Sacramento City Council
November 18, 2025

The following sections include a description of each of the five previously documented historic resources.

P-34-000876
In 2002, resource P-34-000876 was recorded as a district known as the Lauppe Ranch Complex.

The complex was evaluated and considered ineligible for the California and National Registers.

The resource location was revisited in 2011 and all that remained were two building foundations.

P-34-000877 and P-34-000878
Resources P-34-000877 and P-34-000878, also recorded in 2002, were documented respectively as a single-story house and a barn constructed in approximately 1946. Both buildings were evaluated and did not exhibit historical or architectural significance. Thus, the structures were considered ineligible for inclusion on the California and National Registers. The building locations were revisited in 2011. Both buildings had been demolished and only a concrete pad remained.

P-34-005251 and P-34-005225
The project site lies within two districts documented as P-34-005251 and P-34-005225. P-34- 005251, known as RD 1000, was originally recorded in 1997. RD 1000 was built between 1912- 1916 and consisted of a large drainage system comprising 87 square miles of agricultural fields, canals, ditches, and levees. The closest contributing element to the district is the West Drainage Canal (P-34-000457) which is located just south of, and outside, the project site.

District P-34-005225 was recorded in 2018 as a Tribal Cultural Landscape of the Nisenan and the Plains Miwok. The Landscape consists of natural waterways, riparian forests, and wetlands that supported the lifeways of the local Native Americans that inhabited the area.

4.5.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Federal, State, and local governments have developed laws and regulations designed to protect significant cultural resources that may be affected by actions that they undertake or regulate. The following section contains a summary of basic federal and State laws governing preservation of historic and archaeological resources of national, regional, State, and local significance.

Federal Regulations
The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources.

Section 106 for the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 Federal regulations for cultural resources are governed primarily by Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and affords the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Council’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites, which are determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The criteria for determining NRHP eligibility are found in 36 CFR Part

60. Amendments to the Act (1986 and 1992) and subsequent revisions to the implementing regulations have, among other things, strengthened the provisions for Native American consultation and participation in the Section 106 review process. While federal agencies must Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

follow federal regulations, most projects by private developers and landowners do not require this level of compliance. Federal regulations only come into play in the private sector if a project requires a federal permit or uses federal funding.

National Register of Historic Places
NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. The NRHP includes listings of resources, including: buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, State, or local level. Resources over 50 years of age could be listed on the NRHP. However, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional significance or are contributors to a district could also be included on the NRHP. Four criteria are used to determine if a potential resource may be considered significant and eligible for listing on the NRHP. The criteria include resources that:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded or may likely yield information important in prehistory or history.

A resource can be individually eligible for listing on the NRHP under any of the above four criteria, or can be listed as contributing to a group of resources that are listed on the NRHP.

A resource can be considered significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Once a resource has been identified as significant and potentially eligible for the NRHP, the resource’s historic integrity must be evaluated. Integrity is a function of seven factors: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The factors closely relate to the resource’s significance and must be intact for NRHP eligibility.

Historical buildings, structures, and objects are usually eligible under Criteria A, B, and C based on historical research and architectural or engineering characteristics. Archaeological sites are usually eligible under Criterion D, the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history. An archaeological test program may be necessary to determine whether the site has the potential to yield important data. The lead federal agency makes the determination of eligibility based on the results of the test program and seeks concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

Effects to NRHP-eligible resources (historic properties) are adverse if the project may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of an historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

California Environmental Quality Act and California Register of Historic Places
State historic preservation regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 and sections 15064.5 and 15126.4 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines). CEQA requires lead agencies to consider the potential effects of a project on historic resources and unique archaeological resources. A “historic resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant (PRC section 5020.1). Under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a resource is considered “historically significant” if one or more of the following California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) criteria have been met:

1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California history;

2. The resource is associated with the lives of important persons from our past;

3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values; or

4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, important information in prehistory or history.

In addition, the resource must retain integrity. Cultural resources determined eligible for the NRHP by a federal agency are automatically eligible for the CRHR.

CEQA requires preparation of an EIR if a proposed project would cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a historical resource. A “substantial adverse change” would occur if a proposed project would result in physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]).

In addition to historically significant resources, which can include archeological resources that meet the criteria listed above, CEQA also requires consideration of “unique archaeological resources.” If a site meets the definition of a unique archaeological resource, the site must be treated in accordance with the provisions of PRC section 21083.2. Under PRC section 20183.2(g), an archaeological resource is considered “unique” if it:
1) Is associated with an event or person of recognized significance in California or American history or recognized scientific importance in prehistory; 2) Can provide information that is of demonstrable public interest and is useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable research questions; 3) Has a special kind or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind;
4) Is at least 100 years old and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity; or 5) Involves important research questions that can be answered only with archaeological methods.

CEQA also includes specific guidance regarding the accidental discovery of human remains.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that if human remains are uncovered, excavation activities must be stopped and that the county coroner be contacted. If the county Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC identifies the most likely descendant, and that individual or individuals can make recommendations for treatment of the human remains under the procedures set forth in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The SHPO maintains the CRHR. Properties that are listed on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, along with State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR can also include properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to cultural resources.

City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
Goals and policies from the City’s 2040 General Plan related to cultural resources applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

Historic and Cultural Resources
Goal HCR-1 Historic and cultural resources that enrich our sense of place and our understanding of the City’s prehistory and history.

Policy HCR-1.1 Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources, Landscapes, and Site Features. The City will continue to promote the preservation, restoration, enhancement, and recognition of historic and cultural resources throughout the city.

Policy HCR-1.2 Maintenance and Preservation. The City will continue to encourage maintenance and preservation of historic and
cultural resources to promote the continued vitality of its neighborhoods.

Policy HCR-1.3 Compatibility with Historic Context. The City will continue to review new development, alterations, and
rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with the
surrounding historic context and consistency with design guidelines/ standards, including the Historic District Plans.

The City shall pay special attention to the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new development to
complement surrounding historic environments.

Policy HCR-1.4 Historic Districts. The City will continue to establish and maintain historic districts to provide for the preservation and restoration of those areas that are of historic
significance.

Policy HCR-1.6 Early Project Consultation. The City will continue to strive to minimize impacts to historic and cultural resources Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

by consulting with property owners, land developers, tribal representatives, and the building industry early in the development review process as needed.

Policy HCR-1.7 Contextual Features. The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or
reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features
related to historic resources, including maintenance and reconversion of parkway strips to landscaping;
maintenance and replication of historic sidewalk patterns; use of historic streetlamps and street signs; and
maintenance or restoration of historic park features.

Policy HCR-1.8 Ongoing Maintenance. The City shall support the maintenance and safety of historic properties and
resources through a combination of education and
incentives, to avoid the need for major and costly
rehabilitation, and to reduce risks to historic properties that are suffering from deferred maintenance.

Policy HCR-1.9 Disaster Preparedness. The City shall seek to minimize or avoid adverse impacts to historic and cultural resources from natural disasters. To this end, the City shall promote seismic safety, flood protection, and other building retrofit programs that preserve, enhance, and protect these
resources consistent with their historic design character.

Policy HCR-1.10 Demolition. Consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards, the City shall consider demolition of historic resources as a last resort, to be permitted only if
rehabilitation or adaptive reuse of the resource is not feasible; demolition is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents; or the public benefits outweigh the loss of the historic resource.

Policy HCR-1.12 Incentives for Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse of Historic Resources. The City shall continue to encourage and support restoration and adaptive reuse through
implementation of Mills Act contracts, grant programs, and other preservation incentive programs.

Policy HCR-1.13 Indigenous Cultures. The City shall seek ways to recognize the peoples who first lived in, traveled, and traded in what is now the Sacramento area, by working
with tribal representatives to preserve their identity, culture, and artifacts. Methods for recognizing tribal history and imagery may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

 Public art that provides a Native American
perspective including works by Native artists;
 Naming of parks and places that reflects local
Native American heritage and/or restores tribal
names;
 Parks and recreation programming that increases
awareness of tribal heritage and culture (including
through interpretive displays) and allows
opportunities for craft sharing;
 Incorporation of traditional native plants into
landscape design palettes.

Policy HCR-1.14 Archaeological, Tribal, and Cultural Resources. The City shall continue to comply with federal and State
regulations and best practices aimed at protecting and
mitigating impacts to archaeological resources and the
broader range of cultural resources as well as tribal cultural resources.

Policy HCR-1.15 Treatment of Native American Human Remains. The City shall treat Native American human remains with
sensitivity and dignity and ensure compliance with the
associated provisions of California Health and Safety Code and the California Public Resources Code. The City shall collaborate with the most likely descendants identified by the Native American Heritage Commission.

Policy HCR-1.16 Endemic Traditions. The City shall seek ways to recognize the endemic traditions of various communities in Sacramento, including African American, Hispanic, Native, and Asian American communities, to promote the retention of Sacramento’s intangible cultural heritage, which may include oral traditions, performing arts, social practices and festive events, legacy businesses, knowledge and
practices concerning nature and the universe, and
traditional craftsmanship.

Policy HCR-1.17 Evaluation of Archeological Resources. The City shall work in good faith with interested communities to evaluate proposed development sites for the presence of subsurface historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources that may be present at the site. These efforts may include the following:
 Consideration of existing reports and studies,
 Consultation with Native American tribes as
required by State law,
 Appropriate site-specific investigative actions, and
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

 Onsite monitoring during excavation if appropriate.

Policy HCR-1.18 Evaluation of Potentially Eligible Built Environment Resources. The City shall continue to evaluate all
buildings and structures 50 years old and older for potential historic significance prior to approving a project that would demolish or significantly alter the resource.

Policy HCR 1.1.3 Certified Local Government Requirements. The City shall maintain provisions in the Sacramento City Code for a preservation program consistent with the Federal and
State Certified Local Government requirements.

Goal HCR-2 A comprehensive, citywide preservation program that identifies, protects, and assists in the preservation of Sacramento’s historic and cultural resources.

Policy HCR-2.1 Administration of Functions and Programs. The City shall retain qualified Preservation staff, including a
Preservation Director, and provide support to administer the City’s preservation functions and programs, including the Preservation Commission.

Policy HCR-2.2 Certified Local Government. The City shall maintain its federal status as a Certified Local Government (CLG) and make full use of its authority to designate local landmarks and historic districts and apply for state and federal historic preservation grants.

Policy HCR-2.3 Sacramento Register. The City shall maintain and update the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural
Resources on a regular basis, including proactively
identifying and listing additional unidentified landmarks and historic districts, and deleting resources that do not meet the criteria for listing.

Policy HCR-2.4 Incorporating Preservation into Comprehensive Planning. The City shall continue to consider historic and cultural resources in its current and long-term
comprehensive planning efforts. To this end, the City shall incorporate specific preservation goals, policies, and
programs into Community Plan and Specific Plan updates
and neighborhood planning efforts, as appropriate.

Policy HCR-2.5 Code Compliance. The City’s Code Enforcement, Building, and Preservation Planning Division staff shall work collaboratively to identify historic properties under code enforcement actions and facilitate repair work that brings historic properties into compliance, consistent.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

Policy HCR-2.7 Funding and Financing Mechanisms. As part of its preservation efforts, the City shall explore funding and financing mechanisms, such as public/private partnerships with business, education, and advocacy groups, in order to facilitate the preservation, rehabilitation, and/or adaptive reuse of historic resources.

Goal HCR-3 Increased awareness and appreciation of the city’s heritage and its historic and cultural resources and the contribution they make to local sense of place, culture, and economic development.

Policy HCR-3.1 Education and Awareness. The City shall foster an awareness of the importance of preserving the city’s
heritage and cultural and historic resources in a manner that embraces and celebrates the community’s social and cultural diversity. This can include the following:
 The use of placemaking strategies that
commemorate places of special social historical
significance through public art practices,
 Community planning policies, and/or
 Cultural heritage celebrations.

Policy HCR-3.2 School Programming. The City shall encourage and provide technical assistance to public and private schools in integrating local and architectural history into their curricula.

Policy HCR-3.3 Heritage Tourism. The City shall work with the local tourism industry, property owners, businesses, non-profit organizations, and other public agencies to develop and promote Heritage Tourism opportunities, integrating efforts with ongoing initiatives for economic development and
promotion of the creative economy.

Policy HCR-3.4 Recognizing Preservation Efforts. The City shall support and recognize private and public preservation work by
celebrating the stewards of historic and scenic resources who have completed particularly admirable rehabilitation projects and to others who have made special
contributions to the preservation effort.

Policy HCR-3.5 Economic Benefits. The City shall increase awareness of the economic benefits of preservation by providing
information to owners of historic properties.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

Policy HCR-3.6 Public Participation. The City shall continue to encourage public participation in the process for evaluating and
preserving historic and cultural resources.

4.5.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to cultural resources. In addition, a discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to cultural resources is considered significant if the proposed project would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5;
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5; or  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Method of Analysis
The analysis presented within this chapter is based primarily on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project. The Cultural Resources Study included a cultural resources literature search, archival research, consultation with the NAHC, and field surveys. The methods of analysis are described in further detail below. Tom Origer & Associates also contacted the tribes identified by the NAHC as tribes with the potential to have knowledge regarding cultural resources in the project area. Further detail regarding the consultation conducted as part of the proposed project is included in Chapter 4.13, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

Records Search Methods
A cultural resources records search for the project area was completed at the NCIC of the CHRIS at California State University, Sacramento. The records search was conducted to determine the extent of previous surveys within 0.25-mile radius of the proposed project location, and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within the area. The archival searches of the archaeological and historical records, national and State databases, and historic maps included the following:
 California Register of Historical Resources;
 National Register Information System website;
 Historic Property Data File (HPDF) for Sacramento County (OHP 2012);  California Inventory of Historical Resources (National Park Service 2018);  Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks website (OHP 2018);  California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996 and updates);  California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates);  Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999);  Caltrans Local and State Bridge Surveys (Caltrans 2018a and 2018b);  Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002).

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

Field Survey Methods
A mixed-strategy field survey was conducted at the project site on February 9 and 10, 2022. An additional site visit was conducted on February 16, 2022. Field conditions during the field survey and site visit were warm, clear, and dry. Most of the project site was examined by walking in zigzags within 15-meter corridors and hoes were used as needed to expose the ground surface.

Ground visibility ranged from excellent to poor, with vegetation and imported gravel being the primary hindrances. The area between Interstate 5 (I-5) and Bayou Way had been subject to several cultural resources studies and also recently developed with I-5 off/on ramps and connector roads, so the area was surveyed in a cursory manner.

The locations of the previously documented resources were reexamined, and the locations of all the buildings and structures observed on historical maps and aerial photos were examined to see if the resources still existed, and to determine the current state of the resources.

In addition to surface survey, attempts were made to observe subsurface soils. The banks of ditches and canals within and adjacent to the project site were examined, when possible. Three hand-dug borings were excavated using a 4-inch diameter barrel auger. One auger boring went to a depth of 100 centimeters and the other two went to a depth of 150 centimeters. The locations were chosen to avoid portions of the project site that were inundated during prehistoric times and to be within a geological formation that dates to the Holocene Epoch.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

4.5-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

The 474.4-acre project site is undeveloped and consists entirely of agricultural land.

