue approaching El Centro Road.

SU
Analysis of Current Collision Patterns on Adjacent
Segments of I-80 and I-5. While the proposed UWSP would add the most trips to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue
interchange on-ramps, it would also reconstruct the
interchange to include ramp metering. With ramp metering in place, more orderly traffic flow from these on-ramps onto I-80 LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-122 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
would be achieved, which may reduce collision rates. This impact would be less than significant.

TR-4: Emergency Access. The proposed UWSP includes a
fully developed roadway system. Future driveway and
building configurations would comply with applicable fire code requirements for emergency evacuation, including proper emergency exits for visitors and employees. Individual
buildings proposed within the UWSP area would be subject to the review and approval of access and circulation plans by the City of Sacramento Fire Department. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TCR-1: Tribal Cultural Resources. Construction of
development or infrastructure associated with the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements could result in a significant impact on tribal cultural resources by introducing new visual elements to landscapes associated with or comprising tribal cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities could also result in a significant impact on archaeological resources that are also considered tribal cultural resources through their partial or complete destruction. Finally, construction activities could alter the makeup of biological communities (e.g., fish, riparian vegetation) that comprise tribal cultural resources (e.g., traditional hunting/fishing/gathering areas).

However, even with the implementation of Mitigation
Measures CUL-2a, through CUL-3, discussed above, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1a, which would require the inventory and evaluation of tribal cultural resources for each subsequent development project, and the implementation of TRC-1b, which would require the
repatriation of human remains in the event that remain-inPS Implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2a, CUL-2b, and CUL-3.

TCR-1a: Conduct Inventory and Significance Evaluation
of Tribal Cultural Resources.

Upon submittal of subsequent development applications, the project proponent shall coordinate with the County and
consulting Native American tribes (United Auburn Indian Community, Wilton Rancheria, and Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians – collectively referred to as tribes) for each project-specific area. The tribes shall be offered the
opportunity to identify portions of the project site that could be sensitive or potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources.

The tribes may work in coordination with the tasks outlined in CUL-1.

Tribes may request additional testing and boundary
delineation prior to the disturbance of any potential tribal cultural resource. The treatment plan may include
identification methods including, but not limited to, canine SU
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-123 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
place measures are infeasible, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid a tribal cultural resource, and the resource may need to be altered or destroyed.

Also, because the extent and location of actions under the proposed UWSP are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measures, or equally effective mitigation measures, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases.
forensic surveys, ground penetrating radar, vegetation
clearing for surface visibility, and/or subsurface testing.

When subsequent development applications are deemed
complete, the tribes shall be provided the following
information for each subsequent notification to assist in their determination of the potential to impact tribal cultural resources.
• Map(s) and verbal description of the project-specific area that delineates both the horizontal and vertical extents of where a project could result in impacts, including both direct and indirect, on tribal cultural resources.
• Descriptions of proposed ground disturbances and
construction activities.
• The results of an updated records search of the projectspecific area from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. • The results of an archaeological sensitivity analysis to assess the potential for buried archaeological resources using geologic and historic maps, soils data, and other sources.
• The results of an archaeological field survey. Tribes should be notified prior to conducting archaeological
survey and afforded an opportunity to be present. Tribes may also request separate tribal cultural surveys.

If the consulting Native American tribes determine that a tribal cultural monitor is warranted for a project, the tribes shall be offered the opportunity to engage in compensated
construction monitoring. Tribes must be contacted for the opportunity to monitor each separate development stage. For monitoring, the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2a will Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-124 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
be followed, which includes the development of a monitoring plan.

If potentially significant impacts on tribal cultural resources that qualify as historical resources (per State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5) are identified, a treatment plan for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be developed, in coordination with the tribes. Measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
• Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open
space, to incorporate the resources with culturally
appropriate protection and management criteria.
• Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
­ Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.
­ Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
­ Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
• Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management
criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
• Protecting the resource.

The consultation shall be considered concluded when (1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource or (2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-125 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
TCR-2b: Tribal Repatriations.

In the event that remain-in-place measures are infeasible for disturbed human remains, the project proponent, in
consultation with tribes and County representatives, shall identify an on-site repatriation location within a conservation easement. This shall include an agreement to maintain
resource location confidentiality.

In addition to the mitigation requirements discussed in Impact CUL-3, tribes may request additional materials and
monitoring in the event of human remains discovery. This may include, but is not limited to, on-site storage of remains in a locked, air-conditioned facility with access controlled by tribal monitors, materials required for appropriate recovery and reinternment, and physical control mechanisms such as subsurface coverings and above-ground deterrents such as site fencing.

UTILITIES
UT-1: Construction of Infrastructure could result in
Adverse Physical Effects.

Water Treatment. The City of Sacramento would provide
water to development allowed under the proposed UWSP.

The City owns and operates two water diversion and
treatment facilities: the Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant on the Sacramento River and the Fairbairn Water
Treatment Plant on the American River. Enough excess
treatment capacity exists at these two facilities to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP, and thus
no additional water treatment capacity would need to be constructed to accommodate the increase in water demand LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-126 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
anticipated under the proposed UWSP. This impact would be less than significant.

Water Distribution. A new water tank and water
transmission lines would be required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP; improvements to the offsite water transmission system are not required. As the water distribution system would be constructed within and
immediately surrounding the UWSP area, the potential
impacts associated with the construction and installation of these improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of water distribution facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed water distribution system have been
accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Wastewater Treatment. Wastewater generated by
development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be
treated at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWWTP) in Elk Grove, which is owned and operated by Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San). The SRWWTP has sufficient average dry-weather flow treatment capacity to serve existing and future land uses for at least 40 more years. Thus, no additional wastewater
treatment capacity would need to be constructed to
accommodate the increase in wastewater generation
anticipated under the proposed UWSP. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-127 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Wastewater Conveyance. A new sewer pump station and
sewer trunk lines would be required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP; improvements to the offsite transmission system are not required. As the wastewater conveyance system would be constructed within and
immediately surrounding the UWSP area, the potential
impacts associated with the construction and installation of these improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of wastewater conveyance
facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed wastewater conveyance
system have been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Stormwater/Drainage. A new on-site storm drain system
including collection, detention basins, conveyance pipelines and proposed pump stations would need to be constructed and installed to serve development allowed under the
proposed UWSP; improvements to the off-site stormwater/ drainage system are not required. As the stormwater/
drainage system would be constructed within and
immediately surrounding the UWSP area, the potential
impacts associated with the construction and installation of these improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of stormwater/drainage facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed stormwater/drainage system have LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-128 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

Electricity. Two new electric substations and a backbone electrical system would be required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP; improvements to the offsite electrical distribution system are not required. As the electric substations and backbone electrical system would be constructed within and immediately surrounding the UWSP area, the potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these improvements are considered
throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR. Projectspecific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of electrical facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed electric substations and backbone electrical system have been accounted for in the analysis. In addition, a new off-site electrical transmission line would be required to serve the proposed UWSP. This
improvement would likely take place within a previously disturbed right-of-way. Because this improvement would be in already disturbed environments, the construction of the transmission line would not result in significant environmental impacts. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Natural Gas. New natural gas infrastructure would be
extended to commercial uses within the UWSP area; natural gas would not be extended to residential uses. Improvements to the off-site natural gas infrastructure are not required. As natural gas infrastructure would be constructed within and immediately surrounding the UWSP area, the potential
impacts associated with the construction and installation of these improvements are considered throughout the technical LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-129 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
chapters of this Draft EIR. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of natural gas facilities to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed natural gas infrastructure have been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

Telecommunication. New telecommunications infrastructure would be necessary to serve the technological needs of
proposed development in the UWSP area; improvements to
the off-site telecommunications system are not required. As telecommunications infrastructure would be constructed
within and immediately surrounding the UWSP area, the
potential impacts associated with the construction and
installation of these improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of
telecommunications facilities to the maximum extent feasible.

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed
telecommunications infrastructure have been accounted for in the analysis, and this impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
UT-2: Result in a Project Water Demand That Cannot Be
Met by Supply. The City of Sacramento would provide water to development allowed under the proposed UWSP. The City of Sacramento would have adequate planned water supply to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP
during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-130 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
UT-3: Result in a Project Sewer Disposal Demand That
Cannot Be Met by Disposal or Conveyance Capacity.

Wastewater generated by development allowed under the
proposed UWSP would be treated at the SRWWTP in Elk
Grove, which is owned and operated by Regional San. The SRWWTP has sufficient average dry-weather flow treatment capacity to serve existing and future land uses for at least 40 more years. Thus, no additional wastewater treatment
capacity would need to be constructed to accommodate the increase in wastewater generation anticipated under the proposed UWSP. This impact would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
UT-4: Result in a Project Solid Waste Disposal Demand
That Cannot Be Met by Landfill Capacity. Solid waste
generated by the construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be processed at several facilities.

The use of these facilities would be short-term, and the volume of material would represent a relatively minor
component of daily input to these facilities. The impact to these facilities would be less than significant.

Solid waste generated by the operation of development
allowed under the proposed UWSP would be collected and
transported to North Area Recovery Station (NARS) in North Highlands for processing and then on to Kiefer Landfill for disposal. Both the NARS and Kiefer Landfill have sufficient solid waste processing capacity and sufficient landfill disposal capacity, respectively, to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP. The impact to these facilities would be less than significant.

LTS None required NA
UT-5: Conflict with Solid Waste Regulations. The
Sacramento County Department of Waste Management and
Recycling (DWMR) oversees solid waste, recycling, and
disposal needs in the greater Sacramento area. The DWMR LTS None required NA
Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-131 PLNP2018-00284
Impacts
Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation1 Mitigation Measure
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
ensures that local haulers comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Because the haulers serving the UWSP area would be regulated by DWMR, they would comply with these statutes and
regulations, and thus this impact would be less than
significant.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-132 PLNP2018-00284

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
It shall be the responsibility of the future project applicants/property owners to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for this project and to reimburse the County for all expenses incurred in the implementation of the MMRP, including any necessary enforcement actions. The future project applicants/property owners shall pay an initial deposit to be determined upon subsequent application review, including administrative costs, which must be paid to the Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division prior to recordation of the MMRP and prior to recordation of any final parcel or subdivision map.

The remaining balance will be due prior to review of any plans by the Environmental Coordinator or issuance of any building, grading, work authorization, occupancy or other project-related permits. Over the course of the project, the Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division will regularly conduct cost accountings and submit invoices to the future project applicants/property owners when the County monitoring costs exceed the initial deposit.

TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS EIR
This Draft EIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental effects of the project.

Significance Criteria. A set of criteria used by the lead agency to determine at what level, or “threshold,” an impact would be considered significant. Significance criteria used in this EIR include those that are set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, or can be discerned from the CEQA Guidelines; criteria based on factual or scientific information; criteria based on regulatory standards of local, state, and federal agencies; and criteria based on goals and policies identified in the Sacramento County General Plan.

Less-than-Significant Impact. A project impact is considered less than significant when it does not reach the standard of significance and would therefore cause no substantial change in the environment. No mitigation is required for less-than-significant impacts.

Potentially Significant Impact. A potentially significant impact is a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Physical conditions that exist within the area would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project.

Impacts may also be short-term or long-term. A project impact is considered significant if it reaches the threshold of significance identified in the EIR. Mitigation measures may reduce a potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level.

Significant Unavoidable Impact. A project impact is considered significant and unavoidable if it is significant and cannot be avoided or mitigated to a less-thansignificant level once the project is implemented.

Executive Summary
Upper Westside Specific Plan ES-133 PLNP2018-00284
Cumulative Significant Impact. A cumulative impact can result when a change in the environment results from the incremental impact of a project when added to other related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Significant cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects.

Mitigation. Mitigation measures are revisions to the project that would minimize, avoid, or reduce a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15370 identifies five types of mitigation:
a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.
c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment.
d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action.
e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 1-1 PLNP2018-00284
1 INTRODUCTION
This draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended) by the County of Sacramento (County) to disclose the potential environmental consequences of implementing the proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP, or proposed plan).

This Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse #2020100069) has been prepared in conformance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] section 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Chapter 3, section 15000, et seq.) to disclose the environmental impacts associated with the proposed plan.