The proposed project would include the development of an industrial park within a 353.5-acre portion of the project site. The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres. As the footprints of the proposed industrial park and nonparticipating parcels are contiguous, the potential for impacts to historical resources to occur from development of either project component would be similar. Thus, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to impact historical resources. Because installation of the proposed offsite force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would occur either in existing roadway right-of-way (ROW) or in other previously disturbed areas, construction of the off-site force main alignment would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
As discussed above, known resource sites P-34-000876, P-34-000877, and P-34- 000878 were previously recorded within the project site. However, all of the resource sites were evaluated and considered ineligible for the CRHR and NRHP. In addition, Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

the resource locations were revisited in 2011. All that remained of P-34-000876 were two building foundations, and both building locations of P-34-000877 and P-34-000878 had been demolished, and only a concrete pad remained. In addition, according to the Cultural Resources Study, previously recorded or new cultural resources were not identified within the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Several ditches and canals are located within the project site. The development of flood control and irrigation infrastructure are activities that are important to the history of the Sacramento Valley; however, according to the Cultural Resources Study, the canal, the lone older ditch, and the modified low area that are located within the site were not viewed as contributors to the RD 1000. The on-site irrigation features do not display distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction.

While the features could be related to the theme of agriculture, archival evidence did not indicate that the past owners of the project site were important to local, regional, or state history, and the features are unlikely to yield information important to the history of the local area, state, or nation. Therefore, the on-site irrigation features do not meet criteria for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP.

Based on the above, the previously recorded historical resources on-site were not considered eligible for listing under the NRHP or CRHR, and have been demolished since their initial recordation. In addition, the on-site irrigation features do not meet criteria for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. While the proposed project would involve the demolition and removal of the building foundations associated with P-34-000876, and the concrete pad associated with P-34-000877 and P-34-000878, such resources are not considered historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.5-2 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Based on the
analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

As discussed above, the 474.4-acre project site is undeveloped and consists entirely of agricultural land. The proposed project would include the development of an industrial park within a 353.5-acre portion of the project site. The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres. As the footprints of the proposed industrial park and nonparticipating parcels are contiguous, the potential for impacts to archeological resources to occur from development of either project component would be similar. Thus, the following Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

discussion applies to the potential for both project components to impact historical resources. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
As part of the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project, Tom Origer & Associates conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site, which did not reveal any evidence of archaeological resources. Auger borings were excavated in the on-site locations with the highest potential for buried resources, and archeological site indicators were not found in the auger borings or along any of the exposed banks within the site. Given the project site’s history of disturbance through agricultural use, the potential for buried archeological deposits to occur in the sediments underlying the project site is low. However, due to the likelihood of pre-contact archaeological sites to be located along waterways, the potential exists for previously unknown archaeological resources to exist in the project area. In addition, due to the off-site force main’s location underground, the possibility of construction of the proposed off-site improvements encountering unknown archaeological resources cannot be entirely ruled out.

Furthermore, the project area is in the southwestern portion of the territory once occupied by the Penutian-speaking Nisenan. While field surveys conducted by Tom Origer & Associates did not detect human remains, cultural sites, or artifacts of ceremonial significance within the project site, the potential for human remains to be discovered during construction cannot be eliminated due to the known prehistoric occupation of the project area by Native American tribes.

Although archeological resources have not been identified on the project site and, due to past ground disturbance, are not anticipated to occur, the possibility exists that previously unknown resources could be discovered within the project site during construction activities, as well as along the proposed off-site force main alignment.

Therefore, construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project could uncover undocumented archaeological resources and/or human remains. As such, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.5-2 The following requirements shall be included through a notation on all project grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

In the event subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for precontact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and agency notifications are not required.
 If the professional archaeologist determines that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediately notify the City of Sacramento and applicable landowner. The project applicant shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Appropriate treatment measures that preserve or restore the character and integrity of a find may be, but are not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of historical objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, construction monitoring of further construction activities, and/or returning objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the applicant, through consultation, as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to the City’s satisfaction.
 If the find includes human remains, or remains that are potentially human, he or she shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which then shall designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the proposed project (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD shall have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the
recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC shall mediate (Section 5097.94 of the PRC). If an agreement is not reached, the landowner shall rebury the remains where they shall not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The burial shall also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate information Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with Sacramento County (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the no-work radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

4.5-3 Cause a cumulative loss of cultural resources. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Generally, while some cultural resources may have regional significance, the resources themselves are site-specific, and impacts to them are project-specific. For example, impacts to a subsurface archeological find at one project site would not generally be made worse by impacts to a cultural resource at another site due to development of another project. Rather, the resources and the effects upon them are generally independent. A possible exception to the aforementioned general conditions would be where a cultural resource represents the last known example of its kind or is part of larger cultural resources such as a single building along an intact historic Main Street. For such a resource, cumulative impacts, and the contribution of a project to them, may be considered cumulatively significant.

As described throughout this Chapter, known resource sites P-34-000876, P-34- 000877, and P-34-000878 were previously recorded within the project site. However, all of the resource sites were evaluated and considered ineligible for the CRHR and NRHP. The resource locations were revisited and all that remained were two building foundations and a concrete pad. In addition, the on-site irrigation features do not meet criteria for inclusion on the CRHR or NRHP. Known archeological resources do not exist within the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a known cultural. Furthermore, implementation of the project-specific mitigation measure set forth in this chapter (Mitigation Measure

4.5-2) would ensure that potential impacts related to disturbance of unknown cultural resources within the site are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Similar to the proposed project, future development projects within the City would be required to implement project-specific mitigation to ensure any potential impacts to identified cultural resources are reduced to a less-than-significant levels. For example, 2040 General Plan policies to reduce potential impacts call for the maintenance and preservation of historic and cultural resources throughout the City (Policy HCR-1.1 and HCR-1.2), implementation of applicable laws and regulations (Policy HCR-1.14), early consultation with owners and land developers to minimize effects (Policy HCR-1.6) and encouragement of adaptive reuse of historic resources (Policy HCR-1.12).

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.5 – Cultural Resources

Demolition of historic resources is deemed a last resort (Policy HCR-1.10). Given that cultural resource impacts are generally site-specific and each future project within the City would be required to adhere to City policies, any potential impacts associated with cumulative buildout of the planning area would not combine to result in a significant cumulative impact.

Based on the above information, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce all project-specific impacts to less-than-significant levels, and the potential for impacts related to a cumulative loss of cultural resources, to which implementation of the proposed project might contribute, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

4.6.1 INTRODUCTION
The Geology and Soils chapter of this EIR describes the geologic and soil characteristics of the project site and evaluates the extent to which implementation of the proposed project could be affected by unstable earth conditions and various geologic and geomorphic hazards. In addition, the chapter evaluates whether the proposed project would result in any adverse impacts to paleontological resources. Information presented within this chapter is primarily drawn from a Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared by ENGEO, Inc. (see Appendix G),1 the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan,2 the 2040 Technical Background Report,3 and the associated Master EIR (MEIR).4
As discussed further in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is divided into two portions: the industrial park, which consists of the majority of the western portion and the northeast corner of the overall site, and the nonparticipating parcels, primarily located in the southeastern portion of the overall site. While the proposed project would require approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment and Annexation of the entire project site into the City limits, only the industrial park is currently proposed for development. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way.

4.6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Background setting information regarding the geology and soils, seismicity, and paleontological resources associated with the project site and the surrounding region is provided below.

Regional Setting
The project site is located within the center of the Sacramento Valley within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California. The Sacramento Valley forms the northern third of the Great Valley, which includes approximately 33,000 square miles and fills a northwest-trending structural depression bounded on the west by the Great Valley Fault Zone and the Coast Ranges, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada and the Foothills Fault Zone.

Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Great Valley Geomorphic Province. The Great Valley Geomorphic Province consists of a deep, northwest-trending sedimentary basin that borders the east of the Coast Ranges. The Great Valley Geomorphic Province is a flat alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. The northern portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province is the Sacramento Valley drained by the 1 ENGEO, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. May 5, 2022. 2 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Adopted February 27, 2024. 3 City of Sacramento. 2040 Technical Background Report. November 2020. 4 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. August 2023.

4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

Sacramento River, and the southern part is the San Joaquin Valley drained by the San Joaquin River. The valley is surrounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, Coastal Range to the west, and Cascade Range to the north.

The Great Valley has been and is presently being filled with sediments primarily derived from the Sierra Nevada. The impact of periodic glaciation of the Sierra Nevada during the last global climate change was strongly felt by the Sacramento Valley River systems. Huge quantities of sediments were moved through the river systems fed by alpine glaciers during episodic Pleistocene glaciations. As periods of glaciation ended, rivers draining the Sierra Nevada were made even more powerful by the considerably wetter climate and abundant meltwater. Abundant sediments left from the retreating glaciers were carried downstream into the Sierra Foothills and into the Sacramento Valley. At least four pulses of glacial outwash deposition are known to have taken place during glacial episodes of the past two million years. The deposits extend to depths of up to three miles on the western side of the Sacramento Valley and gradually thin out on the eastern side.

Regional Seismicity
A fault is defined as a fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have been displaced with respect to rocks on the other side. A fault zone is a zone of related faults that is commonly braided and subparallel, but may be branching or divergent. Movement within a fault causes an earthquake. When movement occurs along a fault, the energy generated is released as waves that cause ground shaking. Ground shaking intensity varies with the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of rock or sediment through which the seismic waves move.

The potential risk of fault rupture is based on the concept of recency and recurrence. Fault rupture hazards occur near active faults and tend to reoccur along the surface traces of previous fault movements. The California Geological Survey defines an “active fault” as one that has had surface displacement within the past 11,000 years (Holocene). Potentially active faults are defined as faults that have ruptured between 11,000 and 1.6 million years before the present (Quaternary). Faults are generally considered inactive if evidence of displacement is not present during the Quaternary.

The intensity of ground shaking resulting from an earthquake is a function of the size of the earthquake, the duration of the energy release, the distance from the subject location, and the ability of the geologic materials to transmit the energy. In general, the greater the energy release and the closer the center of release to the site, the greater the intensity of the ground shaking.

A total of three fault systems and/or fault zones have been identified as potential seismic sources within the project region, including the Great Valley fault system, the Hunting Creek fault system, and the Foothills Fault zone. Based upon seismologic and geologic conditions, the MEIR determined that the maximum level of ground motion potentially experienced in the City would occur as a result of a 6.5 magnitude earthquake on the Foothills Fault zone or the Great Valley fault. Minor ground shaking can result in partial collapse of buildings, and extensive damage in poorly built or sub-standard structures.

Project Site Characteristics
The project site consists of approximately 474.4 acres located to the southeast of the intersection of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Power Line Road in Sacramento County, California. The topography of Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

the site gently slopes from the east to the west, with elevations ranging from approximately 11 feet to 27 feet above sea level (asl). The project site is currently undeveloped, and generally consists of seasonal grasses. Drainage channels cross the site in north to south and east to west directions, and additional channels border the project site along the southern and western borders.

The geologic conditions on the project site are discussed below in further detail, including descriptions of existing site geology, subsurface soil conditions, seismicity and ground shaking, potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction and subsidence, and expansive soils. In addition, this section includes a description of known paleontological resources within the project area.

Site Geology and Subsurface Conditions
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, the soils within the site were mapped as Holocene Alluvium, Holocene Basin Deposits, and the Middle Unit of the Riverbank Formation.

Holocene Alluvium is described as unweathered gravel, sand, and silt that is poorly to moderately sorted when deposited by the Sacramento River; although mapped within the project site, ENGEO, Inc. did not encounter sediments of this description on-site during subsurface explorations. Rather, explorations within the Holocene Alluvium area encountered sediments indicative of Holocene Basin Deposits, which are mapped in the eastern portion of the site.

Holocene Basin deposits are described as dark gray to black fine-grained sediments deposited by standing or slow-moving water in topographic lows. The older Pleistocene Riverbank Formation is mapped along the eastern site boundary and is described as compact alluvium consisting of gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits. Based on the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, the Riverbank Formation underlies the Holocene Basin Deposits.

As part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, ENGEO, Inc. drilled six borings on-site to depths ranging from 11.5 feet to 18 feet below surface level, the locations of which are shown in Figure 4.6-1. In addition, two cone penetration tests were performed to a maximum depth of approximately 50 feet.

Borings performed by ENGEO, Inc. generally encountered surficial soil consisting of hard lean to fat clay underlain by stiff to hard fat clay. Borings 1-B5 and 1-B6 encountered poorly graded sand with clay and gravel and well-graded sand with silt, respectively, below the lean clay, at depths ranging from 13 feet to 16 feet below ground surface. Undocumented fill was encountered at Boring 1-B5 to a depth of approximately four feet below ground surface.

Seismicity and Ground Shaking
The project site is in a region of California characterized by low historical seismic activity and a low ground-shaking hazard. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, the site does not include any active faults and is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. As discussed above, a total of three fault systems and/or fault zones have been identified as potential seismic sources within the project region, including the Great Valley fault system, the Hunting Creek fault system, and the Foothills Fault zone. Within a 100-kilometer (62.14-mile) radius of the project site three faults associated with the Great Valley fault system, and one fault associated with the Hunting Creek fault system have been identified.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

Figure 4.6-1
Soil Boring and Cone Penetration Test Locations
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

The nearest identified fault is the Dunnigan Hills fault of the Great Valley fault system, located approximately 13.1 miles from the site. In addition, according to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, although not mapped in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) database, the Cleveland Hills Fault Segment, which is part of the Foothill Fault system and is located approximately 55 miles north of the project site, is considered to have the potential to impact the project site; the Cleveland Hills Fault Segment produced a Magnitude 5.8 earthquake in 1975.

Other segments of the Foothills Fault system located as close as 27 miles to the project site are not considered active, but could be capable of a large magnitude earthquake.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength and sudden increase in porewater pressure caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose to medium-dense sands with a silt content less than about 25 percent and located within the top 40 feet are most susceptible to liquefaction and surface rupture/lateral spreading.

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has designated certain areas within California as potential liquefaction hazard zones, which are areas considered at risk of liquefaction-related ground failure during a seismic event based upon mapped surficial deposits and the depth to the areal groundwater table. The project site is not in a mapped liquefaction hazard zone.5 According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, an on-site soil layer, located approximately 25 to 30 feet below ground level, could potentially liquefy during an earthquake event. However, sufficiently thick non-liquefiable soil that overlies the on-site liquefiable soils can provide a capping effect, which would result in much less ground surface deformation. Sufficiently non-liquefiable soils onsite are approximately 25 feet thick, and would provide a significant capping effect.

Subsidence/Settlement
According to the 2040 General Plan, subsidence/settlement is the gradual settlement of surface soil deposits with little horizontal motion. Sacramento County is affected by five causes of land subsidence/settlement: 1) compaction of unconsolidated soils from earthquakes; 2) compaction by heavy structures; 3) erosion of peat soils; 4) peat oxidation; and 5) groundwater withdrawal.

Based on topographic and lithologic data, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration determined that the risk of subsidence/settlement is low at the project site. However, undocumented fill was encountered as boring location 1-B5 at a depth of approximately four feet below ground surface.

According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, non-engineered fill can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change due to variation in moisture content. Compressible materials consisting of surficial organic material, loose soils, undocumented fills, debris, rubble, rubbish, etc., are considered unsuitable materials for support of proposed structures as such materials can differentially settle. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may cause unacceptable settlement of structures. As stated above, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration determined that the soils encountered on-site have a moderate to high expansion potential. 5 California Geological Survey. CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones. Available at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad_0/explore?location=38.657409%2C121.556164%2C13.28. Accessed October 2023.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

Groundwater
ENGEO, Inc. observed groundwater in two of the on-site borings. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 18 feet below ground surface at boring location 1-B5, and at approximately ten feet below ground surface at boring location 1-B6. In addition, ENGEO, Inc. performed pore pressure dissipation tests as part of the cone penetration tests conducted on-site to measure hydrostatic conditions and estimate the depth to groundwater. The cone penetration tests performed by ENGEO, Inc. consisted of using a rig to push the cone penetrometer into the ground to measure the resistance of the soil against the cone penetrometer. The interpreted depth to groundwater at 1-CPT1 was 5.5 feet below ground surface, and 3.8 feet below ground surface at 1-CPT2.

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources include fossil remains, as well as fossil localities and formations, which have produced fossil material in other nearby areas. According to the MEIR, although discoveries of such resources have been made within the City in the past, the City is not considered sensitive for the presence of paleontological resources. Paleontological resources have been found in five localities in Sacramento County: the Riverbank formation at the former Arco Arena; along Chicken Ranch Slough near Howe Avenue and Arden Way; at the Teichert Gravel Pit and the Davis Gravel Pit; and on Ehrhardt Avenue, near the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The closest known paleontological resources found within the County were discovered at the former Arco Area site, approximately two miles southeast of the project site.

4.6.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following section is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources are managed at the federal, State, and local levels.

Federal Regulations
The following are the federal environmental laws and policies relevant to soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources.

Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act
Passed by Congress in 1977, the Federal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act is intended to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes. The Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The goals of NEHRP are to educate and improve the knowledge base for predicting seismic hazards, improve land use practices and building codes, and to reduce earthquake hazards through improved design and construction techniques.

International Building Code
The Uniform Building Code (UBC) was first published in 1927 by the International Council of Building Officials and is intended to promote public safety and provide standardized requirements for safe construction. The UBC was replaced in 2000 by the new International Building Code (IBC), published by the International Code Council (ICC), which is a merger of the International Council of Building Officials’ UBC, Building Officials and Code Administrators International’s National Building Code, and the Southern Building Code Congress International’s Standard Building Code. The intention of the IBC is to provide more consistent standards for safe construction and eliminate any differences between the three preceding codes. All State building standard codes are based on the federal building codes.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

Federal Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program or point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

Section 402 of the CWA mandates that certain types of construction activities comply with the requirements of the NPDES stormwater program. The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, requires that construction activities that disturb land equal to or greater than one acre require permitting under the NPDES program. In California, permitting occurs under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, issued to the SWRCB, implemented and enforced by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

As of July 1, 2010, all dischargers with projects that include clearing, grading or stockpiling activities expected to disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain compliance under the NPDES Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. The General Permit requires all dischargers, where construction activity disturbs one or more acres, to take the following measures:

1. Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include a site map(s) of existing and proposed building and roadway footprints, drainage patterns and stormwater collection and discharge points, and pre- and post- project topography;

2. Describe types and placement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the SWPPP that will be used to protect stormwater quality;

3. Provide a visual and chemical (if non-visible pollutants are expected) monitoring program for implementation upon BMP failure; and

4. Provide a sediment monitoring plan if the area discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

To obtain coverage, a SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB electronically and a copy of the SWPPP must be submitted to Sacramento County. When project construction is completed, the landowner must file a Notice of Termination (NOT).

State Regulations
The following are the State environmental laws and policies relevant to soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources.

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The 1972 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act was passed to prevent the new development of buildings and structures for human occupancy on the surface of active faults. The Act is directed at the hazards of surface fault rupture and does not address other forms of earthquake hazards.

The locations of active faults are established into fault zones by the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Act.

Local agencies regulate any new developments within the appropriate zones in their jurisdiction.

The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Act regulates development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture. The Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Act requires that the State Geologist Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

(Chief of the California Department of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) delineate “special study zones” along known active faults in California. Cities and counties affected by the special study zones must regulate certain development projects within the special study zones. The AlquistPriolo Fault Zone Act prohibits the development of structures for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. According to the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone Act, active faults have experienced surface displacement during the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults are those that show evidence of surface displacement during the last 1.6 million years. A fault may be presumed to be inactive based on satisfactory geologic evidence; however, the evidence necessary to prove inactivity sometimes is difficult to obtain and may not exist.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Section 1690-2699.6) addresses non-surface rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction, induced landslides, and subsidence. A mapping program is also established by this Act, which identifies areas within California that have the potential to be affected by such non-surface rupture hazards.

The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils.

California Building Standards Code
The State of California regulates development within the State through a variety of tools that reduce or mitigate potential hazards from earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The 2022 California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) governs the design and construction of all building occupancies and associated facilities and equipment throughout California. In addition, the CBSC governs development in potentially seismically active areas and contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. The California building standards include building standards in the national building code, building standards adapted from national codes to meet California conditions, and building standards adopted to address particular California concerns. It should be noted that the CBSC is updated on a triennial cycle. The 2022 CBSC, which contains new code changes, became effective on January 1, 2023.

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources.

City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan related to soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources that are applicable to the proposed project.

Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Goal ERC-1 Responsible management of water resources that preserves and enhances water quality and availability.

Policy ERC-1.4 Construction Site Impacts. The City shall require new development to protect the quality of water bodies and
natural drainage systems through site design (e.g., cluster Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

development), source controls, stormwater treatment, runoff reduction measures, best management practices (BMPs),
Low Impact Development (LID), and hydromodification
strategies to avoid or minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by
development, implement measures to protect areas from
erosion and sediment loss, and continue to require
construction contractors to comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control ordinance and stormwater
management and discharge control ordinance.

Goal ERC-7 Protection of life and property from seismic hazards.

Policy ERC-7.1 Expansive Soils and Liquefaction. In areas of expansive soils and high liquefaction risk, the City shall continue to require that project proponents submit geotechnical
investigation reports and demonstrate that the project
conforms to all recommended mitigation measures prior to City approval.

Policy ERC-7.2 Seismic Stability. In accordance with the California Building Code, the City shall regulate structures intended for human occupancy to ensure they are designed and
constructed to retain their structural integrity when
subjected to seismic activity
City of Sacramento Municipal Code
Sections of the City’s Municipal Code related to soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources that are applicable to the proposed project are presented below.

Sacramento City Code Chapter 15.88
The City of Sacramento’s Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 15.88 of the City’s Municipal Code) is enacted for the purpose of regulating grading on property within the City limits to safeguard life, limb, health, property and the public welfare; to avoid pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other materials generated or caused by surface water runoff; to comply with the City’s NPDES Permit; and to ensure that the intended use of a graded site within the City limits is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan, any specific plans adopted thereto and all applicable City ordinances and regulations. The grading ordinance is intended to control all aspects of grading operations within the City. Chapter 15.88 requires that development projects comply with the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan (SQIP). The SQIP outlines the priorities, key elements, strategies, and evaluation methods of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, which is based on the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit. The comprehensive Stormwater Management Program includes pollution-reduction activities for construction sites, industrial sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations.

4.6.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to soils, geology, seismic hazards, Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

and paleontological resources. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, an impact related to soils, geology, seismic hazards, and paleontological resources is considered significant if the proposed project would:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
o Rupture of a known earthquake fault;
o Strong seismic ground shaking;
o Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; and o Landslides;
 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property;  Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater (see Chapter 5, Effects Not Found to be Significant); or  Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

As noted above, issues related to whether the proposed project would result in the following are discussed in Chapter 5, Effects Not Found to be Significant, of this EIR:
 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

Method of Analysis
The analysis presented in this chapter is based primarily on the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project by ENGEO, Inc. Information related to paleontological resources is sourced primarily from the City’s 2040 General Plan and the 2040 General Plan Draft Background Report.

The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project by ENGEO, Inc. drew on information from previous studies conducted within the project area, including regional geologic maps and fault maps prepared by the California Department of Conservation’s CGS. In addition, ENGEO, Inc. performed field explorations of the project site on March 22, 23, and 30, 2022. The field explorations included drilling six borings and advancing two cone penetration test soundings at the locations indicated in Figure 4.6-1. In order to assess subsurface conditions of the project site, a truck-mounted CME-55 drill rig and crew were used to advance the borings to depths ranging from 11.5 to 18 feet below existing grade. The cone penetration tests performed by ENGEO, Inc. consisted of using a rig to push the cone penetrometer to a maximum depth of 50 feet into the ground to measure the resistance of the soil against the cone penetrometer. Cone Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

readings were taken at approximately five-centimeter intervals with a penetration rate of two centimeters per second.

ENGEO, Inc. performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples from the on-site borings to evaluate the engineering properties of the soils, including moisture content, dry density, unconfined compression, plasticity index, and expansion index. In addition, ENGEO, Inc. calculated liquefaction potential of the soils in accordance with the standards of the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

The analysis presented within the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration focuses on the proposed project’s potential to result in the risk of personal injury, loss of life, and damage to property as a result of existing geologic and geotechnical conditions within the project area.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

4.6-1 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, or landslides. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Due to the regional nature of geologic conditions, seismic conditions would be the same for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels portions of the project site. As such, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project. Because installation of the proposed off-site force main would occur either in existing roadway ROW or in other previously disturbed areas and would not include aboveground structures, construction of the off-site force main alignment would not cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
As discussed above, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone.

Evidence of recent faulting within the project area has not been detected, nor have any active faults been mapped at or near the project site. As discussed above, a total of three fault systems and/or fault zones have been identified as potential seismic sources within the project region, including the Great Valley fault system, the Hunting Creek fault system, and the Foothills Fault zone. Within a 100-kilometer (62.14-mile) radius of the project site three faults associated with the Great Valley fault system, and one fault associated with the Hunting Creek fault system have been identified. The nearest identified fault is the Dunnigan Hills fault of the Great Valley fault system, located approximately 13.1 miles from the site. In addition, according to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, although not mapped in the USGS database, the Cleveland Hills Fault Segment, which is part of the Foothill Fault system and is located approximately 55 miles north of the project site, is considered to have the potential to Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

impact the project site; the Cleveland Hills Fault Segment produced a Magnitude 5.8 earthquake in 1975. Other segments of the Foothills Fault system located as close as 27 miles to the project site, but are not considered active. Therefore, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration concluded that ground rupture is unlikely to occur at the project site.

While lower-intensity earthquakes could potentially occur at the site, the design of project structures would be required to adhere to the provisions of the 2022 CBSC.

The 2022 CBSC contains provisions to safeguard against major structural failures or loss of life caused by earthquakes or other geologic hazards. Specifically, projects designed in accordance with the CBSC should be able to: 1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; 2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage; and 3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural damage. Although conformance with the CBSC does not guarantee that substantial structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake, conformance with the CBSC can reasonably be assumed to ensure structures would be survivable, allowing occupants to safely evacuate in the event of a major earthquake.

Furthermore, as noted in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, due to the relatively low seismicity of the project area, the potential for seismically induced damage to the proposed structures due to surface rupture and settlement is minimal.

Impacts related to liquefaction and landslide are discussed in Impact 4.6-3 of this chapter.

Overall, the proposed development would not be subject to substantial risks related to fault rupture hazards. Due to the relatively low seismicity of the area, compliance with CBSC requirements related to seismic design, and the lack of substantial natural slopes on-site, the potential for the project to expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of an earthquake fault, strong ground shaking, or ground failure would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.6-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Due to the regional nature of geologic conditions, conditions related to soil erosion would be the same for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels portions of the project site. As such, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
Erosion refers to the removal of soil from exposed bedrock surfaces by wind or water.

Although naturally occurring, erosion is often accelerated by human activities that disturb soil and vegetation. Grading, excavation, removal of vegetation cover, and Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

loading activities associated with construction could temporarily increase erosion, runoff, and sedimentation. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential within the construction and staging areas. The topography of the project site is relatively level, and upon development of the site with buildings and structures, the amount of exposed soil that may be lost due to wind or stormwater runoff would be minimized, as the site would be largely covered with impervious surfaces.

The City of Sacramento’s Grading Ordinance requires that development projects comply with the requirements of the City’s SQIP. The SQIP outlines the priorities, key elements, strategies, and evaluation methods of the City’s Stormwater Management Program. The City’s Stormwater Management Program is based on the NPDES municipal stormwater discharge permit. The comprehensive Stormwater Management Program includes pollution reduction activities for construction sites, industrial sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations.

NPDES permits are required for the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, which includes any discharge to surface waters, including lakes, rivers, streams, bays, dry stream beds, wetlands, and storm sewers. The RWQCB issues permits in lieu of direct issuance by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The terms of the NPDES permits implement pertinent provisions of the Federal CWA. In accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit, a SWPPP is required for any project that disturbs at least one acre of soil. Given that the proposed project could disturb a maximum of at least 436.5 acres within the site, the project would be required to prepare a SWPPP and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the RWQCB.

The SWPPP would be kept on site during construction activity and made available upon request to representative of the City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, or the Central Valley RWQCB. The SWPPP would identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of stormwater associated with construction activity, and identify stormwater pollution prevention measures to be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges during and after construction. Therefore, the SWPPP would also include a description of potential pollutants and hazardous materials present on site during construction. The SWPPP would include details of how the sediment and erosion control practices, also known as BMPs would be implemented.

Implementation of the SWPPP would comply with City, State, and federal water quality requirements. Development of the SWPPP would include plans to treat stormwater runoff in accordance with the standards of the California Stormwater Management Practice New Development and Redevelopment Handbook, the City’s SQIP, and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2014). The plan would include drainage design from all paved surfaces, including streets, parking lots, driveways, and roofs, as well as landscaping.

Furthermore, Chapter 15.88 of the City Code regulates grading and erosion by requiring all projects that grade within the City, except where exempt, to submit an application for review by the City prior to approval of a grading permit. The application must include a grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan which would be reviewed for safety of grading and potential for erosion. The project would be subject to Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

compliance with Chapter 15.88 of the City Code and the project applicant would be required to prepare a grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan. The grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan would include erosion control measures and sediment control measures to ensure the stability of the ground surface and soil within the project site during construction activities, as well as during installation of the offsite force main.

Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with the preparation of an SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit and preparation of a grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan in accordance with the City Code. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.6-3 Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code. Based on the analysis below and with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.

Due to the regional nature of geologic conditions, soil conditions would be the same for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels portions of the project site. As such, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project.

Because installation of the proposed off-site force main would occur either in existing roadway ROW or in other previously disturbed areas, construction of the off-site force main would not result in potential environmental impacts related to on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, or be located on expansive soil.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
Issues associated with unstable geologic units and/or soils, including expansive soils, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse are discussed below.

Landslides
A landslide is defined as the movement of a mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope. Almost every landslide has multiple causes. Slope movement occurs when forces acting down-slope exceed the strength of the earth materials that compose the slope. Landslides in California occur mainly due to intense rainfall or are triggered by earthquakes. According to the CGS, the project site is not currently within a State of Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

California Seismic Hazard Zone for seismically induced land sliding.6 In addition, the project site slopes gently from east to west, with elevations ranging from approximately 11 feet to 27 feet asl, and does not have any steep slopes. Given that the project site is not mapped in a landslide zone and the site does not contain any slopes that could be subject to landslide risks, development of the project site with industrial uses and associated improvements would not result in on- or off-site landslide hazards.

Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is associated with terrain near free faces such as excavations, channels, or open bodies of water. The project site slopes gently from east to west, with elevations ranging from approximately 11 feet to 27 feet asl, and does not have any steep slopes. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration determined that based on topographic and lithologic data, the risk of lateral spreading is low to negligible at the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks related to lateral spreading.

Subsidence/Settlement
Subsidence is the settlement of soils of very low density, generally from either oxidation of organic material, desiccation and shrinkage, or both, following drainage.

Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years, and is a common consequence of liquefaction. As discussed above, during the field exploration of the project site, undocumented fill was encountered at a depth of approximately four feet below ground surface at Boring 1-B5. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, non-engineered fill can undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. ENGEO, Inc. provides the recommendation that the extent and depth of non-engineered fill on-site should be evaluated further, and that the undocumented fill should be removed and replaced with competent native soil. Without removal of the non-engineered fill, the proposed project could be subject to subsidence/settlement.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sand and/or silts lose their physical strength temporarily during earthquake-induced shaking and behave as a liquid. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, finegrained sand. As discussed above, ENGEO, Inc. calculated liquefaction potential of the on-site soils in accordance with the standards of the CBC and the ASCE.

Based on the liquefaction analysis prepared as part of the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, liquefiable soil was identified at 1-CPT1 at a depth of 25 to 30 feet below ground surface. However, according to ENGEO, Inc. a sufficiently thick non-liquefiable “capping” layer is present above the liquefiable soil that would prevent significant vertical settlement at the site. As such, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration determined that while liquefaction of the select subsurface soil layers is possible at the project site, the overall ground surface deformation, as a result of theoretical liquefaction-induced settlement, would not be considered severe. Nonetheless, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration concluded that the results of the liquefaction 6 Department of Conservation. CGS Information Warehouse: Landslides. Available at:
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/. Accessed January 2023.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

analysis are preliminary, and should be further evaluated with a design-level geotechnical exploration. Without confirmation from such a report, the potential exists for the proposed project to be exposed to substantial risks related to liquefaction.

Collapse
As discussed above, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and is not underlain by active fault segments. Additionally, all structures constructed as part of the proposed project would be required to adhere to the provisions of the most recent version of the CBSC in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

Structures built according to the seismic design provisions of current building codes would be able to resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural damage. Given the project’s adherence to the CBSC requirements, the proposed project would not be subject to substantial risks associated with building collapse.

Expansive Soils
According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration performed ENGEO, Inc., the project site contains soils made of clay with a high to very high expansion potential.

Expansive soils have the potential to compromise the structural integrity of project features, which could be a significant impact. Damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soil can be reduced by capping the expansive soil with a blanket of low-expansive soil, using a rigid mat foundation that is designed to resist the settlement and heave of expansive soil, or by deepening footings to below the zone of significant moisture fluctuation. The Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration includes recommendations to reduce potential damage to the proposed project, such as underlying building pads that extend at least ten feet laterally beyond building areas with low-expansive fill or lime treatment, and designing other structural elements, such as pavements and flatwork, for highly expansive soil conditions. Other corrective actions may include ground treatment processes and direction of surface water away from foundation soils. The project applicant would select one or more of the measures in consultation with qualified engineers before grading activities begin. However, without implementation of the aforementioned corrective actions, the proposed project would have the potential to be exposed to substantial risks related to expansive soils.

Conclusion
From a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project are implemented into the project design and specifications, the geological and soil conditions on the site would be adequate to support development of the proposed project. However, conformance with such recommendations cannot be ensured, and, as a result, a significant impact could occur related to subsidence/settlement, liquefaction, and/or expansive soils.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.6-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the grading plans shall incorporate the geotechnical recommendations specified in the Preliminary Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project, including, but not limited to, earthwork recommendations, foundation wall recommendations, pavement recommendations, exterior flatwork recommendations, and the preparation of a design-level geotechnical report. All grading and foundation plans for the development must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official, or their representative(s), prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to ensure that recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.

4.6-4 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Due to the regional nature of geologic conditions, the potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be the same for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels portions of the project site. As such, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project. Because installation of the proposed off-site force main would occur either in existing roadway ROW or in other previously disturbed areas, construction of the off-site force main would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
As discussed above, the 474.4-acre project site is currently undeveloped, and generally consists of seasonal grasses. Drainage channels cross the site in north to south and east to west directions, and additional channels border the project site along the southern and western borders. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, the soils within the site were mapped as Holocene Alluvium, Holocene Basin Deposits, and the Middle Unit of the Riverbank Formation, which are common to the project region. Therefore, the project site is unlikely to contain unique geologic features, and project buildout would not result in any impacts to such resources.

According to the City’s 2040 General Plan MEIR, although discoveries of paleontological resources have been made within the City in the past, the City is not considered sensitive for the presence of paleontological resources. In addition, the localities in which paleontological resources have been discovered within Sacramento County are not located in the project vicinity; as discussed above, the closest known paleontological resources found within the County were discovered at the former Arco Area site, approximately two miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the project site does not contain any known paleontological resources.

Although the proposed project would not have the potential to result in the destruction of unique geological features, previously unknown paleontological resources could exist within the project site and off-site improvement areas. Therefore, grounddisturbing activity, such as grading, trenching, or excavating associated with Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

implementation of the proposed project, could have the potential to disturb or destroy unknown paleontological resources, and a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.6-4 Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease. The City of Sacramento Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian, at the developer’s expense, for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian shall submit to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources.

Work may only resume in the area of discovery when the preceding work has occurred.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 6, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

4.6-5 Cumulative impacts to geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological resources. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Due to the regional nature of geologic conditions, such conditions would be the same for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels portions of the project site. As such, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
Impacts to geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological resources related to implementation of the proposed project are analyzed throughout this chapter. As discussed above, provided that the recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project are implemented into the project design and specifications, the geological and soil conditions on the site would be adequate to support development of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure 4.6- 3, which requires preparation and submittal of a final design-level geotechnical report, Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.6 – Geology and Soils

would ensure that such recommendations are implemented, thereby reducing projectspecific impacts related to soil stability to a less-than-significant level. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 would ensure that any previously unknown paleontological resources discovered on-site would not be adversely impacted.

While some geologic characteristics may affect regional construction practices, impacts and mitigation measures are primarily site-specific and project-specific. For example, impacts resulting from development on expansive soils at one project site are not worsened by impacts from development on expansive soils or undocumented fill at another project site. Rather, the soil conditions, and the implications of such conditions for each project, are independent.

As such, the potential for cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological resources, to which implementation of the proposed project might contribute, is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.7.1 INTRODUCTION
The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter of the EIR describes existing and potentially occurring hazards and hazardous materials within the project area. The chapter includes a discussion of potential impacts posed by such hazards to the environment. In addition, surrounding land uses are discussed in order to provide an assessment of whether the project could impact surrounding land uses. The question of whether surrounding land uses could impact the proposed project is not a question requiring analysis under CEQA.1 The Hazards and Hazardous Materials chapter is primarily based on information drawn from a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (see Appendix H) prepared for the project site by Environmental Investigation Services, Inc. (EIS),2 as well as the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan,3 and the City of Sacramento 2040 Master EIR (MEIR).4 As discussed further in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is divided into two portions: the industrial park, which consists of the majority of the western portion and the northeast corner of the overall site, and the nonparticipating parcels, primarily located in the southeastern portion of the overall site. While the proposed project would require approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment and Annexation of the entire project site into the City limits, only the industrial park is currently proposed for development. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way.

4.7.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following section includes a definition of hazardous materials and descriptions of the existing conditions associated with the project site related to hazards and hazardous materials.

Hazardous Materials
The term hazardous substance refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. A material is defined as hazardous if the material appears on a list of hazardous materials prepared by a federal, State, or local regulatory agency or if the material has characteristics defined as hazardous by such an agency. The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA), 1 Per the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (CBIA), the California Supreme Court held that “agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project's impact on the environment – and not the environment's impact on the project – that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions.” (Id. at pp. 377-378.). 2 Environmental Investigation Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 3880, 3990, 4690, and 4696 Bayou Way, Sacramento County, California. September 14, 2022. 3 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Adopted February 27, 2024. 4 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. August 2023.

4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) defines hazardous waste, as found in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b), as follows:
[…] its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics: (1) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness; (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed.

The following discussion focuses on the potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) associated with the project site. A REC indicates the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances in, on, or at a property due to any release into the environment, under conditions indicative of a release to the environment, or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.5
Additionally, the following includes a discussion of historical RECs associated with the project site. A historical REC indicates a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with a property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority. A historical REC does not have any property use restrictions, and, thus, does not have any use limitations in respect to future activities on the property. The following discussion also addresses the possibility of controlled RECs (CRECs) associated with the project site. A CREC is a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls.

Project Area Conditions
The project site currently consists of vacant, fallow agricultural land. Unnamed drainage canals run roughly north-south in both the western and eastern portions of the site. Numerous unimproved dirt roads provide access to the interior of the project site, which is subdivided into multiple agricultural plots. A cell tower with a diesel generator is located in the northwestern portion of the site. In addition, during a site reconnaissance, EIS observed a front-loading tractor in the northwestern part of site, along Bayou Way, and stockpiled soils to the west of the cell tower area.

The project site was historically used as hay fields, with intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Surrounding properties were also predominantly used as agricultural fields with rice fields or hay fields, with the exception of a single-family residence located to the south, and a Life Storage facility and the Westlake single-family residential subdivision constructed around 2006 to the east.

Surrounding existing land uses currently include a Life Storage facility and the Westlake singlefamily residential subdivision to the east; the West Drainage Canal, vacant agricultural land, open space land, and the Paso Verde K-8 School to the south; undeveloped agricultural land to the west; the Sacramento International Airport to the northwest, across I-5; and the Metro Air Park, 5 ASTM International. ASTM E1527, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. 2013.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center, and the under-construction Northlake (Greenbriar) subdivision to the north, across I-5.

Potential On-Site Recognized Environmental Conditions
Based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site, the following discussion includes potential RECs within the project area.

Pesticides
Between the 1940s and 1970s, organochloride pesticides (OCPs) were commonly used in the U.S. for public health vector control, agricultural crop production, and pest control around structures. Although most OCPs were banned or withdrawn from use in the 1970s (including DDT), the compounds remain in the environment where surface soils associated with historical agricultural and termite control pesticides are present. As discussed above, the project site was historically used as hay fields, with possible intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020.

Therefore, the potential exists for OCPs to be present in on-site soils.

Underground and Aboveground Storage Tanks
The Phase I ESA inspected the project site for indications of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) (e.g., pavement bolts, containers, reservoirs, and generators) and underground storage tanks (USTs) (e.g., vent piping, dispensing equipment, pavement variations, and fill ports). Based on a record review conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, one building permit described the installation of an emergency backup generator with a 190-gallon subbase diesel fuel tank on existing concrete pad, in the area of the cell tower in the northwest portion of the project site (on APN 225- 0020-035). However, leaking or staining was not observed. One approximately 300-gallon water tank, and one approximately 500-gallon trailer-mounted water tank were identified near the eastern boundary of the site. However, the Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs associated with the water tanks. The Phase I ESA also determined that the emergency backup generator with a 190-gallon subbase diesel fuel tank was not an REC. In addition, the Phase I ESA noted that indications of USTs were not observed on-site.

Stockpiled Soils
Stockpiled soils were observed in the northwest portion of the project site, to the east of the cell tower. The soils were determined to likely be associated with the recent construction of the Metro Air Parkway-I-5 bridge and interchange. Due to the lack of documentation associated with the source of the stockpiled soils, the Phase I ESA determined that the presence of unknown origin soil stockpile on the project site represents a potential environmental concern.

Solid Waste
The project site was inspected for indications of solid waste disposal (e.g., mounding, depressions, fill material, bins, debris, and active human use). Minor scattered solid waste was detected near the intersection of the eastern unnamed drainage canal and Bayou Way (on APN 225-0020-017). In addition, scattered solid waste including tires, burnt debris, and waste cement was detected between Bayou Way and I-5 (on APN 225-0030-024). Furthermore, small quantities (less than two quarts) of used motor oil and oil-stained cardboard were identified near the intersection of the eastern unnamed drainage canal and Bayou Way (on APN 225-0020-017).

The Phase I ESA determined that the small quantities of waste are not an REC. However, EIS recommended that identified solid wastes be removed prior to redevelopment of the site.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), often found in electrical equipment such as transformers, ballasts in fluorescent lighting, circuit breakers and switch gears, and hydraulic fluids, contain toxic compounds which attach themselves to human fat tissue and may act as possible carcinogens if ingested. One pad-mounted transformer associated with the cell tower near Bayou Way is located in the northwest portion of the project site (on APN 225-0020). However, leaking or staining was not observed. Other potential PCB-containing equipment within the project site were not observed during site reconnaissance. Thus, the Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs associated with PCBs project area.

Asbestos-Containing Building Materials
Asbestos is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals used commercially for their desirable physical properties. The prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious illnesses including malignant lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis. In the industrialized world, asbestos was phased out of building products mostly in the 1970s, with most of the remainder phased out by the 1980s. For buildings constructed prior to 1980 (29 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1926.11) all thermal system insulation and surface materials must be designated as presumed asbestos-containing building materials (ACBMs) unless proved otherwise through sampling. While the project site has been used as hay fields, with intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020, the Phase I ESA noted that buildings were located within the project site prior to 1937. Therefore, while the structures have been removed from the site, residual ACBM may be present within the areas of former structures.

Lead-Based Paint
Lead is considered to be a harmful environmental pollutant. Within the U.S., most homes and other buildings built before 1960 contain heavily leaded paint. Some homes built as recently as 1978 may also contain lead paint. As discussed above, while the project site has been used as hay fields, with intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020, the Phase I ESA noted that buildings were located within the project site prior to 1937. Thus, while the structures have been removed from the site, residual lead-based paint (LBP) may be present within the areas of former structures.

Nearby Recognized Environmental Conditions
In an effort to fulfill due diligence requirements, EIS employed the services of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) to identify sites listed on regulatory agency databases within approximate minimum search distances from the subject property with potential of existing environmental problems. The following sites were identified in the project vicinity:
 AT&T Mobility – 4690 Bayou Way;
 Kaweah Construction Company – 4401 N Bayou Way;
 MSA: Metro Air Park Storm Drain D-49 – 4565 West Bayou Road;  West Lakeside Middle School/High School Expansion – Snelling Lane/Westlake Parkway;  Northborough Elementary School – Banfield Drive/Minden Way;  Westlake Elementary School – Del Paso Road/Wyndview Way;  Natomas Middle School – 3700 Del Paso Road; and
 Proposed Terrace Park Elementary School – Greg Thatch Circle & Tres Peizas Way.

The Phase I ESA did not identify any potential risks to the project site associated with the above listed properties.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Nearest Airports
The closest public use airport to the project site is Sacramento International Airport, which is located approximately one mile to the northwest of the project site. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrips. According to the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), the western portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 3, which is designated “Inner Turning Zone”, the south-central portion of the site is located within Safety Zone 4, which is designated “Outer Approach/Departure Zone”, and the eastern portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 6, which is designated “Traffic Pattern Zone” (see Figure 4.7-1).

4.7.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following discussion contains a summary of regulatory controls pertaining to hazardous substances, including federal, State, and local laws and ordinances.