The County of Sacramento as lead agency responsible for administering the environmental review for the project has determined that under CEQA, an environmental impact report (EIR) is required for the proposed UWSP.

PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS EIR
CEQA requires that, before a decision can be made to approve a plan that would pose potential adverse physical effects, an EIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the plan. The EIR is a public information document that identifies and evaluates potential environmental impacts of a proposed plan, recommends mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate significant adverse impacts, and examines feasible alternatives to the plan. The information contained in the EIR must be reviewed and considered by the County and by any responsible agencies (as defined in CEQA) prior to a decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed plan.

CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The CEQA Guidelines define the role and standards of adequacy of an EIR as follows:
 Informational Document. An EIR is an informational document that will inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effect(s) of a proposed project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The public agency shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information that may be presented to the agency (CEQA Guidelines section 15121[a]).  Standards for Adequacy of an EIR. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information that enables them to make an informed decision that takes account of environmental consequences.

An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement 1 - Introduction
Upper Westside Specific Plan 1-2 PLNP2018-00284
among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure (CEQA Guidelines section 15151).

CEQA Guidelines section 15382 defines a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project…” Therefore, in identifying the significant impacts of the proposed plan, this EIR describes the potential for the plan to result in substantial physical effects within the area affected by the plan (UWSP area or plan area) and identifies mitigation measures that would avoid, reduce, or otherwise alleviate those effects, if necessary.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

PRELIMINARY PROJECT EVALUATION
Having determined an EIR would be required to evaluate changes in the environment that would result from buildout of the proposed UWSP, the County elected not to prepare an Initial Study Checklist, as permitted by section 15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR will cover all technical issue areas identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.

EIR SCOPING
In October 2020, the County issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR (see Appendix INT-1) to governmental agencies and organizations and persons interested in the proposed plan. The NOP public review and comment period lasted from October 5, 2020 through November 6, 2020. The County sent the NOP to agencies with statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed plan with the request for those agencies’ input on the scope and content of the environmental information that should be addressed in the EIR. A scoping meeting for service providers and other public agencies as well as a scoping meeting for the public were held on October 13, 2020 to solicit comments and suggestions concerning the analysis in the EIR.

The scope of this EIR includes environmental issues that have the potential to result in significant impacts, as determined through preparation of the NOP, responses to the NOP, scoping meeting feedback, and discussions among the public, consulting staff, other agencies, and the County of Sacramento. This process identified potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the UWSP in the following technical areas:
 Aesthetics;
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources;
 Air Quality;
 Biological Resources;
1 - Introduction
Upper Westside Specific Plan 1-3 PLNP2018-00284
 Cultural Resources;
 Climate Change;
 Energy;
 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology;
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
 Hydrology and Water Quality;
 Land Use;
 Noise and Vibration;
 Population and Housing;
 Public Services and Recreation;
 Transportation;
 Tribal Cultural Resources;
 Utilities and Service Systems; and
 Wildfire.

This EIR evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that could result from build-out of the proposed plan in these issue areas in accordance with CEQA.

PUBLIC REVIEW
The Draft EIR is available for public review and comment as set forth in the Notice of Availability circulated by the County. During the review and comment period written comments (including email) regarding the Draft EIR may be submitted to the County at the address below.

Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
Department of Community Development
Division of Planning and Environmental Review
827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: [email protected]
The Draft EIR, Notice of Availability and other supporting documents, such as technical reports prepared by the County as part of the EIR process, are available for public review at the Division of Planning and Environmental Review at the address listed above and at the following Sacramento County Public Library locations:

Central Library
828 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
South Natomas Branch
2901 Truxel Road
Sacramento, 95833
North Natomas Branch
4660 Via Ingoglia
Sacramento, 95835
1 - Introduction
Upper Westside Specific Plan 1-4 PLNP2018-00284
In addition, electronic versions of these documents are available on the County’s website at:
https://planning.saccounty.gov/PlansandProjectsIn-Progress/Pages/ UpperWestsideSpecificPlan.aspx

FINAL EIR AND EIR CERTIFICATION
Following the public review and comment period for this Draft EIR, the County will prepare responses that address all substantive written and oral comments on the Draft EIR’s environmental analyses received within the specified review period. The responses and any other revisions to the Draft EIR initiated by County staff will be prepared as a final environmental impact report (Final EIR). The Draft EIR and its Appendices, together with the Final EIR will constitute the EIR for the proposed plan.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Throughout this EIR, mitigation measures are clearly identified, where applicable, and presented in language that will facilitate establishment of a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP). As required under CEQA, a MMRP will be prepared and presented to the County Board of Supervisors at the time of certification of the Final EIR for the proposed plan and will identify the specific timing and roles and responsibilities for implementation of adopted mitigation measures.

SUBSEQUENT PROJECT APPROVALS
This EIR discloses the environmental effects of implementation of the proposed plan pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed plan includes several approval actions that must be taken by the County and other responsible agencies, as necessary. Subsequent development activities within the UWSP area must be consistent with the requirements of these approvals, as well as the adopted MMRP, as applicable. Subsequent actions related to the proposed UWSP will include Site Plan and Design Review for specific development and infrastructure projects consistent with the UWSP, and other applicable regulations and requirements.

Use of this EIR to cover later project activities is addressed in PRC section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a). Under those sections, if the proposed future activities are consistent with the proposed plan as analyzed in this EIR, and would not create new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts that were not examined in this EIR, the later activities are considered to be within the scope of the EIR and no further review under CEQA is required. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines section 15162(a) states:

When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency 1 - Introduction
Upper Westside Specific Plan 1-5 PLNP2018-00284
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Thus, to the extent appropriate and consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the County would rely on this EIR in conjunction with its consideration of subsequent projects undertaken pursuant to the UWSP.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-1 PLNP2018-00284
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INTRODUCTION
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a complete project description must contain (a) the precise location and boundaries of the project area, shown on a detailed map, along with a regional map of the project's location; (b) a statement of the objectives sought by the proposed project, which should include the underlying purpose of the project; (c) a general description of the project’s technical, economic, and environmental characteristics; and (d) a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the environmental impact report (EIR) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15124). A project description need not be exhaustive but should supply the information necessary for the evaluation and review of the project's significant effects on the environment. This project description for the proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP) provides an overview of the existing environmental setting, the objectives of the proposed UWSP, required entitlements, and detailed information describing the characteristics of the proposed plan.

The UWSP would guide development on 2,066 acres of unincorporated land in northwestern Sacramento County. The UWSP would provide a mix of residential and non-residential land uses to accommodate 9,356 housing units with a mixture of densities that supports all population segments, and over 3 million square feet of commercial, retail, and office uses that serve the community’s needs. Key features of the UWSP would include a mixed-use Town Center, 10 active parks, and an extensive system of greenbelts and multi-use trails with linkages to downtown Sacramento.

Development would be limited to a 1,532-acre Development Area while the remaining 534 acres would serve as an agricultural buffer (Ag Buffer) along the western edge of the UWSP area.

The project applicant is Upper Westside LLC. The County of Sacramento (County) is the lead agency for the purpose of this EIR.

PROJECT SETTING

LOCATION
The Sacramento region is located approximately 80 miles east of San Francisco and 85 miles west of Lake Tahoe. The region is a major transportation hub, the point of intersection of transportation routes that connect Sacramento to the San Francisco Bay Area to the west, the Sierra Nevada to the east, Los Angeles to the south, and Oregon and the Pacific Northwest to the north.

The Sacramento region is bisected by major freeways: Interstate 5 (I-5), which traverses the state from north to south; Interstate 80 (I-80), which provides an east-west connection 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-2 PLNP2018-00284
between San Francisco and Reno; and U.S. Highway 50, which provides an east-west connection between Sacramento and South Lake Tahoe. Two railroads, the Union Pacific Railroad and the BNSF Railway, also transect the region. Daily Amtrak service is provided from the Sacramento Valley Station at 4th and I Streets in the city of Sacramento (on the Union Pacific Railroad line), linking the Sacramento region to the Bay Area; the Central Valley, south to Bakersfield, and beyond to Southern California; Roseville, Auburn, and points east to the Sierra Nevada; Redding and points north to Seattle, Washington; Amtrak regional bus connections throughout Northern California; and points east to Chicago, Illinois.

The location of the UWSP area in the context of the Sacramento region is shown in Plate PD-1. Specifically, the plan area is in unincorporated Sacramento County adjacent to the existing city of Sacramento communities of North and South Natomas (see Plate PD-2). The UWSP area is bounded by Fisherman’s Lake Slough to the north, the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) to the east, I-80 to the south, and Garden Highway to the west (see Plate PD-3).

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PARCELS IN THE UWSP AREA
The UWSP area consists of 144 parcels (see Plate PD-4). Of these, the project applicant owns and/or controls 10 parcels totaling approximately 292 acres, or 14 percent of the plan area. Properties not owned by the project applicant are included in the UWSP per requirements of the Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030 (General Plan or 2030 General Plan) (County of Sacramento 2011) and would be the subject of future entitlement applications for rezoning consistent with the County’s adopted Land Use Plan.

EXISTING AND ADJACENT LAND USES
Agriculture is the predominant land use within the UWSP area with large parcels devoted to growing crops (see Plate PD-5). There are a total of five farms within the plan area covering approximately 1,200 acres, three of which farm most of the land (about 1,170 acres). Major crops grown on these farms include wheat, safflower, corn, and tomatoes. Other crops grown to a much lesser extent include strawberries, bell peppers, cabbage, melons, and blueberries. The value of the four major crops discussed above is approximately $800 full gross receipt per acre.

Other existing land uses within the UWSP area include agricultural residential, commercial, and recreation. Agricultural residential homes are located within the northeastern portion of the plan area near El Centro Road and within the southwestern portion of the UWSP area along Garden Highway. Commercial land uses are located adjacent to the West El Camino Avenue/I-80 interchange and include a truck stop, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, self-storage, construction equipment sales, and offices.

Finally, radio broadcast towers (KYMX-FM) are located in the northern part of the plan area and a television broadcast tower (KVIE) is located within the agricultural residential area along the southwestern boundary.