Federal Regulations
Federal agencies that regulate hazardous materials include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Institute of Health (NIH). Prior to August 1992, the principal agency at the federal level regulating the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste was the USEPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As of August 1, 1992, however, the California DTSC was authorized to implement the State’s hazardous waste management program for the USEPA. The USEPA continues to regulate hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The following federal laws and related regulations govern hazardous materials.

Occupational Safety and Health Act
Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (29 U.S.C. Section 651 et seq. [1970]) to ensure worker and workplace safety. Their goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. In order to establish standards for workplace health and safety, the Act also created the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) as the research institution for OSHA. OSHA is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor that oversees the administration of the Act and enforces standards in all 50 states. OSHA requires 40 hours of training for hazardous materials operators, as well as an annual eight-hour refresher course, which includes training regarding personal safety, hazardous materials storage and handling, and emergency response.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The CERCLA (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq. [1980]) provides a federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous-waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, the USEPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup. The USEPA cleans up orphan sites when potentially responsible parties cannot be identified or located, or when they fail to act. Through various enforcement tools, USEPA obtains private party cleanup through orders, consent decrees, and other small party settlements.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7
– Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Figure 4.7-1
Airport Safety Zones
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The USEPA also recovers costs from financially viable individuals and companies once a response action has been completed. The USEPA is authorized to implement the CERCLA in all 50 states and U.S. territories.

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, (Title III; Section 305(a)) reauthorized CERCLA to continue cleanup activities around the country. Several site-specific amendments, definitions clarifications, and technical requirements were added to the legislation, including additional enforcement authorities. In addition, Title III of SARA authorized the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). SARA, Title III provides funding for training in emergency planning, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities associated with hazardous chemicals. Title III of SARA addresses concerns about emergency preparedness for hazardous chemicals, and emphasizes helping communities meet their responsibilities in preparing to handle chemical emergencies and increasing public knowledge and access to information on hazardous chemicals present in their communities.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The RCRA (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq. [1976]) gives USEPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave," which includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled USEPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization and phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste as well as corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for USEPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive UST program. States have the authority to implement individual hazardous waste programs in lieu of the RCRA as long as the state program is as stringent as federal RCRA requirements and is approved by the USEPA.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq. [1976]) provides USEPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics and pesticides. TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including PCBs, asbestos, radon, and LBP.

U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the DOT’s Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. The office formulates, issues, and revises hazardous materials regulations under the Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law. The hazardous materials regulations cover hazardous materials definitions and classifications, hazard communications, shipper and carrier operations, training and security requirements, and packaging and container specifications. The hazardous materials transportation regulations are codified in 49 CFR Parts 100–185.

The hazardous materials transportation regulations require carriers transporting hazardous materials to receive required training in the handling and transportation of hazardous materials.

Training requirements include pre-trip safety inspections, use of vehicle controls and equipment Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

including emergency equipment, procedures for safe operation of the transport vehicle, training on the properties of the hazardous material being transported, and loading and unloading procedures. All drivers must possess a commercial driver’s license as required by 49 CFR Part 383. Vehicles transporting hazardous materials must be properly placarded. In addition, the carrier is responsible for the safe unloading of hazardous materials at the site, and operators must follow specific procedures during unloading to minimize the potential for an accidental release of hazardous materials.

State Regulations
Cal-EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) establish rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the management of hazardous waste. Within Cal-EPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the State agency, for the management of hazardous materials and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL). The following discussion contains the applicable State laws.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Cal-EPA and the Office of Emergency Services (OES) establish regulations governing the use of hazardous materials in California. Within Cal-EPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility for hazardous waste management. Enforcement of regulations can be delegated to local jurisdictions that enter into agreements with DTSC for the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law. Along with the DTSC, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for implementing regulations pertaining to management of soil and groundwater investigation and cleanup. The RWQCB’s regulations are contained in Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The DTSC, RWQCB, and/or a local agency typically oversees investigation and cleanup of contaminated sites.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
The DTSC was established to protect California against threats to public health and degradation to the environment and to restore properties degraded by past environmental contamination.

Through statutory mandates, DTSC cleans up existing contamination, regulates management of hazardous wastes, and prevents pollution by working with businesses to reduce hazardous waste and use of toxic materials in California. DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste in California. In addition, DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program oversees the cleanup of State Superfund sites. State Superfund sites are additionally known as Annual Workplan sites, listed sites, or Cortese List sites. Superfund sites demonstrate evidence of a hazardous substance release or releases that could pose a significant threat to public health and/or the environment. DTSC requires responsible parties to cleanup such sites. When responsible parties cannot be found or where they do not take proper and timely action, DTSC may use State funds to undertake the cleanup.

Cortese List
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(a), the DTSC shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2. All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to former Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.

3. All information received by the DTSC pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land.

4. All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.

California Code of Regulations
Hazardous waste is characterized and defined in CCR, Title 22, Sections 66261.20-24. Soils that meet the descriptions of the characteristics of hazardous waste defined in Sections 66261.20-24 and contain contaminants above regulatory screening levels are considered hazardous waste and must be handled and disposed of as such. The CCR includes the California Health and Safety Code.

California Health and Safety Code
The handling and storage of hazardous materials is regulated at the federal level by the USEPA under CERCLA, as amended by the SARA. Under SARA Title III, a nationwide emergency planning and response program was established that imposed reporting requirements for businesses which store, handle, or produce significant quantities of hazardous or acutely toxic substances as defined under federal laws. SARA Title III required each state to implement a comprehensive system to inform federal authorities, local agencies, and the public when a significant quantity of hazardous, acutely toxic substances are stored or handled at a facility.

Ammonia is an example of an acutely hazardous material (AHM) that is regulated by the California OES under the California Accidental Release Program (CalARP), the USEPA under the Risk Management Program (40 CFR 68), and the OSHA under the Process Safety Management Program (OSHA 1910.119). The CalARP and Risk Management Program require that all facilities that store, handle, or use AHMs above a minimum quantity, known as the threshold planning quantity, are required to develop a plan and prepare supporting documentation that summarizes the facility’s potential risk to the local community and identifies safety measures to reduce potential risks to the public.

The HWCL, Chapter 6.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, is administered by the CalEPA to regulate hazardous wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the USEPA approves the California program, both the State and federal laws apply in California.

The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and about 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

California Vehicle Code Section 31303
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are the enforcement agencies for hazardous materials transportation regulations. Hazardous materials and waste transporters are responsible for complying with all applicable packaging, labeling, and shipping regulations. California Vehicle Code Section 31303 regulates the transport of hazardous materials.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, State, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous material incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is managed by the Governor’s OES, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including Cal-EPA, CHP, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Central Valley RWQCB, and the Sacramento Fire Department.

Unified Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program On January 1, 1996, Cal-EPA adopted implementing regulations and implemented a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management regulatory program (Unified Program), to consolidate the administration of specified statutory requirements for the regulation of hazardous wastes and materials. The Unified Program is implemented at the local level by government agencies certified by the Secretary of Cal-EPA. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is responsible for implementation of the Unified Program. CUPA is certified and responsible for oversight of the following consolidated programs: Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans); California Accidental Release Program; Underground Storage Tank Program; Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act; Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs; and California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Materials Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements.

Local Regulations
The following are the local environmental laws and policies relevant to hazards and hazardous materials.

Sacramento County
The County of Sacramento OES implements the State’s Right-to-Know Ordinance that gives the OES the authority to inventory hazardous materials used by businesses. The County is also in the process of collecting information regarding existing and proposed locations of hazardous material disposal, storage, handling, and transportation facilities.

Additionally, the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (EMD) is responsible for enforcing the State regulations on both the city and county level, governing hazardous waste generators, hazardous waste storage, underground storage tanks (including inspections, enforcement, and removals), and environmental health (including inspections and enforcement). Sacramento County's Environmental Management Department has been designated as the Sacramento region's CUPA by Cal-EPA. The Program is housed within Department's Environmental Compliance Division. CUPA Programs are administered throughout the County of Sacramento and its incorporated cities, including the City of Sacramento.

EMD also regulates the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in the County and abandonment of wells and septic systems in the County by issuing permits, monitoring regulatory compliance, investigating complaints, and other activities. EMD reviews technical aspects of hazardous waste site cleanups and oversees remediation of certain contaminated sites resulting from leaking underground storage tanks. EMD is also responsible for providing technical assistance to public and private entities that seek to minimize the generation of hazardous waste.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Sacramento County Area Plan
The Sacramento County EMD established the Sacramento County Area Plan (SCAP) as a guideline for hazardous material related accidents or occurrences. The purpose of the SCAP is “to delineate responsibilities and actions by various agencies in Sacramento County required to meet the obligation to protect the health and welfare of the populace, natural resources (environment), and the public and private properties involving hazardous materials.” The SCAP is used for making initial decisions at a hazardous materials incident. The SCAP uses Level I, Level II and Level III classifications for hazardous material incidents, which are determined by the following planning basis:
 Level of technical expertise required to abate the incident;  Extent of Municipal, County, and State Government involved;  Extent of evacuation of civilians; and
 Extent of injuries and/or deaths.

Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan
The Sacramento County Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan (SCMDP) was established to address a planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. The SCMDP focuses on operational concepts related to large-scale disasters, which can pose major threats to life and property requiring unusual emergency responses. The SCMDP was designed to include Sacramento County as part of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), which assigns responsibilities to support implementation of the SCMDP and to ensure successful response during a major disaster.

City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
Goals and policies from the City’s 2040 General Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials are presented below.

Environmental Justice Element
Goal EJ-1 Clean air, water, and soil with no segment of the community disproportionately burdened by environmental conditions.

Policy EJ-1.8 Site Contamination. The City shall ensure buildings and sites are or have been investigated for the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination before
development, where applicable. The City shall continue to require remediation and construction techniques for adequate protection of construction workers, future occupants, adjacent residents, and the environment, and ensure they are
adequately protected from hazards associated with
contamination.

Public Facility and Safety
Goal PFS-2 Effective emergency preparedness for and response to natural and human-made hazards.

Policy PFS-2.1 Hazard Mitigation Planning. The City shall continue to use the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Comprehensive Floodplain Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Management Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and
Operational Area Plan to guide actions and investments
addressing disasters such as flooding, dam or levee failure, hazardous material spills, epidemics, fires, extreme weather, major transportation accidents, earthquakes, and terrorism.

Airport Land Use Commission
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Board of Directors serves as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties. The State Aeronautics Act (Public Utilities Code Sections 21670 et seq.) identifies the role and responsibilities of ALUCs in land use planning. The Act is intended to ensure that proposed land uses in areas around public-use airports are compatible with continued airport operations.

Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan One of the ALUC’s primary functions is to develop and adopt an ALUCP for each public-use airport within its jurisdiction. The ALUCP includes land use policies focused on four compatibility factors: safety, noise, airspace, and overflight. The Sacramento International ALUCP was adopted in December 2013.

The basic function of the Sacramento International ALUCP is to promote compatibility between Sacramento International Airport and the surrounding land uses. The ALUCP establishes of a set of compatibility criteria applicable to new development located within the Airport Influence Area established by the ALUCP. The ALUCP establishes zones regarding noise compatibility, safety compatibility, airspace protected, and overflight compatibility, and establishes criteria for land uses in each zone.

4.7.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment;
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;  Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (see Chapter 5, Effects Not Found to be Significant); and/or  Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires (see Chapter 5, Effects Not Found to be Significant).

As noted above, issues related to whether the proposed project would result in the following are discussed in Chapter 5, Effects Not Found to be Significant, of this EIR:
 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and
 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Method of Analysis
Site conditions and impacts for this chapter are based primarily on the Phase I ESA prepared for the project site. The goal of a Phase I ESA is to identify whether RECs exist at a property, where RECs are defined by ASTM as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. […].” The Phase I ESA meets or exceeds the requirements of the ASTM “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E 1527-05.” The Phase I ESA included a review of federal, State, and local environmental databases for information regarding documented and suspected releases of regulated materials within the project site vicinity based upon reference to an environmental database search performed by EDR, an environmental database search firm. Additional historical use information regarding the project site and surrounding properties was pulled from the following sources:
 Aerial photographs;
 Fire insurance (Sanborn) maps;
 Building department records;
 Chain-of-title documents;
 City directory abstracts;
 Land use records; and
 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Maps.

Historical photographs of the project site dating to 1937 and historic topographic maps dating to 1907 were reviewed to provide a historical context of the project site. In addition, a site reconnaissance of the project site was conducted on September 2, 2022. The site reconnaissance consisted of walking the project site and driving by nearby adjacent properties from public vantages to observe apparent uses. Photographs of the site were taken during the site reconnaissance.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Additional information within this chapter was sourced from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan,6 and the General Plan MEIR.7 Determinations of significance are made in this chapter based on existing and potentially occurring hazards and hazardous materials within the project area, and the potential impacts posed by such hazards to the public or the environment.

Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The project site conditions have been compared to the standards of significance presented above in order to determine the project’s impact significance. If significant impacts are identified for the construction and operational phases of the proposed project, recommended mitigation measures have been included to reduce the identified impacts to less-than-significant levels.

4.7-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Given that development of both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels would result in similar land uses, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
The proposed project would include a total of approximately 5,204,500 square feet (sf) of industrial uses within the industrial park footprint, as well as approximately 1,404,800 sf of future industrial uses within the nonparticipating parcels. While the future tenants of the proposed industrial buildings are not currently known, a large segment of the current retail market consists of regional suppliers, such as Amazon and Walmart, that deliver goods directly to consumers. As such, a need exists for light industrial warehousing to act as fulfillment centers for regional retailers. Operations associated with the proposed project would be typical of other warehouses in the City, and would be governed by the uses permitted for the site per the City’s Municipal Code and 2040 General Plan, as well as the Development Agreement and Planned Unit Development (PUD) established for the project site.

While not currently anticipated, in the event that future operations associated with the proposed warehouses involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, such materials would be safely managed in accordance with applicable regulations and would be subject to City review depending on the type or quantity of chemicals proposed for use. Chapter 8.64 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that any use of hazardous materials be disclosed to the City’s fire department. In addition, Chapter 8.60 of the City’s Municipal Code includes regulations regarding hazardous materials cleanup, in the event that any hazardous substance or waste is unlawfully 6 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Adopted February 27, 2024. 7 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. August 2023.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

released, discharged, deposited, or abandoned upon or into any property, water, or facilities within the City.

The proposed project would also include six lots comprised of retail/highway commercial uses. While the future commercial uses of the retail/highway commercial parcels are not currently known, the majority of commercial land uses are not typically associated with the routine transport, use, disposal, or generation of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Maintenance and operation of the proposed uses may use common cleaning products, fertilizers, and herbicides on-site, any of which could contain potentially hazardous chemicals; however, such products would be expected to be used in accordance with label instructions. Due to the regulations governing use of such products and the amount anticipated to be used on the site, routine use of such products would not represent a substantial risk to public health or the environment.

It should be noted that the project seeks a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow fueling station services to be included in the highway commercial uses, which would involve the routine transport and use of gasoline and diesel fuels. Fuel would be stored on-site in USTs, which would dispense fuels through fuel dispensers. In addition, storage and selling of automotive fluids could occur associated with a potential convenience store at the future fueling station uses. Nonetheless, fuel pump dispensers at the fueling station would be required to be equipped with automatic shutoffs and other safety devices and signage as required by applicable fire, building, and health codes. In accordance with CCR, Title 23, Section 2635(b), USTs would be required to have spill containment and overfill prevention systems.