ÄÅ99
¨¦§80
¨¦§80
ÄÅ16
ÄÅ31
ÄÅ160
ÄÅ84
ÄÅ104
¨¦§505
ÄÅ113
ÄÅ65
ÄÅ16
£¤50
¨¦§5
¨¦§5
ÄÅ99
ÄÅ45
ÄÅ49
ÄÅ20
ÄÅ70
ÄÅ99
Plan Area
Sacramento Sacramento
Wh Wheaeatland tland
Y o l o Y o l o
CC ou ou n t y n t y
S a c r a m e n t o S a c r a m e n t o
CC ou ou n t y n t y
S o l a n o S o l a n o
CC ou ou n t y n t y
P l a c e r P l a c e r
CC ou ou n t y n t y
S u S u tttt e r e r
CC ou ou n t y n t y
YYub ub aa
Coun Coun t yt y
l u s a
o l u s a
u ou n t y n t y
N e v a d a N e v a d a
Coun Coun t yt y
S a n J o a q u i n S a n J o a q u i n
El Dora El Doradodo H Hill illss
Fol Folsom som
AAubu uburnrn
d
d
VaVacav cavill illee
DDavavisis
Dixon Dixon Elk Grove Elk Grove
Galt Galt
Mar Marysysvvill illee
WWoodl oodland and
WWesest St Sacacramento ramento
Lincoln Lincoln
RoRockcklilinn
RoRosev sevill illee
Ranc Ranchoho Cor Cordodovava
Citrus He Citrus Heigh ightsts
Sacramento
County
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate PD-1
Regional Location
SOURCE: Esri, 2022; USDA, 2022; ESA, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 0 10
Miles N
Notice of Preparation NOP-13 PLNP2018-00284
Plate NOP-1: Vicinity Map
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate PD-2
Vicinity Map
SOURCE: Upper Westside LLC, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 5 80
Garden Highway
Arena Boulevard
W. El Camino Avenue
San Juan Road
El Centro Road
Fisherman’s
Lake Slough
Interstate
Interstate
West
Drainage
Canal
Farm Road
Radio Road Bryte Bend Road
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate PD-3
UWSP Area
SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, basemap, 2021; ESA, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 0 3000
Feet N UWSP Boundary
APN 225-0110-024
APN 225-0110-025 APN 225-0110-026 APN 225-0110-027 APN 225-0110-028 APN 225-0110-037
APN 225-0110-032 APN 225-0110-054
APN 225-0110-033
APN 225-0110-038
APN 225-0110-052
APN 225-0110-053
APN 225-0190-022
APN 225-0210-002 APN 225-0210-003
APN 225-0210-004
APN 225-0210-005
APN 274-0010-043
APN 274-0010-050
APN 274-0010-049
APN 225-0210-018
APN 274-0010-069
APN 225-0210-037
APN 225-0220-021
APN 225-0220-039
APN 225-0220-062
APN 274-0010-055 APN 274-0010-056
APN 274-0010-079
APN 225-0210-009
APN 225-0210-008
APN 225-0210-010
APN 225-0210-006
APN 225-0110-058
APN 225-0110-019
APN 225-0190-008
APN 225-0190-011
APN 225-0190-021
APN 225-0190-014
APN 225-0190-015
APN 225-0190-019 APN 225-0122-002
APN 225-0122-001
APN 225-0121-005
APN 225-0121-004
APN 225-0121-003
APN 225-0121-002
APN 225-0121-001
APN 225-0190-020
APN 225-0210-040
APN 225-0210-041
APN 225-0210-039
APN 225-0220-014 APN 225-0220-077
APN 225-0220-076
APN 225-0220-060
APN 225-0220-061
APN 225-0220-113
APN 225-0220-051 APN 225-0220-048
APN 225-0220-103 APN 225-0220-075
APN 225-0220-056
APN 225-0220-057
APN 225-0220-054 APN 225-0220-055
APN 225-0220-020
APN 225-0220-079
APN 225-0220-115
APN 225-0220-035
APN 225-0210-007
APN 225-0210-016
APN 225-0210-017
APN 274-0010-057
APN 225-1020-005
APN 225-1020-012
APN 225-1020-004
APN 225-1020-011
APN 225-1020-008
APN 225-0220-078
APN 225-0220-116
APN 225-0210-029
APN 225-0210-028
APN 225-0210-027
APN 225-0210-026
APN 225-0210-049
APN 225-0210-001
APN 225-1020-003
APN 225-1020-010
APN 274-0010-071
APN 225-0210-051
APN 225-0210-023
APN 225-0210-022
APN 225-0210-021
APN 225-0210-020
APN 274-0250-051
APN 274-0250-047 APN 274-0250-002
APN 274-0250-048
APN 274-0250-005
APN 274-0250-004
APN 274-0250-003
APN 274-0250-043
274-0250-042
APN 274-0250-008
274-0250-009
APN 274-0250-010
APN 274-0250-060
APN 274-0250-055
274-0250-056
APN 274-0250-053
APN 274-0260-059
APN 274-0260-044
APN 274-0260-043
APN 274-0260-045
APN 274-0260-046
APN 274-0260-0052
APN 274-0260-051
APN 274-0260-050
APN 274-0260-005
APN 274-0260-006
APN 274-0260-009
274-0260-054
APN 274-0260-055
APN 274-0260-042
APN 274-0260-057
APN 274-0260-030
274-0220-077
APN 274-0220-053
274-0220-059
APN 274-0220-058
APN 274-0010-081
APN 225-1020-009
APN 225-0110-020
AG-40 AG-40 AG-40 AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40 AG-40
AG-40
AG-40

0.2 ± AC.

AR-2
AR-2
AR-2
AR-2
AR-2
AR-5
AG-40
AG-40

2.0 ± AC.

AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40 AG-40
AG-40 AG-40 AG-20
AG-20
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-20
AG-20
AG-20
AG-20
AG-20
AG-20
AG-20
AG-20
GC GC
GC GC
TC
TC TC
TC
AG-40 AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40 & TC
TC
TC
TC
AG-40 & TC
AG-40 & TC
AG-40 & TC
TC
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AG-40
AR-2
AR-2

1.1 ± AC.

AR-2

1.1 ± AC.

4.8 ± AC.

AR-2

2.9 ± AC.

AR-2

1.0 ± AC.

AR-2

1.0 ± AC.

AR-2

2.2 ± AC.

AR-2

1.4 ± AC.

AR-2

2.3 ± AC.

AR-2 0.8 ± AC.

AR-2

0.7 ± AC.

AR-2 3.2 ± AC.

AR-2

1.6 ± AC.
274-0250-057
AR-2 1.9 ± AC.

AR-2

3.8 ± AC.

AR-2 6.7 ± AC.

AR-2

2.2 ± AC.

AR-2

2.5 ± AC.

AR-2

5.8 ± AC.

2.2 ± AC.

AR-2

2.1 ± AC.

AR-2
AR-2

4.2 ± AC.

AR-2

5.8 ± AC.

AR-2

2.8 ± AC.

AR-2

4.0 ± AC.

AR-2 & SPA

0.7 ± AC.

AR-2 & SPA

0.1 ± AC.

AR-2 & SPA 0.0 ± AC.

APN 274-0260-032 AR-2 0.5 ± AC.

AR-2

0.9 ± AC.

AR-2

6.9 ± AC.

AR-2

0.4 ± AC.

AR-2

3.0 ± AC.

AR-2

0.5 ± AC.

AG-40

0.4 ± AC.

AG-40

37.5 ± AC.

1.4 ± AC.

AG-40

50.8 ± AC.

AG-40

28.8 ± AC.

39.9 ± AC. 39.8 ± AC. 39.4 ± AC. 40.6 ± AC.

52.2 ± AC.

10.4 ± AC.

20.7 ± AC.

12.6 ± AC.

12.6 ± AC.

5.0 ± AC. 5.9 ± AC.

3.1 ± AC.

2.0 ± AC.

2.4 ± AC.

2.7 ± AC.

3.2 ± AC.

6.4 ± AC.

0.7 ± AC. 5.9 ± AC.

15.1 ± AC.

89.8 ± AC.
103.9 ± AC.

21.6 ± AC.

49.8 ± AC.

22.3 ± AC.

25.0 ± AC.

20.4 ± AC.

19.6 ± AC.

29.5 ± AC.

21.3 ± AC.

80.8 ± AC.

30.0 ± AC.

28.1 ± AC.

26.8 ± AC.

28.7 ± AC.

40.0 ± AC.

43.7 ± AC.

4.5 ± AC.

30.9 ± AC.

40.0 ± AC.

40.4 ± AC.

40.2 ± AC.

40.4 ± AC.

4.9 ± AC.

31.9 ± AC.

30.0 ± AC.

29.3 ± AC.

10.0 ± AC.

9.0 ± AC. 1.0 ± AC.

20.1 ± AC.

40.2 ± AC.

39.9 ± AC.

39.9 ± AC.

34.6 ± AC.

15.3 ± AC.

40.1 ± AC.

10.0 ± AC.

9.9 ± AC.

9.9 ± AC.

9.9 ± AC.

10.0 ± AC.

4.1 ± AC.

2.0 ± AC. 2.0 ± AC.

1.2 ± AC.

3.0 ± AC.

8.0 ± AC. 7.7 ± AC.

1.5 ± AC.

2.6 ± AC.

1.0 ± AC.

1.8 ± AC.

4.3 ± AC.

1.1 ± AC.

1.2 ± AC.

0.8 ± AC.

27.4 ± AC.

20.0 ± AC.

20.0 ± AC.

28.9 ± AC.

12.17 ± AC.

6.0 ± AC.

5.9 ± AC.

28.1 ± AC.

5.3 ± AC.

2.7 ± AC.

2.8 ± AC.

0.7 ± AC.

1.5 ± AC.

0.9 ± AC.

8.6 ± AC.

8.5 ± AC.

AR-2

2.7 ± AC.

AR-2 & SPA 0.5 ± AC.

APN 274-0250-038
AG-40
APN 225-0110-018 AG-40
APN 225-0110-051 AG-40
APN 274-0250-049
APN 274-0220-076
274-0220-047
R-1-PU
APN 274-0260-049 2.8 ± AC.

0.5 ± AC.

APPROX. 11.6 AC. (N)

0.9 ± AC.

APN 274-0250-052
APN 274-0260-058
APN 274-0260-048
APN 274-0250-054

10.3 ± AC.

0.8 ± AC.

0.4 ± AC.

0.7 ± AC.

0.4 ± AC.

0.4 ± AC.

APN 225-0210-050
AG-40

4.3 ± AC.

APN 225-0210-052 AG-40 4.3 ± AC.

APN 274-0250-050
AG-40

1.3 ± AC.

APN 274-0250-046
AG-40

1.4 ± AC.

AG-40

1.6 ± AC.

APN 274-0250-061
AG-40

0.2 ± AC.

APN 274-0260-053 AR-2 & SPA 0.1 ± AC.

AR-2 & SPA

0.1 ± AC.

APN 225-0131-009
APN 225-0131-008
APN 225-0131-007
APN 225-0131-006
APN 225-0131-005
APN 225-0131-004
APN 225-0131-003
APN 225-0131-002
APN 225-0131-001
APN 225-0132-005
APN 225-0132-004
APN 225-0132-003
APN 225-0132-002
APN 225-0132-008
AR-1
AR-1
AR-1

1.2 ± AC.

1.4 ± AC.

AR-1

1.2 ± AC.

AR-1

1.2 ± AC.

AR-1

1.3 ± AC.

AR-1

1.3 ± AC.

AR-1

1.4 ± AC.

AR-1

1.1 ± AC.

AR-1
AR-1

1.1 ± AC.

AR-1

1.4 ± AC. AR-1

1.4 ± AC.

1.3 ± AC.

1.1 ± AC.

AR-1

1.4 ± AC.

APN 225-0210-005
APN 225-0210-018
APN 225-0210-037
APN 274-0010-043
APN 274-0010-055
APN 274-0010-056
APN 274-0010-050
APN 274-0010-049
APN 274-0010-069
APN 274-0010-079

PARCEL OWNERSHIP EXHIBIT

UPPER WESTSIDE

PARCEL EXHIBIT - UPPER WESTSIDE INFILL
0 500
1000
2000

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 15, 2024
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate PD-4
Parcel Ownership
SOURCE: Upper Westside LLC, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-5
Existing Uses & Site Features
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 2-8 PLNP2018-00284
Residential uses within the North Natomas community are located to the north of Fisherman’s Lake Slough and, except for the River View Subdivision, which is located on both sides of El Centro Road north of San Juan Road, to the east of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). Similarly, residential uses within the South Natomas community are located to the south of I-80. Residential uses within the Garden Highway Special Planning Area and the Sacramento River are located to the west of Garden Highway.

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING
Current General Plan land use designations for the UWSP area include Agricultural Cropland (1,858.3 acres), Agricultural Residential (97.0 acres), Recreation (58.8 acres), and Commercial and Offices (52.2 acres) (County of Sacramento 2011).

Current Zoning designations for the UWSP area include Agricultural 20 (148.6 acres), Agricultural 40 (1,737.1 acres), AG-Residential 1 (16.7 acres), AG-Residential 2 (108.3 acres), AG-Residential 5 (6.0 acres), General Commercial (17.8 acres), and Highway Travel Commercial (31.8 acres) (County of Sacramento 2015).

EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION

WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE
West El Camino Avenue is an east-west roadway that provides a key gateway into the UWSP area from the I-80 interchange. To the west of the I-80 interchange, the roadway is improved as a two-lane undivided collector and extends 1,200 feet into the plan area to El Centro Road, while to the east of the I-80 interchange, the roadway is improved as a four-lane divided arterial and extends 1.2 miles east outside the UWSP area to an interchange with I-5 and beyond in the city of Sacramento.

EL CENTRO ROAD
El Centro Road is the primary north-south roadway through the eastern portion of the UWSP area. It extends from West El Camino Avenue approximately 1.8 miles to the north where it crosses the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) and intersects Arena Boulevard, which provides a connection to the I-5 freeway approximately 0.7 mile to the east. El Centro Road also extends south of West El Camino Avenue for approximately

0.3 mile and terminates in a cul-de-sac. The roadway consists of two lanes throughout the UWSP area, although the segment through the River View subdivision is built to accommodate a four-lane divided arterial with roadway re-striping.

SAN JUAN ROAD
San Juan Road is an east-west roadway that extends as a narrow, paved farm road from Garden Highway approximately 1.1 miles east to intersect with El Centro Road.

The northerly frontage adjacent to the River View subdivision within the UWSP area is fully improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The roadway extends farther east, passing under I-5 and I-80 as a fully improved roadway to connect with Truxel Road 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-9 PLNP2018-00284
approximately 2.2 miles to the east in the city of Sacramento. Truxel Road allows a connection to an interchange with I-80.

RADIO ROAD
Radio Road is an unpaved east-west agricultural roadway located one-half mile north of San Juan Road and extends west from El Centro Road to serve several agricultural parcels and connects to Garden Highway 1.2 miles to the west.

LEONA CIRCLE
Leona Circle is a two-lane street located east of El Centro Road and north of Farm Road and is not improved with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. This facility provides access to several rural residential type homes.

FARM ROAD
Farm Road is an east-west roadway located one-quarter mile north of West El Camino Avenue and extends east to serve commercial parcels located east of El Centro Road.

The roadway also functions as an agricultural road west from El Centro Road to Garden Highway 1.1 miles away.

TOMATO PATCH LANE
Tomato Patch Lane is a two-lane roadway located east of El Centro Road and south of the West El Camino Avenue/I-80 interchange. This looped street is improved with curbs and gutters and includes a small segment with a sidewalk along one edge. This road provides access to several highway-oriented commercial establishments.

BRYTE BEND ROAD
Bryte Bend Road is an unpaved north-south farm road that runs parallel with El Centro Road one-half mile to the west and connects from San Juan Road on the north approximately 1.8 miles to Garden Highway on the south. It serves several agricultural parcels.

GARDEN HIGHWAY
Garden Highway is a paved two-lane levee road located along the western edge of the UWSP area. The roadway extends along the Sacramento River many miles to the north into Sutter County. It also extends to the south and east, providing a connection to I-5 and farther east where it merges into Arden Way in the city of Sacramento.

UTILITIES

EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) currently serves developed portions of the UWSP area. An existing 24-inch sewer conveyance line currently flows from outside the plan area south along El Centro Road into a 33-inch sewer line located at the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road that flows approximately 1.6 miles east along San Juan Road to the New Natomas Pump Station (NNPS), which is generally located northeast of the I-5/I-80 interchange and operated by SacSewer. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-10 PLNP2018-00284

EXISTING WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE
The agricultural customers in the western portion of the UWSP area are currently served by an existing 30-inch pipeline located one-quarter mile to the east of Garden Highway. The City of Sacramento currently serves domestic customers within the eastern portion of the UWSP area with an existing 24-inch transmission line in El Centro Road and San Juan Road that connects with the 1.5-million-gallon (MG) El Centro water storage tank, located approximately two miles north of the plan area, and the

1.5 MG San Juan water storage tank, located directly northeast of the plan area at the intersection of San Juan Road and West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). The Northlake project (formerly Greenbriar), which is currently under construction, will complete a 24-inch connection from the El Centro tank east to the Elkhorn Pump Station located at the intersection of Elkhorn Road and Natomas Boulevard in the city of Sacramento, thus improving the capabilities of the City of Sacramento’s looped water main system.

EXISTING STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
Stormwater in the UWSP area is managed by Reclamation District 1000 (RD 1000), the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), and the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources (County DWR). RD 1000 owns and operates existing drainage canals and pump stations within the Natomas Basin, which ultimately convey runoff to Pump Stations 1A and 1B located on the Sacramento River, approximately one mile to the southeast of the UWSP area.

There are two existing pump stations located along the eastern edge of the UWSP area that pump runoff into the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). These include the San Juan Pump Station, located directly southwest of the intersection of San Juan Road and West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), and the Riverside Pump Station, located about one-quarter mile to the north, also on the westside of West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). Existing stormwater runoff is conveyed to these pump stations via a system of existing irrigation and drainage ditches that are maintained by the Natomas Central Mutual Water Company and in many cases by RD 1000.

SAFCA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) have jurisdiction over the Natomas Basin and the “perimeter” levee system. The Natomas Levee Improvement Program, which includes levee repair, cutoff walls, buttress levees, seepage berms, pumping plant improvements, and other improvements to provide 100-year and 200-year flood protection for the Natomas Basin, is anticipated to be completed by 2025. The improvements have been underway for over 10 years. Improvements to Garden Highway levee segments located directly west and south of the UWSP area, Reaches A and B, are scheduled for completion by December 2025 and will provide 200-year protection.

The County DWR is responsible for review of drainage plans and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses in unincorporated portions of Sacramento County. The Drainage Master Plan for the proposed UWSP was designed to provide 100-year and 200-year protection to the Development Area and to comply with standards in the Sacramento Region Storm Water Quality Design Manual, which calls for Low Impact Development (LID) measures to capture and pre-treat storm runoff.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-11 PLNP2018-00284

EXISTING DRY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) currently provides electric service to the UWSP area. An existing SMUD 69-kilovolt (kV) transmission line currently extends from South Natomas across I-80 to El Centro Road, where it continues north along El Centro Road and connects to an existing electric substation located just off-site at the intersection of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road before continuing north and east from this location. In addition, an existing Western Area Power Administration 120 kV transmission line currently traverses the plan area, extending from South Natomas across I-80 to Bryte Bend Road, where it continues south along Bryte Bend Road across the Sacramento River into West Sacramento. The 120 kV transmission towers are spaced approximately 600 feet apart on center.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) currently provides natural gas service to portions of the UWSP area. Natural gas infrastructure is presently located along El Centro Road.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
In response to development proposals being proposed in the Natomas Basin separately by the City and County of Sacramento in the 1990s, both jurisdictions decided it would be beneficial to coordinate their efforts. This coordination gave rise to the City/County Joint Vision for Natomas, which was formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and County that outlined a joint vision for land use and revenue sharing principles in Natomas. As part of this process, four planning areas or “precincts” were established within the Natomas Joint Vision Area. The four areas included Grandpark (formerly the North Precinct), the West Precinct, the South Precinct, and the Upper Westside (previously referred to as the Boot Precinct) (see Plate PD-6).

In February 2012, the County initiated a Master Plan process for a proposal to move the Urban Services Boundary (USB) and the Urban Policy Area (UPA), and to consider General Plan amendments, rezones, and other land use entitlements for all four precincts. Unfortunately, landowners within these four precincts differed in their willingness to fund the Natomas Joint Vision effort, and the effort stalled.

In September 2018, a property ownership controlling 292 acres within the UWSP area filed an initial application with the County requesting initiation of a master plan for the plan area. In February 2019, the County approved this request.

Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-6
Natomas Joint Vision Area
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 2-13 PLNP2018-00284

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires that an EIR project description include a statement of the objectives intended to be achieved by the project. The objectives describe the purpose of the project and are intended to assist the lead agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives for consideration in the EIR, and to assist the decision-makers in assessing the feasibility of mitigation measures and alternatives.

The project objectives of the UWSP are presented below.

1. Formulate a specific plan and related land use planning documents and regulatory approvals for the UWSP area as a means of expanding the USB and 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.

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.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-14 PLNP2018-00284

10.Make efficient use of development opportunities 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.

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

REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
The UWSP would require the following entitlements:

1. A General Plan Amendment to expand the USB and UPA to include the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area (see Plate PD-7). The 534-acre Ag Buffer Area, located west of the Development Area, which is mostly agricultural-residential homes inside of the southwestern boundary, would remain outside of the UPA and USB, providing a transition to Garden Highway.

Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-7
Proposed USB/UPA Exhibit
SOURCE: Upper Westside LLC, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-16 PLNP2018-00284

2. A General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Diagram to change the land use designations in the UWSP area from Agricultural Cropland (1,858.3 acres), Agriculture Residential (97.0 acres), Recreation (58.8 acres), and Commercial and Offices (52.2 acres) to Low Density Residential (1,186.8 acres), Medium Density Residential (48.9 acres), High Density Residential (29.7 acres), Commercial and Office (61.2 acres), Mixed Use (114.6 acres), Public/Quasi‐ Public (100.4 acres), Recreation (18.7 acres), Agricultural Cropland (418.8 acres), and Agricultural Residential (87.2 acres) (see Plate PD-8).

3. A General Plan Amendment to amend the Transportation Plan to include the roadway system as proposed in the UWSP area (see Plate PD-9).

4. An amendment to the Sacramento County Active Transportation Plan, a policy document of the General Plan, to include the bikeway and trail system as proposed in the UWSP area (see Plate PD-10).

5. A General Plan Amendment for text amendments to align County policies in various General Plan Elements regarding development in the Natomas Joint Vision Area (see Appendix PD-1).

6. Adopt the UWSP document to establish land use, zoning, and development standards for the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) (166.7 acres), Low Density Residential (LDR) (390.8 acres), Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (134.9 acres), Medium Density Residential (MDR) (61.9 acres), High Density Residential (HDR) (36.4 acres), Very High Density Residential (VHDR) (22.6 acres), Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) (83.6 acres), Employment/Highway Commercial (E/HC) (52.9 acres), Schools – Kindergarten through 8th Grade (K8), High School, and Community College (124.2 acres); Parks (79.1 acres) and Greenbelt/Urban Farm (44.1 acres); Open Space – Canal (15.0 acres); Open Space – Lake Basins & Other (167.9 acres); Major Roads A (115.9 acres); and Landscapes Corridors (27.8 acres).

7. Adopt an Urban Services Plan that discusses in detail the plan for sheriff, fire, library, and other public services. This document may be summarized by the appropriate sections of the Specific Plan.

8. Adopt an Affordable Housing Strategy that discusses the plan for the provision of moderate, low, and very‐low-income housing. This document may be summarized by the appropriate sections of the Specific Plan.

9. Adopt a Water Supply Master Plan for the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

10.Approve a Water Supply Assessment for the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

11.Adopt a Public Facilities Financing Plan for the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

SACRAMENTO RIVER
INTERSTATE - 80

FISHERMAN'S LAKE/

GARDEN HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY

GARDEN SACRAMENTO COUNTY YOLO COUNTY

WIT TER
CANAL
MU
CO
AG

MDR MDR

HDR HDR
HDR
MDR
LDR
MDR

HDR MDR
MDR
P/QP
MU
AR
R
MU
R
R
CO
AG
R
AR
R
R
AG
R

SACRAMENTO RIVER

SACRAMENTO COUNTY YOLO COUNTY
INTERSTATE - 80
0 600
1200
2400

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE SUMMARY
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS UPPER WESTSIDE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA - PROTECTED
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-8
Proposed General Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment
SOURCE: Upper Westside LLC, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator

SACRAMENTO RIVER
INTERSTATE - 80

FISHERMAN'S LAKE/

GARDEN HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY
GARDEN
800
1600 0
3200
FREEWAY COLLECTOR - 2 LANES FREEWAY
THOROUGHFARE - 6 LANE ARTERIAL - 4 LANES
COLLECTOR - 2 LANES
LEGEND

SACRAMENTO RIVER

FISHERMAN'S LAKE/

HIGHWAY
GARDEN
INTERSTATE - 5 INTERSTATE - 5

GARDEN HIGHWAY
INTERSTATE - 80

SMART GROWTH STREET
ARTERIAL - 4 LANES (POST- 2030)
LEGEND
THOROUGHFARE - 6 LANE ARTERIAL - 4 LANES
ARTERIAL - 4 LANES (POST- 2030)
POST-2030 TRANSIT
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN - TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPPER WESTSIDE PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PLAN AMENDMENT Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-9
Proposed Transportation Plan Exhibit
SOURCE: Upper Westside LLC, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-10
Active Transportation Plan
SOURCE: Upper Westside LLC, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-20 PLNP2018-00284

12.Adopt a Reimbursement Fee so that the applicant is reimbursed for the cost to prepare and process the project, including a Specific Plan and EIR, by non‐ participating property owners when they elect to submit development applications.

13.Adopt a Development Agreement for the applicant’s properties located within the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066-acre UWSP area.