In addition, any proposed fueling station use on-site would be subject to regulations by the Sacramento County EMD, which is the CUPA for the City. The Unified Program is a statewide program overseen by the Cal-EPA that delegates the responsibility of applying regulatory standards established by State agencies to local agencies through inspections, permitting, and enforcement activities. The Unified Program encompasses regulatory standards from the OES, DTSC, Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM), the SWRCB, and Cal-EPA. Pursuant to the requirements established by Sacramento County EMD as the CUPA, on-site fueling station uses would be required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMP) to ensure impacts related to the proposed USTs would not occur. The HMP is required for businesses with hazardous materials on-site and must detail the quantity of such materials stored on the premises, spill prevention and control measures, and an emergency response plan to address potential incidents related to such materials including a release, fire, and/or disaster. In addition, underground storage of hazardous materials is subject to the provisions of CCR, Title 23, and the transport of fuels to the project site would be required to adhere to the Hazardous Materials Regulations stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Parts 100-185, which regulate the transportation of hazardous material and hazardous waste.

With respect to the proposed off-site force main, the new sewer infrastructure would be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the SacSewer Standards and Specifications. Compliance with the aforementioned standards would ensure the off-site force main is constructed in conformance with proper materials and sizing. Thus, operation of the off-site force main would not create Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine conveyance of wastewater flows.

Construction activities associated with development of the industrial park and off-site force main, as well as construction activities associated with future buildout of the nonparticipating parcels, would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives. The project contractor is required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local County ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25510(a), except as provided in subdivision (b),8 the handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of a handler, shall, upon discovery, immediately report any release or threatened release of a hazardous material to the unified program agency (in the case of the proposed project, the Sacramento County EMD) in accordance with the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25510(a). The handler or an employee, authorized representative, agent, or designee of the handler shall provide all State, city, or county fire or public health or safety personnel and emergency response personnel with access to the handler's facilities. In the case of the proposed project, the contractors are required to notify the Sacramento County EMD in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous material, who would then monitor the conditions and recommend appropriate remediation measures.

Based on the above, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.7-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the analysis below and with
implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.

The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project by EIS included an analysis of potential RECs within the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels. Therefore, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. Because installation of the proposed off-site force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would occur either in existing roadway right-of-way (ROW) or in other previously disturbed, paved areas, 8 Subdivision (a) does not apply to a person engaged in the transportation of a hazardous material on a highway that is subject to, and in compliance with, the requirements of Sections 2453 and 23112.5 of the Vehicle Code.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

construction of the force main would not be anticipated to disturb areas containing existing RECs.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
As discussed previously, the Phase I ESA did not identify any RECs associated with PCB containing equipment on-site, the aboveground storage tanks, or the small quantities of solid waste identified on-site during site reconnaissance. In addition, the Phase I ESA did not identify use of rodenticides as a potential REC. Therefore, the following includes a discussion of the remaining environmental conditions associated with the project site, including the potential presence of residual pesticides, on-site soil stockpiles of unknown origin, and the potential presence of residual ACBMs and LBP.

Pesticides
As discussed above, the project site was historically used as hay fields, with possible intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Therefore, the potential exists for OCPs to be present in on-site soils. The Phase I ESA noted that residual agricultural chemicals typically are not present at concentrations that would influence off-site disposal of soil or pose a health risk to commercial site users when the land use is limited to rice fields and hay fields, and, thus, determined that the presence of OCPs would not be considered an REC. However, soil sampling has not been conducted onsite to determine whether residual OCPs are present within on-site soils. If such materials are present in on-site soils, a potential health hazard could occur during project construction. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the Phase I ESA recommended that shallow soils on-site be tested for residual pesticides prior to development of the proposed project.

Stockpiled Soils
While hazardous materials, as well as odors, surface staining, stressed vegetation, or other obvious evidence of the presence of hazardous materials, were not observed in association with the on-site stockpiled soils, due to the lack of documentation associated with the source of the stockpiled soils, the potential exists that the soil stockpile may be contaminated, or hazardous materials may be present. As such, the Phase I ESA determined that the soil stockpiles on the project site represent a potential environmental concern, and recommended that the soil stockpile be sampled prior to any redevelopment of Parcel 1 and/or Parcel 6A, as the stockpiles are located in within the general vicinity of such parcels.

Asbestos-Containing Building Materials and Lead-Based Paint According to the Phase I ESA, buildings were located within the project site prior to 1937. Therefore, while the structures have been removed from the site, residual ACBM and LBP may be present within the areas of former structures. The potential presence ACBMs and lead contamination is considered an REC. During demolition and grounddisturbing activities associated with the proposed project, construction workers could come into contact with, and be exposed to, ACBMs or LBP materials present in the on-site soils associated with the former structures. Additionally, workers could potentially be exposed to elevated concentrations of lead in the soil in the vicinity of the structures. Collection and disposal of ACBMs and lead materials, including LBP, by untrained personnel could cause asbestos and lead dust emissions to be Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

transported off-site, resulting in the release of hazardous material into the environment. Thus, a significant impact could occur.

Conclusion
Based on the above, evidence of RECs, controlled RECs or historical RECs was not identified in connection with the project site. However, development of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, particularly regarding contaminated soils associated with residual OCPs, the existing on-site soil stockpiles, and/or ACBM and LBP. Therefore, a significant impact could occur.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.7-2(a) Prior to approval of grading permits, a surficial soil sample laboratory analysis shall be conducted on the project site. Once the soils are collected, the soils shall be tested for OCPs, lead, and asbestos. If soil contaminates are not found, further action is not required; however, if OCPs, lead, or asbestos is found to be higher than the allowable thresholds, the assessment shall include the appropriate mitigation including, but not limited to, soil remediation to an acceptable total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) level per applicable State and federal regulations by excavation of the contaminated soil, and subsequent transportation and disposal off-site at an appropriate Class I or Class II facility permitted by DTSC; or by properly capping the contaminated soil, in compliance with DTSC regulations (e.g., placing soils underneath project roadways, etc.). All recommended mitigation measures shall be implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.

4.7-2(b) Prior to approval of grading permits for Parcel 1 and/or Parcel 6A, samples of the soil stockpiles on-site shall be obtained for analysis of contaminants of concern and comparison with applicable regulatory screening levels (i.e., Environmental Screening Levels, California Human Health Screening Levels, Regional Screening Levels, etc.). If soil contaminates are not found, further action is not required. However, where the soil contaminant concentrations exceed the applicable regulatory screening levels, the impacted soil shall be excavated and disposed of off-site at a licensed landfill facility to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.

4.7-3 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

As the footprints of the proposed industrial park and nonparticipating parcels are contiguous, and the proposed uses for both project components are similar, the potential for either project component to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be the same. Thus, the following discussion applies to both project components. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
The project site is located approximately 200 feet northwest of Paso Verde K-8 School.

Therefore, the proposed project would be located within 0.25-mile of an existing school. However, as discussed under Impact 4.7-1, while the future tenants of the proposed industrial buildings are not currently known, a large segment of the current retail market consists of regional suppliers, such as Amazon and Walmart, that deliver goods directly to consumers. As such, a need exists for light industrial warehousing to act as fulfillment centers for regional retailers. Operations associated with the proposed project would be typical of other warehouses in the City, and would be governed by the uses permitted for the site per the City’s Municipal Code and 2040 General Plan, as well as the Development Agreement and PUD established for the project site. In addition, the off-site force main would be installed underground and would be designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the SacSewer Standards and Specifications, ensuring the force main is constructed in conformance with proper materials and sizing.

Therefore, while not currently anticipated, in the event that future operations associated with the proposed warehouses involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, such materials would be safely managed in accordance with applicable regulations and would be subject to City review depending on the type or quantity of chemicals proposed for use. In addition, during construction activities, the project contractor is required to comply with all California Health and Safety Codes and local County ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous and toxic materials. Furthermore, as discussed under Impact 4.7-2, evidence of RECs, controlled RECs or historical RECs was not identified in connection with the project site, and Mitigation Measures 4.7-2(a) and 4.7-2(b) would ensure that hazardous conditions associated with residual OCPs, existing soil stockpiles, and/or ACBM and LBP on-site do not occur.

Based on the above information, while the project site is located within 0.25-mile of Paso Verde K-8 School, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.7-4 Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

As the footprints of the proposed industrial park and nonparticipating parcels are contiguous, the potential for either project component to be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be similar. Thus, the following discussion applies to both project components. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed offsite improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
The Cal-EPA has compiled a list of data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements, pursuant to Government Code 65962.5. The components of the Cortese List include the DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List,9 the list of leaking UST sites from the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database, 10 the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the SWRCB, 11 and the list of active Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the SWRCB.12 The project site and off-site force main alignment are not included on any of the aforementioned data resources. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to being located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.7-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. Based on the analysis below, with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than
significant.

As the footprints of the proposed industrial park and nonparticipating parcels are contiguous, the potential for either project component to be located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would be 9 Department of Toxic Substances Control. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed October 2022. 10 State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=5340390861. Accessed October 2022. 11 Cal-EPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. Accessed October 2022. 12 Ibid.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

similar. Thus, the following discussion applies to both project components. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
The nearest public airport to the project site is the Sacramento International Airport, located approximately one mile to the northwest. As a result, the project site is located within the Airport Influence Area. A discussion of noise-related impacts associated with the project site being located within the Sacramento International Airport Influence Area is provided in Chapter 4.10, Noise, of this EIR. Therefore, the following discussion is focused on whether the proposed project would result in a safety hazard associated with the Sacramento International Airport for people working in the project area.

As discussed above, and presented in Figure 4.7-1, according to the Sacramento International ALUCP, the western portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 3, which is designated “Inner Turning Zone”, the south-central portion of the site is located within Safety Zone 4, which is designated “Outer Approach/Departure Zone”, and the eastern portion of the project site is located within Safety Zone 6, which is designated “Traffic Pattern Zone.”
As shown in Table 2 of the ALUCP, all of the uses proposed to be developed on the project site and off-site force main alignment as part of the project, including shortterm lodging (i.e., hotels, motels, other transient lodging); commercial, office, and service uses; and industrial, manufacturing, and storage uses (with the exception of hazardous materials production uses, such as oil refineries and chemical plants, which are not anticipated to be developed on-site) are normally compatible, or conditionally compatible uses within Zones 3, 4, and 6. Table 2 of the ALUCP provides criteria for conditionally compatible uses within each Safety Zone to ensure the uses are compatible with the Sacramento International Airport. The intent of land use safety compatibility criteria is to minimize the risks associated with an off-airport aircraft accident or emergency landing, and the criteria focus on reducing the potential consequences of such events should they occur.

While the future tenants of the proposed industrial buildings, or the future commercial uses of the retail/highway commercial parcels, are not currently known, all future uses would be required to comply with the criteria for conditional uses, as shown in Table 2 of the ALUCP, to ensure safety compatibility with the Sacramento International Airport.

The ALUCP also includes airspace protection compatibility policies, which seek to prevent creation of land use features that can pose hazards to the airspace required by aircraft in flight and have the potential for causing an aircraft accident. The Sacramento International ALUCP does not support any land uses that could attract large numbers of birds, recognizing birds as a potential hazard to aircraft. In addition to damage resulting from high-speed collisions with birds, the ingestion of birds into aircraft engines is a hazard. Damage caused by birds and other wildlife is termed a “strike” or “strike hazard.”
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data indicates that aircrafts using the Sacramento International Airport have experienced a high incidence of bird strikes compared to other airports nationwide. To reduce strike hazards, the ALUCP has placed restrictions on the land uses in the influence area of Sacramento International Airport. The ALUCP states that any uses that attract large flocks of birds shall not be permitted within the Airport Influence Area.

The project site was historically used as hay fields, with possible intermittent use as rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. As such, the project site, in its historical context, has occasionally been an attractant to birds and other waterfowl, which would have increased the hazard potential to aircraft compared with other, non-rice farmed/urban areas located within the Sacramento International Airport’s safety overflight zone. The proposed project would result in the development of the site with industrial and commercial uses, which are not typically uses that would attract birds and other wildlife. While the proposed project would include the development of stormwater retention features (see Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR for further detail), which could periodically result in standing water being present within the project site, permanent water features would not be included in the project design.

The proposed project is located within the 10,000-foot FAA Separation Area for Wildlife Attractants, as shown in Map 5 of the ALUCP. Therefore, the proposed project would be required to comply with ALUCP Policy 3.4.3, which would require that the proposed project document consideration of current FAA or other federal regulations and guidelines pertaining to hazardous wildlife attractants. Because the final design of the stormwater retention features has not yet been determined, the proposed project could introduce stormwater drainage features on the project site that could attract birds to the site. Thus, the proposed project has the potential to result in airspace safety hazards from birds.

Based on the above, a significant impact could occur related to a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area associated with the project being located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.7-5(a) To ensure that the final location and design of the detention basins are consistent with the recommendations of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) regarding wildlife hazards to aviation, the project applicant shall prepare a design and management plan for this proposed drainage feature. This plan shall be prepared in coordination with the Sacramento International Airport Operations Manager before commencement of construction. The plan shall determine an appropriate size and location for the detention basins and incorporate specific design measures deemed sufficient by Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) and the ALUC to minimize bird strikes and other Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

wildlife-related airspace safety hazards in the vicinity of the project area. The plan shall include information sufficient to satisfy requirements for preparation of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and shall be prepared by a qualified wildlife hazard damage biologist.

The project applicant shall submit a detailed design drawing of the proposed detention basins to SCAS for review.

To reduce bird attractants associated with the detention basins, the Wildlife Hazards Management Plan for the detention basins and surrounding landscape shall include the following:
 Any vegetation planted in the vicinity of the detention basins shall consist of plant species that do not provide birds with opportunities for cover, nesting, perching, or feeding. A detailed design plan for landscaping surrounding the detention basins shall be submitted to SCAS for view;
 Signs shall be placed at regular intervals around the perimeter of the detention basins prohibiting the public from feeding any wildlife. The project applicant, and any subsequent property owner shall maintain such signs in good order and replace such signs as necessary. This responsibility shall transfer to the Property Management Association and shall be articulated in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs);
 The CC&Rs shall specify that the project proponent and project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring trash receptacles with covers are provided and properly emptied on a regular basis and replaced as needed;
 Installation of structures near the detention basins that could serve as perches for gulls and other birds shall be minimized.

The CC&Rs, or other mechanism, shall prohibit the future installation of such structures.
 The project applicant shall prohibit all activities and uses that could conflict with implementation of the wildlife hazard management program.