SACRAMENTO LAFCO ENTITLEMENTS
In addition to the above entitlements, separate Service District Annexation requests to the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for the UWSP area are proposed to include:
 Annexation to County Service Area 10 (CSA‐10) or the creation of a new CSA. (Note: A separate subsequent action may be required by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to establish a Benefit Zone to implement funding and service provision.)
 Annexation to SacSewer.
 Annexation to Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA).

VISION

KEY PLANNING AND DESIGN CONCEPTS
Eight key planning and design concepts guided the preparation of the UWSP. These concepts were guided by the seven smart growth principles found in the Sacramento Blueprint Plan that was prepared by SACOG in 2004. The seven SACOG smart growth principles are restated and summarized below.
 Compact Development – Creating environments that are more compactly built and use space in an efficient but attractive manner helps to encourage more walking, biking, and transit use and shorter auto trips.  Quality Design – The design details of any land development (such as relationship to the street, placement of garages, facades, sidewalks, street widths, landscaping, etc.) are all factors that influence the attractiveness of living in compact development and facilitate the ease of walking within and in and out of a community.
 Use of Existing Assets – In urbanized areas, development on infill or vacant lands, intensification of the existing use (for example, adding additional buildings to a low-density shopping center), or redevelopment can make better use of existing public infrastructure, including roads.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-21 PLNP2018-00284
 Mixed-Use Development – Building homes, shops, entertainment, offices, and light industrial uses near each other can create active, vital neighborhoods. The mix of uses can occur on many different scales and be either vertical (such as a single building with a ground-floor business and residences on upper floors) or horizontal (with a combination of uses in proximity). Mixed-use projects function as local activity centers, contributing to a sense of community, where people tend to walk or bike to destinations and interact more with each other.  Transportation Choices – Development should encourage people to walk, bike, use public transit, or carpool to their destination.
 Housing Choice and Diversity – Providing a variety of places where people can live (apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and single-family detached homes of varying lot sizes) creates opportunities for the variety of people who need them: families, singles, seniors, and people with special needs.  Natural Resource/Parks/Open Space – This SACOG principle is focused on green space and directs that development should incorporate public use open space (such as parks, town squares, trails, and greenbelts) to help create a sense of community and attractive neighborhoods. Additionally, conserving natural places and resources including open space, agriculture, and wildlife and habitat areas contributes to improving quality of life in the region by providing cleaner air and outdoor experiences.

A discussion of the eight key planning and design concepts that guided the preparation of the UWSP is provided below. The community form elements that support this vision are illustrated in Plate PD-11.

TOWN CENTER
The extension of West El Camino Avenue would serve as the “main street” for the new community, an urban node with an active pedestrian park median, gridiron streets, with three or four stories of residential or offices over ground-floor commercial. The Town Center would provide housing near employment opportunities, services, shopping, and public transit. The proposed density seeks to encourage bicycle and pedestrian activity and reduce vehicular trips. While designed to serve future residents, the location would capitalize on the I-80 interchange and freeway exposure and is intended to be a regional draw. The ground-floor commercial along West El Camino Avenue and the wide median park would encourage drivers to park first and then walk around and experience the Town Center as a pedestrian.

OS
G/UF
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
LDR
HDR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
EHC
CMU
CMU
CMU
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
OS
G/UF
OS
OS

BRYTE BEND

GREENBELT/CORRIDOR

EAST-WEST

GREENBELT/ CORRIDOR
AGBUFFER

AG-BUFFER
AR
AR
AG
AG
AG
AG
CC
HS
P

HDR VHDR

MDR MDR HDR
K-8 1
K-8 2
K-8 3 *
TOWN
CENTER
P
P
P
P
P
P
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU

WESTSIDE CANAL
G/UF
LDR
LDR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
OS
OS

DEVELOPMENT AREA

VILLAGE
CENTER

EDUCATIONAL NODE
Institutional Urban Farm
Community Urban Farm Node

SYMBOL NODE CLASSIFICATION
* High School
K-8 School
P
OS
LDR
OS OS
G/UF

RADIO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

FARM ROAD

WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE

BRYTE BEND ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD
Neighborhood Center
(includes MDR-CMU lots)
School
Park
Water [Open Space]
Greenbelt/Urban Farm
Open Space (Canal/Basin/Buffer)
Agricultural Residential
Agriculture

COLOR LAND USE
+
+ Community College
OS
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-11
Community Form Elements
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 2-23 PLNP2018-00284

LINEAR WESTSIDE CANAL
The Westside Canal would be a one-mile-long canal that would provide a formal, landscaped, north-south waterway with adjacent bicycle and pedestrian travel ways, and “front-on” architecture located to either side. The waterway would connect the main street to the neighborhoods and provide a unique recreational element. Architecture would be oriented to face the canal, and is proposed to be urban, in contrast with suburban lake neighborhoods found elsewhere in the Sacramento region. The feature would provide an amenity by providing opportunities for kayaking, canoeing, rowboats, electric boats, etc. It is anticipated that the feature would also attract visitors from outside the community, which could help to support the businesses and commercial activities located within the Town Center District. The location of the canal alignment would also be consistent with existing agricultural irrigation and drainage ditches that are located within the UWSP area.

EDUCATIONAL NODE
A K-14 Educational Node would be located in the northern portion of the UWSP area.

The Los Rios Community College District owns a 108-acre parcel located northwest of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and San Juan Road, and the Natomas Unified School District (NUSD) owns a parcel directly to the east, southeast of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Radio Road, which is contemplated in the plan for a high school site. Los Rios Community College District has expressed an interest in developing an 11-acre vocational campus on its parcel that could offer classes and career training in agricultural science, new technologies, and sustainable design. The objective would be to provide opportunities for “hands-on” learning experiences or visits to nearby farm-to-fork operations. The NUSD would construct a high school on its site.

A K-8 school site has also been designated southwest of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Radio Road. Finally, an Urban Farm site has been designated in the center of these three school sites.

A supporting Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU) Village Center is designated north of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Radio Road to provide basic commercial services and higher density housing for teachers, young families, and other groups. The Village Center is located immediately north of the Educational Node, in close proximity to the school sites.

GREENBELT SYSTEM
The Greenbelt system would provide connectivity throughout the UWSP area. The main Greenbelt would be located along the east side of Bryte Bend Road and would provide a two-mile north-south landscaped corridor. This corridor would connect to the Urban Farm located in the north end of the plan area within the Education Node, positioned between the Los Rios Community College Vocational Training Center and the K-8 school site, and directly west of the NUSD high school site. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-24 PLNP2018-00284

TRANSPORTATION
The UWSP proposes a gridded street network that would provide multiple connection points to a community-wide trail system and residential neighborhoods, with the intention of facilitating ridesharing and use of alternative transportation modes, such as e-bikes or walking.

JOBS AND HOUSING
The UWSP area is near existing job centers. According to SACOG, there are over 200,000 existing jobs within five miles of the plan area. The UWSP land use plan also proposes a balanced, mixed-use community with approximately 3.1 million square feet of employment and commercial uses, schools, parks, services and other uses to provide on-site jobs, with the intention of capturing vehicular trips within the community. The location of the UWSP area in relation to existing job centers and the degree of onsite capture would result in less VMT and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would therefore assist in meeting regional air quality and climate action goals.

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
The UWSP seeks to achieve long-term environmental sustainability by incorporating measures that would preserve sensitive habitat, conserve agricultural land, reduce energy usage, conserve water, incorporate water efficient landscaping, treat stormwater, and reduce reliance on automobile travel.

The UWSP would provide a balanced mix of jobs, housing, amenities, natural, and resource conservation areas. These uses would be supported by access to multiple transportation modes, with the intention of reducing the number and length of automobile trips, lowering total VMT, and reducing energy consumption, pollution, and GHG emissions. In addition to parks, the UWSP includes a significant amount of landscaping within planned greenbelts, collector street medians, open space corridors, edges of basins and drainage channels, and corridors along street edges, which collectively provide a measure of carbon sequestration. Finally, drainage systems are designed to manage and cleanse stormwater.

ADJACENT INFRASTRUCTURE
With its proximity to the city of Sacramento, the UWSP area is situated directly adjacent to several utility systems. Infrastructure pipelines for sewer, water, and storm drainage have previously been constructed in El Centro Road and in off-site roadways in proximity to the east. Therefore, the UWSP’s location would allow for the logical extension of existing infrastructure to serve the planned community.

DISTRICTS
The UWSP area is divided into four districts or sub-areas and an agricultural buffer subarea located west of the development districts (see Plate PD-12). The four districts include the Town Center District, the West “C” District, the East District, the Young Scholars District, and the Ag Buffer Area. A description of each district is provided below.

Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-12
UWSP Planning Districts
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 2-26 PLNP2018-00284

TOWN CENTER DISTRICT
The Town Center District would contain the highest intensity of uses in the UWSP area.

The district’s urban form is organized around the intersection of the Median Park, an east/west feature along the westerly extension of West El Camino Avenue, and the Westside Canal, a north/south recreational water feature and visual amenity.

Collectively, these elements would create an attractive central gathering space for the community, and their spatial orientation would divide the Town Center’s physical form into four quadrants.

The CMU land use designation in each quadrant would be targeted for a mix of uses, including vertically integrated buildings. Along West El Camino Avenue, residential, office, and other commercial uses would be located above ground-floor active uses such as retail shops, eateries, offices, building amenities, and services, which would be designed to engage pedestrians at street level. The Median Park would be intended to provide space for outdoor seating, coffee kiosks, food vendors, street fairs, a farmers’ market, or similar. Adjacent commercial buildings would be encouraged to provide outdoor seating and plaza space to reinforce a “main street” lifestyle. The Median Park would be intercepted by the Westside Canal, which would provide an urban waterfront for adjacent developments and create a regional recreational amenity to attract visitors.

West El Camino Avenue would terminate at the Bryte Bend Road roundabout, which would provide a convenient turnaround for transit returning to the Town Center. West of the roundabout, a portion of the Town Center Park is included in the district, along with adjacent high-density and medium-density residential parcels located along the western edge of Bryte Bend Road.

WEST “C” DISTRICT
The West “C” District is located west of El Centro Road and derives its name from the way its boundary wraps around the Town Center District. The district would be comprised primarily of low-density, low-medium-density, and medium-density residential neighborhoods that would be oriented around local parks. The West “C” District would also provide excellent access and connectivity to the Town Center Park and K-8 School Site No. 1. The district would be bounded on the north by San Juan Road, on the west and southwest by the Ag Buffer, and on the southeast by I-80. The Town Center Park would be a shared amenity between this district and the Town Center District and would be intended to provide a community-level park space with active sports fields and other facilities while also providing recreational opportunities for surrounding residents. This park would also allow for shared-use recreational facilities with the adjacent K-8 School Site No. 1.

EAST TRIANGLE DISTRICT
The East Triangle District is located east of El Centro Road at the I-80 interchange. To capitalize on the district’s freeway exposure, EHC and CMU land uses would be provided near the interchange. The northern portion of the district would comprise lower-density single-family residential neighborhoods, which would be anchored by a centrally located K-8 school site and a large neighborhood park. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-27 PLNP2018-00284
The E/HC designation is intended to accommodate regional commercial uses such as corporate offices or large footprint retailers, while the CMU designation is envisioned for a mix of commercial and residential uses. When a land use entitlement application is made, it is anticipated that a subsequent planning effort would occur to coordinate the design for the combined approximately 67.4-acre CMU–E/HC area to ensure that the design of site plans and circulation systems would be reviewed in greater detail. CMU developments may have horizontally or vertically integrated uses.

A key element of the East Triangle District would be the East West Greenbelt Corridor, which would provide a linkage between several residential neighborhoods and provide a 12-foot trail from Bryte Bend Road and the Westside Canal to the existing I-80 freeway overcrossing. From the easterly tip of the East Triangle District, it would only be a fivemile bike ride to downtown Sacramento, which is less than a 20-minute ride.

YOUNG SCHOLARS DISTRICT
The Young Scholars District is located in the northerly portion of the UWSP area, north of San Juan Road, east of the Ag Buffer, and west of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). Radio Road would be the primary east/west road serving this district and would be the northerly terminus of Bryte Bend Road. South of Radio Road, the development plan includes three schools. Planned land uses north of Radio Road would allow for the development of several residential neighborhoods, which would be organized around a CMU node located at the northern edge of the intersection of Radio Road and Bryte Bend Road.