An Adaptive Management Plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. The Adaptive Management Plan shall provide for the long-term management of nuisance birds around the detention basins. The management plan shall involve monitoring and employment of various techniques for controlling birds using adaptive information and bird control products. The Property Management Association, or if none exists, the property owner shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation and continued enforcement of the Adaptive Management Plan and provision of adequate funding. This requirement shall be specified in the CC&Rs or other mechanism. The Adaptive Management Plan shall include the following components:

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Bird control program that involves use of the most efficient and effective bird control techniques available that are practicable and compatible with surrounding land uses.,
 Monitoring program that involves patrolling of the detention basins and assessment of the effectiveness of bird control measures, the presence of potential bird attractants, and the need for modifying or increasing bird control measures,  Funding mechanism such as use of an endowment fund or assessment district to fund the long-term monitoring and adaptive management program.
 Any use of the detention basins that conflicts with the wildlife control program shall be prohibited.
 The Adaptive Management Plan shall include the best available information on various bird control techniques, an explanation of the situations in which various techniques are best employed, and instructions for implementing such techniques. The entity responsible for implementing the management plan shall
employ a qualified and experienced Wildlife Damage
Biologist/Manager (Manager) who shall be responsible for determining which bird control techniques to implement based on information provided in the management plan and the best scientific and commercial information available. The Manager shall be trained in bird control techniques by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services (USDA). The initial cost of such training shall be borne by the project applicant. The cost of subsequent training shall be borne by the Property Management Association. The Manager shall have the
discretion to use new technologies or information regarding bird control provided they are practicable and within the
management budget, and do not conflict with surrounding land uses or storm water control functions of the detention basins.

The monitoring and maintenance portion of the Adaptive Management Plan shall include the following:
 Patrol to ensure the detention basin areas are kept clean and free of refuse and other such material that may attract birds;  Patrol to ensure the public is abiding by rules prohibiting feeding of birds;
 Control of vegetative growth around the detention basins to minimize any vegetation that would attract birds for purpose of cover, nesting, perching, or food;
 Remove all nesting material prior to completion of nest if any birds attempt to nest in areas surrounding the detention basins.

All nest removal activities must comply with provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the federal Endangered Species Act;
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Inspect the detention basin areas to determine whether additional measures are needed to reduce bird use of the detention basins; and
 Aggressively haze wildlife to discourage use of the basins.

If monitoring efforts reveal that additional control efforts are necessary, the Bird Control Program Manager may implement one or more control techniques outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan, or other techniques based on best available scientific and commercial information. Bird control techniques currently being used at airports, on agricultural lands, and in other areas where birds pose a hazard or nuisance shall be described in the Adaptive Management Plan. The Bird Control Program Manager shall have discretion of using any one or more of the techniques based on the need, practicability, and land use compatibility. These techniques may include, but are not limited to, allowing grass to grow over 8 inches in height (currently being employed at some airports).

In addition to these control techniques, the Adaptive Management Plan shall outline an education program for the Property Management Association to implement ensuring that the public is aware of the importance of eliminating bird attractants from the area around the lake.

The public shall be prohibitive from feeding birds around the detention basins and engaging in any other activities within the boundaries of the development project which may attract wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. The public shall be made aware of the purpose and importance of various bird control measures being implemented by the Bird Control Program Manager.

All activities and uses of the detention basins that may conflict with the wildlife control program shall be expressly prohibited.

If the SCAS determines that conditions in the Airport South Industrial Project Development are not consistent with the above listed Management Program, SCAS may take the following actions:
 Notify the property owner that the wildlife control measures are out of compliance;
 County Airport System may, at its option, initiate control measures at the site, with the costs of such measures billed to the owner; and
 In the event of an immediate threat to aircraft safety, County Airport System personnel can take immediate action to remedy the air hazard emergency.

To reduce attractants for Canada geese, American coots, or gulls associated with the detention basins and surrounding landscape the Management Plan shall include the following:

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.7 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Signs shall be posted and identify that feeding birds is prohibited.
 Any nest building activity associated with birds shall be removed including all nesting materials.
 To prevent the establishment of resident populations of Canada geese on the project site, the Bird Control Program Manager shall take the following, but not limited to, actions:
o Chase birds from site,
o Use of noise generators (e.g., pyrotechnic devices,
blank cartridges),
o Use of visual devices (e.g., flags, scarecrows, water sprays)
o Use of chase dogs,
o Live trapping or netting, and/or
o Use of chemical repellants.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 6, Statutorily Required Sections, of this EIR.

4.7-6 Cumulative exposure to potential hazards and increases in the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials. Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than
significant.

As discussed, project-specific impacts associated with hazardous materials related to implementation of the proposed project were found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation. Hazardous materials and other public health and safety issues are generally site-specific and/or project-specific and would not be significantly affected by other development within the project area. Cumulative development projects would be subject to the same federal, State, and local hazardous materials management requirements as would the proposed project, which would minimize potential risks associated with increased hazardous materials use in the community.

Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with hazardous materials transport, storage, and use associated with implementation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, as well as the proposed project, would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8.1 INTRODUCTION
The Hydrology and Water Quality chapter of the EIR describes existing drainage patterns on the project site, current stormwater flows, and stormwater infrastructure. The chapter also evaluates potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to increases in impervious surface area and associated stormwater flows, degradation of water quality, and increases in on- and off-site flooding. Information used for this chapter was primarily drawn from the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project by Wood Rodgers (see Appendix I),1 as well as the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan,2 and the City of Sacramento 2040 Master EIR (MEIR).3 It should be noted that issues associated with water supply and availability are addressed in Chapter 4.11, Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems, of this EIR. In addition, as discussed further in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is divided into two portions: the industrial park, which consists of the majority of the western portion and the northeast corner of the overall site, and the nonparticipating parcels, primarily located in the southeastern portion of the overall site. While the proposed project would require approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment and Annexation of the entire project site into the City limits, only the industrial park is currently proposed for development. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way.

4.8.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The section below describes regional hydrology, the existing drainage patterns within the project site, including peak flows, existing water quality, and groundwater conditions.

Regional Hydrology
The project site is located within the Natomas Basin. The Natomas Basin comprises approximately 50,000 acres spanning northwestern Sacramento County and southwestern Sutter County, and is protected by a levee system under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The levees surrounding the Natomas Basin were decertified by the USACE in December 2008. After that date, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA), the USACE, and the State of California have been, and currently are, working together to fund, design and construct levee improvements to provide 200-year protection to the Natomas Basin.

Over 50 percent of the levee improvements have been constructed, and 100 percent of the funding has been allocated by local, State, and federal agencies to complete all of the levee improvements.
1 Wood Rodgers. Airport South Industrial Preliminary Drainage Study. October 11, 2023. 2 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Adopted February 27, 2024. 3 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. August 2023.

4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

The City of Sacramento is divided into approximately 120 drainage basins. Drainage from most of the basins flows to local rivers or creeks or drainage channels through pumping. The City owns and operates 105 storm drainage pumping stations throughout the City. The drainage canals and local creeks eventually drain into the Sacramento and American Rivers.

In the vicinity of the project site, Reclamation District (RD) 1000 owns and operates the existing canals and pumping plants that move storm drainage from the local area to the Sacramento River.

RD 1000 collects all runoff within the Natomas Basin through a system of interconnected channels and directs this runoff to pumping plants in order to lift the water into the leveed rivers and channels surrounding Natomas.

Project Site and Surrounding Area Drainage
Currently, the 474.4-acre project site consists entirely of undeveloped agricultural land. The site is bound to the north by Interstate 5 (I-5) and to the east by the City of Sacramento (City). A portion of Bayou Way is located within the project site and is generally laid out in an east-to-west direction. Surrounding existing land uses include a Life Storage facility and the Westlake singlefamily residential subdivision to the east; the West Drainage Canal, vacant agricultural land, open space land, and the Paso Verde K-8 School to the south; undeveloped agricultural land to the west, proposed to be developed for the Watt EV Project; the Sacramento International Airport to the northwest, across I-5; and the Metro Air Park, Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center, and the under-construction Northlake (Greenbriar) subdivision to the north, across I-5.

The existing regional drainage facilities are shown in Figure 4.8-1. Off-site runoff within the project vicinity enters the project site along the RD 1000 L Drain of the Lone Tree Canal that flows south through three eight-foot by five-foot box culverts under I-5 (directly north of the project site). Within the project site, the RD 1000 L Drain of the Lone Tree Canal bisects the easterly third of the site from the remainder of the site. The RD 1000 L Drain flows south to join the West Drainage Canal that is located along the southern boundary of the project site. At the confluence of the Lone Tree Canal and the West Drainage Canal, drainage runoff either flows east and south toward Pumping Plant 3 on the Sacramento River, or west and northwest toward Pumping Plant 5 on the Sacramento River. It should be noted that the RD 1000 system in the Lone Tree Canal and West Drainage Canal is operated with a permanent backwater condition whereby the canals contain water at all times of the year. Other than the existing RD 1000 ditches and canals discussed above, the project site does not contain internal drainage system facilities. Peak flows within the West Drainage Canal downstream of the RD 1000 L Drain and West Drainage Canal confluence are currently 465.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). Water surface elevations within the connecting channel just upstream of Pumping Plant 3 are currently 13.789 feet and water surface elevations within the channel upstream of Pumping Plant 5 are currently 14.589 feet.

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the project area, the entirety of the project site is located within Zone A, which is designated as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (see Figure 4.8-2). However, it should be noted that due to the levee improvements described above, portions of the Natomas Basin are now classified as A-99 flood zones, including the eastern portion of the project site. A-99 is an interim designation that allows new development to proceed without elevation verification while the improvements needed to provide 100-year protection are under construction. However, the A-99 flood zone is still a SFHA until construction of the levees is complete, and the levees are certified by FEMA.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Figure 4.8-1
Regional Drainage Facilities
Source: Wood Rodgers, 2023.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Figure 4.8-2
Project Area FEMA FIRM
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Future development of the proposed project would likely require a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and a subsequent Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to remove floodplain designations which inhibit development. The Zone A floodplain would be modified using the RD1000 modeling for interior drainage, prior to the A-99 designation being removed after all levee improvements are constructed.

Water Quality
Activities and/or conditions that have the potential to degrade water quality include but are not limited to, construction activities and urban stormwater runoff.

Construction activities have the potential to cause erosion and sedimentation associated with groundbreaking and clearing activities, which could cause unstabilized soil to be washed or windblown into nearby surface water. In addition, the use of heavy equipment during construction activities, especially during rainfall events, have the potential to cause petroleum products and other pollutants to enter nearby drainages.

Water quality degradation from urban stormwater runoff is primarily the result of runoff carrying pollutants from the land surface (i.e., streets, parking lots, etc.) to the receiving waters (i.e., streams and lakes).

Pollutants typically found in urban runoff include facility maintenance and lawn-care/landscaping chemicals (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and rodenticides), heavy metals (such as copper, zinc and cadmium), oils and greases from automobiles and other mechanical equipment, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus).

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)4 prepared for the proposed project determined that contamination of on-site soils is considered a recognized environmental condition (REC). Nonetheless, as discussed in Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, implementation of mitigation would ensure that potential impacts associated with contamination of on-site soils, and associated water quality impacts, would be less than significant.

Groundwater
The project site is located within the Sacramento Valley – North American Subbasin. The North American Subbasin encompasses an area of about 535 square miles in portions of Placer, Sacramento, and Sutter counties, and is bounded on the north by the Bear River, on the south by the American River, to the west by the Feather and Sacramento rivers, and on the east by the Sierra Nevada foothills. The Subbasin is managed by five Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs), which include Reclamation District 1001 (RD 1001), the Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA), South Sutter Water District, Sutter County, and West Placer.

Groundwater in the portion of the North American Subbasin within which the project site is located is managed by the Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA).5 The SCGA was formed in 2006 through a joint powers agreement signed by the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento, and the County of Sacramento. SCGA was formed for several purposes including maintaining the long-term sustainable yield of the Sacramento Valley 4 Environmental Investigation Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 3880, 3990, 4690, and 4696 Bayou Way, Sacramento County, California. September 14, 2022. 5 North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. Water Year 2021 – Annual Report for the North American Subbasin. March 2022.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

subbasins, managing the use of groundwater in the basin, and facilitating the implementation of a conjunctive use program. The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan, which was adopted in 2006, establishes a framework for maintaining sustainable groundwater resources in the North Basin. The framework includes specific goals, objectives, and an action plan to manage the basin.

The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan also prescribes a well protection program to protect existing private domestic well and agricultural well owners from declining groundwater levels resulting from increased groundwater pumping due to new development in the basin. The SCGA Groundwater Management Plan includes a detailed groundwater management implementation plan to comply with the requirements of their basin management objectives. Additionally, SCGA prepares a biennial report to evaluate progress on Groundwater Management Plan implementation and to report on basin conditions.

4.8.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
The following is a description of federal, State, and local environmental laws and policies that are relevant to the review of hydrology and water quality under the CEQA process.

Federal Regulations
The following section includes federal environmental goals and policies relevant to the CEQA review process pertaining to the hydrology and water quality aspects of the proposed project.

Federal Emergency Management Agency
The FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on USACE studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the FIRMs, which are used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The FIRMs identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-year floodplains.

FEMA allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are restricted within flood hazard areas, depending upon the potential for flooding within each area.

Federal regulations governing development in a floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These standards are implemented at the State level through construction codes and local ordinances; however, these regulations only apply to residential and non-residential structure improvements. Although roadway construction or modification is not explicitly addressed in the FEMA regulations, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has also adopted criteria and standards for roadway drainage systems and projects situated within designated floodplains. Standards that apply to floodplain issues are based on federal regulations (Title 23, Part 650 of the CFR). At the State level, roadway design must comply with drainage standards included in Chapters 800-890 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.

CFR Section 60.3(c)(10) restricts cumulative development from increasing the water surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot within the floodplain.

Federal Clean Water Act
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system was established in the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the U.S. Each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. Section 307 of the CWA describes the factors that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Nonpoint sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point.

Nonpoint pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff, but is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. As defined in the federal regulations, such nonpoint sources are generally exempt from federal NPDES permit program requirements. However, two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program – nonpoint source discharge caused by general construction activities, and the general quality of stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The 1987 amendments to the CWA directed the federal EPA to implement the stormwater program in two phases. Phase I addressed discharges from large (population 250,000 or above) and medium (population 100,000 to 250,000) municipalities and certain industrial activities. Phase II addresses all other discharges defined by EPA that are not included in Phase I.

Section 402 of the CWA mandates that certain types of construction activities comply with the requirements of the NPDES stormwater program. The Phase II Rule, issued in 1999, requires that construction activities that disturb land equal to or greater than one acre require permitting under the NPDES program. In California, permitting occurs under the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity, issued to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), implemented and enforced by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

As of July 1, 2010, all dischargers with projects that include clearing, grading or stockpiling activities expected to disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain compliance under the NPDES Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. The General Permit requires all dischargers, where construction activity disturbs one or more acres, to take the following measures:

1. Develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to include a site map(s) of existing and proposed building and roadway footprints, drainage patterns and stormwater collection and discharge points, and pre- and post- project topography;

2. Describe types and placement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the SWPPP that will be used to protect stormwater quality;

3. Provide a visual and chemical (if non-visible pollutants are expected) monitoring program for implementation upon BMP failure; and

4. Provide a sediment monitoring plan if the area discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

To obtain coverage, a SWPPP must be submitted to the RWQCB electronically and a copy of the SWPPP must be submitted to the City of Sacramento. When project construction is completed, the landowner must file a Notice of Termination (NOT).

State Regulations
The following section includes the State regulations relevant to the CEQA review process pertaining to the hydrology and water quality aspects of the proposed project.

State Water Resources Control Board
The SWRCB and the RWQCBs are responsible for ensuring implementation and compliance with the provisions of the federal CWA and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The project site is situated within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Central Valley RWQCB (Region Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

5). The Central Valley RWQCB has the authority to implement water quality protection standards through the issuance of permits for discharges to waters at locations within their jurisdiction.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
As authorized by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Central Valley RWQCB primary function is to protect the quality of the waters within its jurisdiction for all beneficial uses. State law defines beneficial uses of California’s waters that may be protected against quality degradation to include, but not be limited to: domestic; municipal; agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves.