The Young Scholars District includes a Community College site, a K-8 School site, and a High School site located around a planned Urban Farm. Access to these sites from the bike/pedestrian trail system would be provided via the Bryte Bend Road Greenbelt Corridor. At the north end of the Greenbelt and north of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Radio Road, a small CMU site would be located to provide a village center with high-density residential and small-scale commercial uses (e.g., cafes, delis, small grocery, professional offices). These uses would be configured to provide a central gathering space for the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the district’s student population.

AGRICULTURAL BUFFER (“AG BUFFER”)
The Ag Buffer is located to the west of the Development Area. It is intended to allow for the continuation of existing agricultural, ag-residential, and mitigation uses. 1 The USB
and UPA would not be extended to the Ag Buffer. Agricultural properties within the buffer could provide outside-the-classroom learning experiences for students. The Ag Buffer would range in width from 700 feet to the south to over 2,700 feet, or one-half mile, to the north, providing a substantial buffer to Garden Highway and the Sacramento

1 The planned Ag Buffer includes several properties acquired by SAFCA, including the Alleghany tract, to serve as mitigation land for the Natomas Levee Improvement Program to the west of Garden Highway. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-28 PLNP2018-00284
River, and allowing a transition to off-site mitigation areas consisting of managed marsh complexes located within Fisherman’s Lake preserve to the northwest.

PROJECT DESIGN

PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
The portion of the UWSP area set aside for development would include a mix of residential, commercial mixed-use, and commercial land uses. Other land uses include schools, parks, urban farm/greenbelt, canals, open space, landscaped corridors, and major roadways. The portion of the plan area set aside for the Ag Buffer includes agricultural residential and cropland (see Plate PD-13).

A summary of proposed land uses within the UWSP area is included in Table PD-1. As shown, the portion of the plan area set aside for development would total 1,532 acres, or approximately 75 percent of the UWSP area, while the portion of the UWSP area set aside for the Ag Buffer would total 534 acres, or about 25 percent of the area. Overall, the UWSP would include 9,356 dwelling units with an estimated population of 25,460 residents and approximately 3.1 million square feet of non-residential space.

Furthermore, to facilitate the construction of a diverse array of housing types throughout the UWSP area, the UWSP includes a “Missing Middle Housing Incentive” program, which is intended to encourage the construction of attached, “missing middle” housing units (e.g., duplex, triplex, fourplex) within conventional single-family detached neighborhoods (i.e., LDR, LMDR, MDR). As shown in Table PD-1, a residential allocation of 300 Missing Middle reserve units have been set aside, which have not been allocated to any parcel. This unit reserve can be used to increase the unit allocation of any LDR, LMDR, and MDR parcel outside the Town Center up to the maximum allowed for a parcel’s land use density range, provided that the additional units awarded are used for the construction of attached, missing middle housing units.

RESIDENTIAL USES

VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VLDR)
The VLDR land use designation would provide large single-family lots with lot sizes ranging from 1 acre to 8,500 square feet depending on how the lots are configured.

Densities would range from 1.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with an anticipated average density of 1.0 du/ac. This designation is intended to be consistent with existing homes and the established 1-acre lot size pattern around Leona Circle in the northeastern portion of the UWSP area.

VLDR
VLDR

VLDR LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU
HS OS K-8
CC
LDR

LDR G/UF
OS OS
K-8 P
P
P
P
P
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
LDR
LDR
LMDR

LMDR LMDR LMDR

LMDR LMDR LMDR
MDR
MDR
MDR

MDR MDR HDR HDR
K-8
CMU

CMU CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU
CMU

HDR HDR VHDR VHDR VHDR

VHDR VHDR
HDR
AR
AG
AG
AG
AG
EHC
OS
LDR
HDR
MDR
LDR
AR
LDR
LMDR
LDR
EHC
CMU
CMUCMU
CMU
CMU
MDRMDR
MDRMDR
MDRMDR
P
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor and the GIS user community
NORTH
OS
P
P
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Low Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Commercial Mixed-Use
Employment/Highway Commercial
School
Park
Water [Open Space]
Greenbelt/Urban Farm
Landscape Corridor
Open Space (Canal/Basin/Buffer)
Agricultural Residential
Agriculture
Major Road

COLOR LAND USE
STREET

STREET C

STREET B

STREET A
STREET 6
STREET 5
STREET 4
STREET 3
D

STREET E

FARM ROAD
STREET 2
STREET 1
STREET 8
STREET 10

STREET G

STREET H
G/UF

EL CENTRO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

STREET F

STREET F
STREET 7

RADIO ROAD
GARDEN

HIGHWAY
BRYTE BEND ROAD STREET 12
G/UF
OS
OS
G/UF
CMU
OS
OS

ORCHARD LANE
P

MDR HDR
HDR
P
STREET 9
OS
OS
OS
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-13
UWSP Land Use 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 2-30 PLNP2018-00284
Table PD-1: Land Use Summary
Land Use
Map
Symbol
Land Use Designation
(Density Range)
Net
Acres
1 Anticipated
Density/FAR
2 Dwelling
Units
3 /
Square
Feet
Population
Estimate
4 Percent
Area
Percent
Units

RESIDENTIAL USES
VLDR
Very Low Density Residential
(1.0-4.0 du/ac)
166.7 ac 1.0 du/ac 168 du 504 8.1% 1.8%
LDR
Low Density Residential
(4.0-7.0 du/ac)
5 390.8 ac 5.5 du/ac 2,149 du 6,447 18.9% 23.0%
LMDR
Low Medium Density Residential
(6.0-10.0 du/ac)
5 134.9 ac 8.0 du/ac 1,079 du 3,237 6.5% 11.5%
MDR
Medium Density Residential
(8.0-20.0 du/ac)

61.9 ac 12.0 du/ac 743 du 2,229 3.0% 7.9%
HDR
High Density Residential
(20.0-40.0 du/ac)

36.4 ac 25.0 du/ac 910 du 2,275 1.8% 9.7%
VHDR
Very High Density Residential
(20.0-40.0 du/ac)

22.6 ac 35.0 du/ac 791 du 1,978 1.1% 8.5%
Missing Middle Reserve Units 0.0 ac 300 du 750 0.0% 3.2% Subtotal 813.3 ac 6,140 du 17,420 39.4% 65.6%

COMMERCIAL USES
CMU
Commercial Mixed Use
6 (0.02-2.00+ FAR & 30.0-100.0+ du/ac)

83.6 ac

0.60 FAR

39.2 du/ac
3,216 du
2,184,970 SF
8,040 4.0% 34.4%
E/HC Employment/Highway Commercial
7 52.9 ac 921,730 SF -- 2.6% --
Subtotal 136.5 ac
3,216 du
3,106,700 SF
8,040 6.6% 34.4%
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-31 PLNP2018-00284
Land Use
Map
Symbol
Land Use Designation
(Density Range)
Net
Acres
1 Anticipated
Density/FAR
2 Dwelling
Units
3 /
Square
Feet
Population
Estimate
4 Percent
Area
Percent
Units

PUBLIC, PARK & OPEN SPACE USES
S Schools – K-8, HS, CC 124.2 ac 6.0%
P Parks 79.1 ac 3.8%
G/UF Greenbelt/Urban Farm 44.1 ac 2.1%
OS-C Open Space – Canal 15.0 ac 0.7%
OS Open Space – Lake Basins & Others 167.9 ac 8.1%
Subtotal 430.3 ac 20.8%

RIGHT-OF-WAY
Major Roads A 115.9 ac 5.6%
Landscape Corridors 27.8 ac 1.3%
Subtotal 143.7 ac 7.0%
Subtotal Development Area 1523.8 ac 73.7%

AG BUFFER
AR Agricultural Residential
8 86.1 ac -- 4.2%
AG Agricultural Cropland
8 414.3ac -- 20.1%
OS Open Space – Ag Buffer 36.6 ac 1.8%
Major Road B – Ag Buffer 5.4 ac 0.3%
Subtotal 542.4 ac 26.3%
Total 2,066.2 ac
9,356 du
3,106,700 SF
25,460 100% 100%
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-32 PLNP2018-00284
Land Use
Map
Symbol
Land Use Designation
(Density Range)
Net
Acres
1 Anticipated
Density/FAR
2 Dwelling
Units
3 /
Square
Feet
Population
Estimate
4 Percent
Area
Percent
Units
NOTES:
ac = acres; CC = Community College land use designation; du/ac = dwelling units per acre; FAR = floor area ratio; HS = High School land use designation; K-8 = Kindergarten through 8th Grade School land use designation 1 Net acreage based on Land Use Plan generated in GIS/AutoCAD by Wood Rodgers, October 2021. Arterial and collector roads, some primary residential streets, and adjacent landscape corridors as shown on map, have been netted out. 2 Anticipated density/FAR is an estimate to establish a development allocation for each land use designation in the plan area. 3 Buildout estimates are derived as a cumulative total for each land use designation, which are based on anticipated density/FAR. Each specific plan parcel is permitted to develop within its specified land use density/FAR range, which may be greater or less than the anticipated density/FAR. 4 Estimate assumes 3.0 persons per household for single-family and 2.5 persons per household for multi-family residential uses. Overall average is

2.73 persons per household.
5 Residential density calculations exclude approximately 5.5 acres of Development Area designated for planned public facilities including water storage tank, sewer pump station, and electric substations. 6 No residential units are allocated to the 1.2-acre Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) parcel at the southeast corner of Bryte Bend Road and Street 2 to accommodate a planned fire station.
7 Non-residential square footage allocations are additive to existing commercial uses that were constructed prior to Specific Plan approval. 8 Ag-Buffer uses (AR and AG) have no unit allocation and are not included in the 1,532-acre Development Area or Urban Policy Area/Urban Services Boundary expansion area.

SOURCE: Wood Rodgers 2024
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-33 PLNP2018-00284

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
The LDR land use designation would provide conventional single-family detached housing units. Densities would range from 4.0 to 7.0 du/ac with an anticipated average density of 5.0 du/ac. Anticipated lot sizes would typically range between 4,500 and 7,000 square feet but could be smaller or larger depending on site slope, natural water quality features, and neighborhood design.

LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMDR)
The LMDR land use designation would allow single-family detached units on a range of small or compact lots. Densities would range from 6.0 to 10.0 du/ac with an anticipated average density of 8.0 du/ac. Anticipated lot sizes would typically range between 2,800 and 4,500 square feet but could be smaller or larger depending on site slope, natural water quality features, and neighborhood design. The prescribed density range would allow for a variety of lot configurations, accommodating conventional frontloaded or alley-loaded housing, as well as cluster housing designed as an i-court or “6-pack” product.

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
The MDR land use designation would allow for a variety of single-family detached homes and attached homes. Densities would range from 8.0 to 20.0 du/ac with an anticipated average density of 12.0 du/ac. Lot sizes would be typically smaller than those accommodated on LMDR parcels and could range between 1,250 and 2,800 square feet. The MDR land use designation would also support rowhomes or condominiums without individual lots.

HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR)
The HDR land use designation would provide for a variety of attached housing product types. All HDR housing is planned in the Town Center District with the intent that they be designed with an urban development pattern. This designation would support a variety of housing types, including mid-rise buildings, live/work and loft units, townhomes, condominiums, garden-style apartments, and podium design apartments/ condominiums. In addition, these types of multi-family housing would provide for both a mix of for-sale and for-rent units in support of the UWSP’s affordable housing plan.

Densities would range from 20.0 to 40.0 du/ac with an anticipated average density of

25.0 du/ac.

VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR)
The VHDR land use designation would provide for a variety of attached housing product types. All VHDR housing is allocated to the Town Center and is anticipated to provide an urban development pattern of three-story buildings or higher. Densities would range from 30.0 to 50.0 du/ac with an anticipated average density of 35.0 du/ac. Housing types may include units in mid-rise buildings, live/work and loft units, townhomes, condominiums, garden-style apartments, and podium design apartments/ condominiums. In addition, these types of multi-family housing would provide for both a mix of for-sale and for-rent units in support of the UWSP’s affordable housing plan. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-34 PLNP2018-00284

COMMERCIAL & EMPLOYMENT USES

COMMERCIAL MIXED USE (CMU)
The CMU land use designation would allow a mixture of non-residential and highdensity residential uses. Planned uses would include retail, service, restaurant, hotel, office, medical, entertainment, and residential, which can be developed in either vertically or horizontally integrated mixed-use buildings. Thus, uses can either be vertically integrated in a single building, with commercial/office uses located on the ground floor of a multi-story residential or commercial/office building or uses can be horizontally integrated on a single site, with non-residential buildings co-located with residential buildings. Approximately 2.18 million square feet of non-residential uses and 3,216 residential units are allocated to CMU parcels throughout the plan area.

Several CMU clusters would be distributed throughout the UWSP area. Each CMU parcel would be distinguished by a unique combining designation to recognize differences in development intent which are summarized below.  -TC: CMU parcels in the Town Center District include the “-TC” Town Center suffix or combining designation to facilitate an urban, mixed-use development pattern appropriate for creation of a “Main Street” environment in this district.  -YS: CMU parcels in the Young Scholars District and the West “C” District include the “-YS” Young Scholars suffix or combining designation to facilitate development of mixed-use, neighborhood-serving projects that are scaled to fit the context of adjacent residential neighborhoods and school sites.  -ET: CMU parcels in the East Triangle District include the “-ET” East Triangle suffix or combining designation to facilitate mixed-use development projects that are appropriate for their visibility and access to Interstate 80 and El Centro Road.

Development assumptions for CMU parcels are summarized in Table PD-2. A square footage/unit allocation has been derived by applying a non-residential floor area ratio (FAR) and residential density to each CMU parcel, which is intended only to generate a cumulative development allocation.

TOWN CENTER CMU (CMU-TC)
The Town Center District’s CMU parcels are located along West El Camino Avenue and the Westside Canal. The development allocation for CMU-TC parcels assumes approximately 1.3 million square feet of non-residential uses and 1,965 residential units.

This equates to an average allocation of approximately 325,000 square feet and 490 units to each quadrant, which would be shared among the CMU-TC parcels within each quadrant. Because the development allocation is shared, some parcels may have FARs and densities higher or lower than the allocated FAR/densities noted in Table PD-2.
2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-35 PLNP2018-00284
Table PD-2: Commercial Mixed Use Development Assumptions Area Acres FAR
Square
Feet Density Units

TOWN CENTER DISTRICT (CMU-TC)
NW Quadrant CMU Parcels 12.1 ac 0.60 316,246 sf 39.2 du/ac 475 du NE Quadrant CMU Parcels 12.6 ac 0.60 329,314 sf 39.2 du/ac 494 du SW Quadrant CMU Parcels 12.4 ac 0.60 324,086 sf 39.2 du/ac 487 du SE Quadrant CMU Parcels 13.0 ac 0.60 339,768 sf 39.2 du/ac 510 du Subtotal 50.1 ac 1,309,414 sf 1,965 du
YOUNG SCHOLARS & WEST “C” DISTRICTS (CMU-YS)
Young Scholars CMU Parcel 6.4 ac 0.60 167,270 sf 39.2 du/ac 251 du Fire Station CMU Parcel 1.6 ac 0.60 41,818 sf 0.0 du/ac 0 du Subtotal 8.0 ac 209,088 sf 251 du

EAST TRIANGLE DISTRICT (CMU-ET)
El Centro/Farm Road CMU 25.5 ac 0.60 666,468 sf 39.2 du/ac 1,000 du Subtotal 25.5 ac 666,468 sf 1,000 du
Total 83.6 ac 2,184,970 sf 3,216 du
NOTES: ac = acres; CMU = Commercial Mixed Use; du = dwelling units; du/ac = dwelling units per acre; sf = square feet

YOUNG SCHOLARS CMU (CMU-YS)
The Young Scholars District includes one CMU parcel, which is located north of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Radio Road. This parcel is intended to develop with a mix of residential and neighborhood-serving uses to create a central node for the Young Scholars District’s nearby housing and schools. Additionally, the West “C” District includes one CMU-YS parcel at the southeast of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Street 2. This 1.6-acre site is provided for construction of a fire station. The development allocation for the CMU-YS parcel assumes over 165,000 square feet of non-residential uses and 251 dwelling units.

EAST TRIANGLE CMU (CMU-ET)
The East Triangle District includes one CMU parcel, which has an ET combining designation to facilitate development of mixed-use projects that are appropriate along the I-80 and El Centro Road corridors. The intent is to allow for a mix of highway and auto-oriented commercial and employment uses, supported by higher density residential uses, which can benefit from prominent visibility and access to adjacent high- 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-36 PLNP2018-00284
volume transportation infrastructure. The development allocation for CMU-ET parcel assumes over 650,000 square feet of non-residential uses and 1,000 residential units.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (E/HC)
The E/HC land use designation would allow for a variety of non-residential use types that align with Sacramento County’s General Commercial (GC) zoning district. This designation would focus on highway-oriented commercial and employment uses and include large-format retail, professional office, hotel, restaurant, entertainment, service, and similar non-residential uses. Service uses that would be provided include gas stations, fast-food restaurants with drive-through lanes, and car washes. Intensities would range from 0.05 to 2.00 FAR with an anticipated average intensity of 0.40 FAR.

Based on the anticipated FAR, approximately 920,000 square feet of non-residential development would be supported.

PUBLIC, PARK & OPEN SPACE USES

SCHOOLS (S)
K-8 Schools (K-8) would be located within the west, east, and north portions of the Development Area and have been located based on guidance from the NUSD and in accordance with NUSD standards and state guidelines. All K-8 sites would be a minimum of 16 acres in size and would be co-located with public parks to allow for shared use of facilities.

A High School (HS) would be located on a +85-acre parcel that is located southeast of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and Radio Road. The parcel is presently owned by the NUSD and its size may be larger than is needed for a high school. Any land not utilized for a school may be utilized for other uses, as determined by the NUSD at a future date. The high school use would include sports fields and a stadium with a public address (PA) system and pole-mounted lighting.

A Community College (CC) would be located on a +11-acre site that is part of a larger +104-acre parcel that the Los Rios Community College District owns northwest of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and San Juan Road. This campus is envisioned as a vocational training campus and is located directly south of a planned Urban Farm parcel.

PARKS, OPEN SPACE & LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS

PARKS (P)
The Parks land use designation would allow for the development of active park and recreation facilities. Ten active park spaces are planned, in addition to the recreational amenities associated with the West El Camino Avenue Median Park and the Westside Canal. Park spaces are sized to meet local and community-level needs and are distributed throughout the Development Area to provide recreational amenities within reasonable walking and biking distance of residential neighborhoods. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-37 PLNP2018-00284

GREENBELT/URBAN FARMING (G/UF)
The Greenbelt/Urban Farmland use designation is applied to land areas for the development of greenbelt corridors and urban farm nodes. The greenbelt corridors would provide landscaped parkways with a Class I bike/pedestrian trails that connect to a dispersed program of urban farming elements, which are located to provide residents with convenient access to community gardening and farm-to-fork opportunities.

OPEN SPACE – CANAL (OS-C)
The Open Space–Canal land use designation applies to the Westside Canal. A Water Surface overlay (depicted with diagonal cross hatching) would also be applied to this feature to acknowledge it as a unique open space element. While serving as part of the UWSP’s storm drainage system, this designation would identify these features as unique open space amenities, which have recreational and visual value.

OPEN SPACE (OS) – LAKE BASINS & OTHER

LAKE BASINS
The development plan includes four detention and water quality lake basins, which are distributed through the UWSP area. The bottom of each basin would be anticipated to contain water on a year-round basis. Slope banks and the top bench of each basin would include trees and groundcover plantings, which are augmented by a perimeter trail for public use. A Water Surface overlay (depicted with diagonal cross hatching) would also be applied to these features to acknowledge them as unique open space elements.

DRAINAGE CHANNELS
Several open drainage channels would be required throughout the UWSP area to convey stormwater to the basins. The top and side slopes of these channels would be planted with trees and groundcover plantings, which are augmented by a perimeter trail for public use, to provide a green buffer between residential neighborhoods and major roads.

OPEN SPACE BUFFER CORRIDORS
Two open space corridors are planned along the edges of the Development Area to provide a transitional landscaped buffer between the Development Area and adjacent uses. One 250-foot-wide corridor would be located along the northern edge of the Development Area to provide a buffer adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake, while another publicly accessible open space corridor that would vary in width from 30 to 50 feet would be located along the western edge of the Development Area. The 250-foot-wide corridor would not be landscaped but would include a farm fence. In addition, this corridor would not include any amenities, such as a trail, but nothing in the proposed UWSP would preclude the construction of amenities within it in the future. Landscaping within the 30-to-50-foot-wide corridor would include a hedgerow of tree plantings adjacent to planned residential uses and a farm fence adjacent to existing agricultural/ag-residential uses. A 10-foot-wide gravel access trail would also be located within this corridor. 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-38 PLNP2018-00284
AGRICULTURAL BUFFER (“AG BUFFER”) USES

AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (AR)
The Agricultural Residential land use designation would apply to an 84.1-acre area in the southwest portion of the UWSP area. At the time of Specific Plan approval, these parcels would retain their existing AR-2 zoning designation, which allows small-scale farming operations.

AGRICULTURE (AG)
The Agriculture land use designation would apply to a 410.2-acre area along the western edge of the UWSP area. At the time of Specific Plan approval, these parcels would retain their existing AG-40 County zoning designation, which allows agricultural uses and farming operations, but may also be suitable as habitat mitigation land.

PUBLIC FACILITIES

WATER STORAGE TANK
A water storage tank site measuring approximately 2.5 acres in size is planned on a low-density residential parcel to the southeast of San Juan Road and El Centro Road.

The site is sized to accommodate up to a 1.5 MG water storage tank and related facilities.

SEWER LIFT STATION
A sewer lift station site measuring approximately 0.5 acre in size would be located along the west edge of El Centro Road, north of Farm Road. The site would serve as a centrally located gathering point for wastewater flows from surrounding neighborhoods.

Flows would be pumped via a new force main to the NNPS located 1.6 miles to the east of the UWSP area. From this location, wastewater flow would be pumped south to SacSewer’s wastewater treatment plant located in Elk Grove.

ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS
Two electrical substation sites measuring approximately 250 feet by 250 feet (approximately 1.4 acres) each would be located within the UWSP area. The first site would be located southeast of the Town Center at the southwest corner of Street 2 and El Centro Road, and the second site would be located southeast of the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road.

FIRE STATION
A fire station site measuring approximately 1.6 acres in size would be located at the southeast corner of Street 2 and Bryte Bend Road, near the southwest corner of the Town Center District. This facility is located approximately 2.7 miles driving distance from the nearest City of Sacramento fire station (Fire Station No. 43). 2 - Project Description
Upper Westside Specific Plan 2-39 PLNP2018-00284

MOBILITY

ROADWAYS
The roadway system provided by the UWSP would utilize a modified grid to allow efficient distribution and dispersal of traffic, with collector streets looping into the Development Area from the El Centro Road thoroughfare/arterial (see Plate PD-14).

The grid system would create alternative routes, so that if one road is closed or congested, other roads could serve to disperse traffic. A description of the roadway systems that would serve the UWSP plan area is provided below.

WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE
The extension of West El Camino Avenue into the UWSP from I-80 would provide a key entry into the Town Center District. West of El Centro Road, it would be designated as a “Smart Growth Street” in accordance with County General Plan policies, thus allowing it to serve as the community’s urban main street (see Specific Plan Figure 4-2). East of El Centro Road where traffic volumes are significantly greater, the roadway would be widened from two to six lanes to just east of I-80.

EL CENTRO ROAD
El Centro Road would provide access to multiple interstate freeways, including a connection to I-80 at the West El Camino Avenue interchange within the UWSP area, and connections to I-5 via the Arena Boulevard and Del Paso Road interchanges to the north of the UWSP area. Though El Centro Road is planned as the main thoroughfare for the Development Area, elements are incorporated into its design to ensure that it would be a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly street. Based on anticipated traffic volumes, El Centro Road would be widened from two to six lanes from just south of West El Camino Avenue to just north of Farm Road and from two to four lanes from just north of Farm Road to just south of Arena Boulevard (see Specific Plan Figures 4-2 to 4-6).

BRYTE BEND ROAD
Bryte Bend Road, which is located one-half mile west of El Centro Road, would extend approximately two miles from Radio Road on the north to Garden Highway on the south and would provide an important parallel north-south street to El Centro Road. This facility is envisioned as a two-lane arterial/collector with a raised median and would include a series of traffic circles or larger roundabouts at key east-west intersections to slow and calm vehicular traffic yet allow for smooth and efficient flow (see Specific Plan Figures 4-7 and 4-8). A large roundabout would be located at the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and West El Camino Avenue and could serve as a transit turnaround for the Town Center District. Bryte Bend Road would incorporate a raised median with limited breaks at key intersections with four-way stop control or traffic circles, thereby minimizing the need for left-turn pockets.

Miles
0 0.25 0.125 0.5
NORTH
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor and the GIS user community
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA USGS AeroGRID IGN and the GIS User Community

ROADWAY DESIGN KEY

SYMBOL KEY
West El Camino Avenue (Figure 4-2)
Traffic Signal
Roundabout
Traffic Circle
Median Break
El Centro Road - Segment 1 (Figure 4-3)
El Centro Road - Segment 2 (Figure 4-4)
El Centro Road - Segment 3 (Figure 4-5)
El Centro Road - Segment 4 (Figure 4-6)
Bryte Bend Road - Segment 1 (Figure 4-7)
Bryte Bend Road - Segment 2 (Figure 4-8)
Radio Road - Segment 1 (Figure 4-9)
San Juan Road - Segment 1 (Figure 4-10)
San Juan Road - Segment 2 (Figure 4-11)
San Juan Road - Segment 3 (Figure 4-12)
Farm Road - Segment 1 (Figure 4-13)
Farm Road - Segment 2 (Figure 4-14)
Street 2 (Figure 4-15)
Town Center Side Street (Figure 4-16)
Garden HIghway Connector Road (Figure 4-17)
Modified Primary Residential Street (Fig. 4-18 & 4-19)
Primary Residential Street (Figure 4-20)

SAN JUAN ROAD

RADIO ROAD
STREET 8

FARM ROAD
W. EL CAMINO AVE
STREET 2
STREET 1
INTERSTATE 80 INTERSTATE 80

EL CENTRO ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD

GARDEN HIGHWAY
INTERSTATE 5 INTERSTATE 5

SAN JUAN ROAD

RADIO ROAD
STREET 7
STREET 12
STREET 9
STREET 10
STREET 8

FARM ROAD
W. EL CAMINO AVE
STREET 2
STREET 1
INTERSTATE 80

EL CENTRO ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD

GARDEN HIGHWAY
INTERSTATE 5
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-14
UWSP Conceptual Roadway Diagram
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 2-41 PLNP2018-00284

RADIO ROAD
Radio Road would generally be a two-lane collector and would function as one of several east/west circulation routes in the UWSP area, providing connectivity between El Centro Road, Bryte Bend Road, and Garden Highway. Most of this facility would include a raised median, buffered bike lanes, on-street parking, and a 10-foot trail along its southern edge (see Specific Plan Figure 4-9). However, west of Bryte Bend Road, this roadway would transition to a local street with no median or bike lane buffers.

SAN JUAN ROAD
San Juan Road would be a two-lane collector and would function as one of the UWSP area’s primary east/west circulation routes. It would provide connectivity from existing neighborhoods located to the east in the city of Sacramento, through the Upper Westside community, and ultimately to the west where it terminates at Garden Highway.

Individual segments would be sized to accommodate projected traffic volumes, thus resulting in the facility functioning as either a collector or a residential street, depending on location (see Specific Plan Figures 4-10 to 4-12).

FARM ROAD
The design of Farm Road would vary in response to adjacent land uses and projected traffic volumes. To the east of El Centro Road, this facility would primarily function as an arterial roadway and would include a small segment that would function as a thoroughfare. To the west of El Centro Road, this facility would function as a collector street, and to the west of Street A, it would include on-street parking to accommodate higher-density residential uses in the adjacent Town Center District (see Specific Plan Figures 4-13 and 4-14).

STREET 2
Street 2 would be a two-lane collector street and would function as the primary east/west circulation route along the southern edge of the Town Center district. Located between Bryte Bend Road and El Centro Road, it would include two travel lanes, buffered bike lanes, and a landscaped median (see Specific Plan Figure 4-15).

LOCAL STREETS
Other roadways would be constructed throughout the UWSP area to connect neighborhoods. Each of these roadways would be designed to comply with County standards and reflect the amenities included in the UWSP.

BIKEWAYS
A comprehensive bikeway network would be provided with a “grid” of bike trails and bike lanes that would allow residents to connect between neighborhoods and the Town Center District, and from the UWSP area to the rest of North Natomas and points beyond (see Plate PD-15). Class I bike trails would be located within greenbelt and landscape corridors to allow unimpeded travel to the extent possible; over 13.9 miles of Class I trails would be provided. The north-south trails would be spaced approximately one-quarter mile apart and the east-west trails would be spaced approximately one-half mile apart. Major streets within the UWSP area would also provide approximately

17.8 miles of Class II on-street bike lanes.

BRYTE BEND ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD
STREET 1
W. EL CAMINO AVENUE

SAN JUAN ROAD

RADIO ROAD
STREET 2

FARM ROAD
STREET 7

WEST EDGE

FOOT PATH

EXISTING CLASS I

BIKE TRAIL &

OVERCROSSING
OF I-80/CANAL

FUTURE CLASS I WITTER CANAL TRAIL
(TOP OF LEVEE)(BY CITY)

PROPOSED BIKE BRIDGE

FUTURE CLASS I

BIKE TRAIL (BY CITY)

EXISTING SAN JUAN ROAD BRIDGE

EXISTING CLASS I

WITTER CANAL TRAIL
(BY CITY)

SOUTHBOUND TO

DISCOVERY PARK &

JIBBOOM STREET BRIDGE
(5 MILES TO DOWNTOWN)
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR

HDR MDR HDR
HDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR
CMU

CMU 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 LDR LMDR K-8 2 LDR

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

LMDR LMDR LMDR

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

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
CMU
P
OS
FUTURE CLASS I 12'

GARDEN HIGHWAY

TRAIL (BY OTHERS)
GARDEN

HIGHWAY
I-80
I-5

WESTSIDE CANAL
DUAL 12' WALKS
P
P

SACRAMENTO
RIVER

BRYTE BEND

GREENBELT
CLASS I 10' TRAIL

EL CENTRO
CLASS I 10' TRAIL
B
B
A
A

OFF-SITE FUTURE

CLASS I TRAIL
(BY OTHERS)
LDR
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community,
Sacramento County Bikeway Master Plan
NORTH
FUTURE CLASS I 12'

GARDEN HIGHWAY

TRAIL (BY OTHERS)

SYMBOL PATHWAY CLASSIFICATION

PLANNED ON-SITE TRAILS
OFF-SITE TRAILS (By City)
PLANNED OFF-SITE TRAILS (By Others)
MILES

2.0±

8.1±

8.8±

28.1±

2.2±
Class I 12' Westside Canal Promenade
Class I 10' Bike Trail
Class IIB Bike Lane
Class II Bike Lane
West Edge Foot Path
Class I 12' Garden Highway Bike Trail
Class I 12' Witter Canal Bike Trail
Existing Class I Bike Trail
Proposed Class I Bike Trail

BIKE ACCESS ACROSS CHANNEL/GREENBELT
Bridge Connection
Culvert Connection
A
B

SAN JUAN
CLASS I 10' TRAIL
P
P
P
OS

EXISTING CLASS I FISHERMAN'S

LAKE TRAIL (BY CITY)

PROPOSED CLASS I
WITTER CANAL 12'

TRAIL (BY OTHERS)
(TOP OF LEVEE)

PROPOSED CLASS I
WITTER CANAL 12'

TRAIL (BY OTHERS)
(TOP OF LEVEE)

EAST-WEST CLASS I
10' BIKE TRAIL

2.9±

1.7±
AG

EXISTING CLASS III ROUTE (BY CITY)
Upper Westside Specific Plan EIR
Plate PD-15
Bikeway Master 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 2-43 PLNP2018-00284

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
A highly connected pedestrian system would be provided to allow residents to conveniently walk to neighborhood schools, parks, and open spaces, and travel between neighborhoods and commercial centers. Due to the community’s planned compact development pattern, approximately 90 percent of the UWSP area would be located within one-half mile of the Town Center’s CMU core or the Young Scholars District’s education node. This distance adheres to the 10-minute walk principle, allowing most residents to conveniently walk to amenities or services.

TRANSIT SERVICES
Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) would provide “crosstown” or large bus transit service to the UWSP area. At buildout, a large bus route is planned along major roadway corridors including West El Camino Avenue, Bryte Bend Road, and Radio Road. This preliminary route includes several conceptual bus stop locations, spaced at frequent intervals through the community, including the Town Center and educational node. As planned, approximately 88 percent of the residential units would be located within one-half mile of a crosstown bus stop. SacRT would have ultimate authority as to the planned location of this route and on the location of bus stops serving the route.

INFRASTRUCTURE

WASTEWATER
SacSewer would provide wastewater collection and treatment service to land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP. Wastewater generated within the UWSP area would be conveyed through local sewer systems to the regional interceptor system for treatment at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Elk Grove. As discussed above, the proposed UWSP would require SacSewer annexation.

Given the depth of the existing 33-inch sewer line located at the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road, a gravity system could service development within approximately one-quarter mile of this intersection, subject to verification of available capacity. Development beyond this one-quarter-mile radius is planned to be served by a pump station.

With respect to new sewer infrastructure needed to serve buildout of the UWSP, a sewer pump station along El Centro Road, at the intersection of either Street 7 or Farm Road, would be required along with a 1.8-mile 24-inch force main that is aligned to run north along El Centro road and east and parallel to the existing sewer trunk line in San Juan Road. This force main would connect to the NNPS located 1.6 miles to the east outside the UWSP area. In addition, an 18-inch sewer trunk line is proposed to extend south down El Centro Road to serve the southern portion of the Development Area.

Finally, a 30-inch sewer trunk line would extend west on Street 7 to Bryte Bend Road, where it would split to serve the westerly and northerly portions of the Development Area (see Plate PD-16).

Force Main
30'-33' Gravity
20'-24'' Gravity
12'-18' Gravity
8'-10' Gravity
Existing Gravity
Planned Manhole
Existing Manhole
Planned Pump Station
Phase 1 Area
Planned Use/Sewer District

TO NEW NATOMAS

PUMP STATION
MDR
HDR
K-8 1
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR
P
AG
AG
LDR
CC
UF
K-8 3 LDR
HS
VLDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
P
OS
MDR
HDR
P
LDR
LDR
LMDR
AR
AR
AG
P
LDR
LDR

LDR P LDR

LMDR LMDR

LDR LDR
E/HC
LDR
LDR
P
LDR
LMDR
LDR
LMDR K-8 2 LDR

MDR LMDR P LDR
LDR
CMU
E/HC

MDR HDR MDR HDR

HDR VHDR VHDR VHDR
MDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR

CMU CMU CMU CMU

CMU CMU

VHDR VHDR VHDR

CMU CMU
P
OS
OS
OS
OS
CMU
8" SS
18" SS 10" SS
15" SS
15" SS 18" SS
18" SS
10" SS
14" SS
18" SS
18" SS
20"
SS
30" SS 30" SS
24" FM
12" SS 10" SS
8" SS
18" SS 14" SS 14" SS 10" SS
30" SS

BRYTE BEND ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD
STREET 1
W. EL CAMINO AVENUE

SAN JUAN ROAD

RADIO ROAD
STREET 2

FARM ROAD
STREET 7

SYMBOL SEWER DETAIL
21" SS
10" SS
12" SS
8" SS
8" SS
8" SS
EX. 33" SS
EX. 24" SS EX. 24" SS EX. 27" SS
EX. 39" SS
30" SS
8" SS
10" SS
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.