The Central Valley RWQCB implements water quality protection measures by formulating and adopting water quality control plans (referred to as basin plans, as discussed below) for specific groundwater and surface water basins, and by prescribing and enforcing requirements on all agricultural, domestic, and industrial waste discharges. The Central Valley RWQCB oversees many programs to support and provide benefit to water quality, including the following major programs:

Agricultural Regulatory; Above-Ground Tanks; Basin Planning; CALFED; Confined Animal Facilities; Landfills and Mining; Non-Point Source; Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups (SLIC); Stormwater; Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Wastewater Discharges (including the NPDES); Water Quality Certification; and Watershed Management.

The Central Valley RWQCB is responsible for issuing permits for a number of varying activities.

Activities subject to the Central Valley RWQCB permitting requirements include stormwater, wastewater, and industrial water discharge, disturbance of wetlands, and dewatering. Permits issued and/or enforced by the Central Valley RWQCB include, but are not limited to, the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits, Industrial Stormwater General Permits, Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 Permits, and Dewatering Permits.

Basin Plans and Water Quality Objectives
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides for the development and periodic review of water quality control plans (basin plans) that are prepared by the regional water quality control boards. Basin plans designate beneficial uses of California’s major rivers and groundwater basins, and establish narrative and numerical water quality objectives for those waters. Beneficial uses represent the services and qualities of a water body (i.e., the reasons why the water body is considered valuable), while water quality objectives represent the standards necessary to protect and support those beneficial uses. Basin plans are primarily implemented through the NPDES permitting system and by issuing waste discharge regulations to ensure that water quality objectives are met.

Basin plans provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements and taking regulatory enforcement actions if deemed necessary. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB. A basin plan has been adopted for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin (Basin Plan), which covers all of the project area.

The Basin Plan sets water quality objectives for the surface waters in its region for the following substances and parameters: ammonia, bacteria, biostimulatory substances, chemical constituents, color, dissolved oxygen, floating material, oil and grease, pH, radioactivity, salinity, sediment, settleable material, suspended material, taste and odor, temperature, toxicity, turbidity, and Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

pesticides. For groundwater, water quality objectives applicable to all groundwater have been set for bacteria, chemical constituents, radioactivity, taste, odors, and toxicity.

Senate Bill 5
In 2007, the State of California set the 200-year event as the Urban Level of Flood Protection (ULOP) for the State through a series of laws included in Senate Bill (SB) 5. Along with other related legislation, SB 5 established a mandate for local governments to amend their general plans and zoning codes to be consistent with State law on floodplain management. Specifically, SB 5 requires all cities and counties within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, as defined in California Government Code Sections 65007(h) and (j), to make findings related to an ULOP or the national FEMA standard of flood protection before: (1) entering into a development agreement for any property that is located within a flood hazard zone; (2) approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone; or (3) approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for any subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone. The primary purpose of the law is to ensure that appropriate flood protection is provided in urban and urbanizing areas.

A project would be subject to the requirements of SB 5 if the project would meet all of the following five criteria:

1. Located within an urban area that is a developed area, as defined by CFR Title 44, Section

59.1, with 10,000 residents or more, or an urbanizing area that is a developed area or an area outside a developed area that is planned or anticipated to have 10,000 residents or more within the next 10 years.

2. Located within a flood hazard zone that is mapped as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate hazard on FEMA’s official (i.e., effective) FIRM for the NFIP.

3. Located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.

4. Located within an area with a potential flood depth above 3.0 feet, from sources of flooding other than localized conditions that may occur anywhere in a community, such as localized rainfall, water from stormwater and drainage problems, and water from temporary water and wastewater distribution system failure.

5. Located within a watershed with a contributing area of more than 10 square miles.

Based on a Technical Memorandum prepared for the proposed project by Wood Rodgers,6 the proposed project would meet criteria 1, 2, and 3 above. With regard to criterion 4, while the project area is subject to a flood depth above three feet from failure of the surrounding Natomas levee system, with the completion of the Natomas levees, the interior floodplain of the project site would not be greater than three feet deep during the 200-year storm event. Additionally, with regard to criterion 5, the project site is located within a watershed area of more than 10 square miles when considering the sources of river flooding resulting from the Natomas levee failure. However, with the pending completion of the Natomas levee improvements, Wood Rodgers evaluated the local drainage watersheds affecting the project in perpetuity, and determined that certification of the Natomas levees would remove regional watershed area applicability for the proposed project. As such, with local watersheds, the threshold of 10 square miles is not reached until just downstream of the project site. Therefore, the Wood Rodgers determined that the proposed project would not meet criteria 4 or 5, and, as a result, would not be subject to the requirements of SB 5. 6 Wood Rodgers. Airport South Industrial – Determination of Urban Level of Flood Protection Application. June 30, 2023.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Local Regulations
Relevant goals and policies from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan as well as various other local guidelines and regulations related to hydrology and water quality, are discussed below.

City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
The following goals and policies from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan related to hydrology and water quality are applicable to the proposed project:

Environmental Resources and Constraints Element
Goal ERC-1 Responsible management of water resources that preserves and enhances water quality and availability.

Policy ERC-1.3 Runoff Contamination. The City shall protect surface water and groundwater resources from contamination from point (single location) and non-point (many diffuse locations) sources, as required by federal and State regulations.

Policy ERC-1.4 Construction Site Impacts. The City shall require new development to protect the quality of water bodies and natural drainage systems through site design (e.g., cluster
development), source controls, stormwater treatment, runoff reduction measures, best management practices (BMPs), Low Impact Development (LID), and hydromodification strategies to avoid or minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development, implement measures to protect areas from erosion and sediment loss, and continue to require construction contractors to comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control ordinance and stormwater management and discharge control ordinance.

Goal ERC-5 Careful stewardship and efficient consumption of water and energy.

Policy ERC-5.2 Reducing Storm Runoff. The City shall encourage project designs that minimize drainage concentrations, minimize impervious coverage, utilize pervious paving materials, utilize low impact development (LID) strategies, and utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater runoff.

Goal ERC-6 Protection of life and property from flooding hazards.

Policy ERC-6.4 Floodplain Requirements. The City shall regulate development within floodplains in accordance with State and federal requirements and maintain the City’s eligibility under the National Flood Insurance Program.

Policy ERC-6.6 Flood Regulations. The City shall continue to regulate new development in accordance with State requirements for 200- year level of flood protection and federal requirements for 100- year level of flood protection.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Policy ERC-6.7 Flood Hazard Risk Evaluation. The City shall require evaluation of potential flood hazards prior to approval of development projects and shall require new development
located within a Special Flood Hazard Area to be designed to meet federal and State regulations and minimize the risk of damage in the event of a flood.

Public Facilities and Safety Element
Goal PFS-3 Efficient, high-quality utility infrastructure and services to meet the needs of residents and business throughout the city.

Policy PFS-3.1 Provision of Adequate Utilities. The City shall continue to provide reliable water, wastewater, and stormwater drainage utility services.

Policy PFS-3.15 Adequate Drainage Facilities. The City shall ensure that all new municipal drainage facilities are adequately sized and constructed to accommodate stormwater runoff, including incorporating “green infrastructure” design and Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, where appropriate, stormwater treatment features, and, if applicable, trash capture devices for its stormwater facilities.

Policy PFS-3.16 Stormwater Design in Private Development. The City shall require proponents of new development and redevelopment projects to submit drainage studies that adhere to City stormwater design requirements and incorporate measures, including “green infrastructure”, Low Impact Development (LID) techniques, stormwater treatment, and, if applicable, trash capture devices, to prevent on- or off-site flooding and improve runoff water quality.

City of Sacramento Municipal Code
The City’s Municipal Code includes ordinances associated with hydrology and water quality. The applicable ordinances are discussed in further detail below.

Sacramento City Code Chapter 13.16
The purpose of Chapter 13.16, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, of the City’s Municipal Code, is to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City by controlling non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system, by eliminating discharges to the stormwater conveyance system from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than stormwater, and by reducing pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The chapter is intended to assist in the protection and enhancement of the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and NPDES Permit. The provisions of Chapter 13.16 are applicable to all users and potential users located within the incorporated area of the City and all users that discharge either directly or indirectly into the City’s storm water conveyance system.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Sacramento City Code Chapter 15.88
The City of Sacramento’s Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance (Chapter 15.88 of the City’s Municipal Code) is enacted for the purpose of regulating grading on property within the City limits to safeguard life, limb, health, property and the public welfare; to avoid pollution of watercourses with nutrients, sediments, or other materials generated or caused by surface water runoff; to comply with the City’s NPDES Permit; and to ensure that the intended use of a graded site within the City limits is consistent with the City’s 2040 General Plan, any specific plans adopted thereto and all applicable City ordinances and regulations. The grading ordinance is intended to control all aspects of grading operations within the City. Chapter 15.88 requires that development projects comply with the requirements of the City’s Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan (SQIP). The SQIP outlines the priorities, key elements, strategies, and evaluation methods of the City’s Stormwater Management Program, which is based on the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Discharge Permit. The comprehensive Stormwater Management Program includes pollution-reduction activities for construction sites, industrial sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations.

Sacramento City Code Chapter 15.104
The intent of Chapter 15.103, Floodplain Management Regulations, is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas of the City. The chapter regulates development which is or might be dangerous to health, safety and property by requiring at the time of initial development or substantial improvement methods of protection against flood damage in areas vulnerable to flooding in order to minimize flood damage. The following developmental impacts are regulated by Chapter 15.104: filling, grading or erosion, alteration of natural flood plains, stream channels or water courses, the imposition of barriers which increase flood hazards, or any other impacts that aggravate or cause flood hazards.

4.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The following section describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, is also presented.

Standards of Significance
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge;
 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or;
o Impede or redirect flood flows;
 In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation;
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The proposed project’s impacts associated with erosion or siltation on- or off-site are discussed in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this EIR.

Method of Analysis
The impacts analysis for this chapter is based primarily on the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project by Wood Rodgers. The Preliminary Drainage Study included hydrologic modeling for the proposed project (both pre-project and post-project conditions) using the XPSWMM modeling program. The project-specific XPSWMM modeling used the regional base modeling provided by RD 1000, with project-specific changes, as discussed below.

As previously discussed, Wood Rodgers determined that the proposed project is not subject to requirements of SB 5, and thus, is exempt from 200-year flood protection design. In order to identify the pre-project conditions, including storage using within the project area during the 100- year storm, modifications to the regional base model provided by RD 1000 were made to include new detailed topographic mapping and other information known for the specific area of the Natomas Basin in which the project site is located. The changes to the original model are summarized as follows:

1. All improvements to the RD 1000 system listed in the Metro Air Park (MAP) Finance Plan dated 2020, with a corrected pumping increase at Pumping Plant 3 (with the exception of additional twin 78-inch culverts under I-5).

2. The existing conditions in the project area are modeled as two storage nodes. Based on the detailed site topography that was flown on October 12, 2021, the storage curves are updated.

3. The links that connect the project area storage nodes to the RD 1000 L Drain and West Drainage Canal confluence are simplified to 1,000-foot-long, 50-foot-wide rectangular conduits within the original model. The invert elevations of the rectangular conduits were modified to reflect the latest topography.

4. The North Lake project (formerly Greenbriar) has been incorporated into the baseline condition, north of I-5, as a single developed watershed with a single detention basin and outlet connection to the RD 1000 system.

To represent the post-project conditions within the hydraulics model, the following changes were made to the pre-project model:

1. Storage curves were modified based on the proposed on-site grading. For the areas of the project site where grading has not been designed yet, to estimate a conceptual storage curve, a parking lot area was assumed based on the percent parking area of the total area for Parcels 1 through 5. A square detention basin with a bottom elevation of three feet was estimated to represent the area of detention required to replace the pre-project storage Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

under the 100-year water surface. The upper 0.9 feet of storage was allowed to spread out over the estimated area of the parking lot.

2. The new storage node was added to represent the portion of eastern development to the north separately from the conceptual design of Parcel 8.

3. All proposed storage nodes were connected with a 24-inch pipe at the invert of each storage node to allow for drainage to the proposed pump station. Each pipe includes a proposed flap gate to prevent flow from backfilling between development areas.

4. A proposed new pump was added to discharge all development drainage to the RD 1000 L Drain. The new pump capacity is 35 cubic feet per second (cfs), using two 17.5 cfs pumps. A new node was added to the RD 1000 L Drain to accommodate the new pump injection.

5. The weir spill to Parcel 8 was relocated from the RD 1000 L Drain and West Drainage Canal confluence to a point further upstream along the RD 1000 L Drain. A new node was added to the RD 1000 L Drain to accommodate the weir flow relocation.

It should also be noted that in the pre-project conditions model, the soils within the project area have extremely low infiltration (0.0031 inch/hour). Adding impervious surfaces due to development is not anticipated to substantially increase runoff volumes; however, the timing of runoff entering detention can be accelerated through paved (impervious) areas of development.

Therefore, at the request of RD 1000, changes to the pre-project hydrology were made to represent the post-project hydrology by modifying the percentage of impervious coverage to levels consistent with industrial land uses.

The City has reviewed the technical analysis prepared for the proposed project and preliminarily concurs with the methodology applied by Wood Rodgers, as well as the conclusions provided therein.

Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance identified above.

4.8-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction. Based on the
analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

The proposed project would include development of an industrial park within a 353.5- acre portion of the project site. The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres. Given that development of both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels would result in the construction of similar land uses on contiguous parcels, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed offsite improvements.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
Construction of the proposed project would include grading, excavation, trenching for utilities, and other construction-related activities that could cause soil erosion at an accelerated rate during storm events. All such activities have the potential to affect water quality and contribute to localized violations of water quality standards if impacted stormwater runoff from construction activities enters downstream waterways.

Soils exposed by the aforementioned types of construction activities have the potential to affect water quality in three ways: 1) suspended soil particles and sediments transported through runoff; or 2) sediments transported as dust that eventually reach local water bodies; or 3) spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery, staging areas, or building sites potentially entering runoff. Typical pollutants include, but are not limited to, petroleum and heavy metals from equipment and products such as paints, solvents, and cleaning agents, which could contain hazardous constituents.

Sediment from erosion of graded or excavated surface materials, leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent releases of building products could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing the sediment or contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities. Discharge of polluted stormwater or non-stormwater runoff could violate waste discharge requirements. However, in general, impacts from construction-related activities would be short-term and of limited duration.

Because the proposed project (including future development of the nonparticipating parcels) would require construction activities that would result in a land disturbance of over an acre, the project applicant would be required by the State to comply with the most current Construction General Permit requirements. Per the requirements, a SWPPP would be prepared for the overall project, which would include the site map, drainage patterns and stormwater collection and discharge points, BMPs, and a monitoring and reporting framework for implementation of BMPs, as necessary. In addition, a Notice of Intent (NOI) would be filed with Central Valley RWQCB.

As discussed in further depth in Chapter 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this EIR, development of the SWPPP would include plans to treat stormwater runoff in accordance with the standards of the California Stormwater Management Practice New Development and Redevelopment Handbook. The plan would include drainage design from all paved surfaces, including streets, parking lots, driveways, and roofs, as well as landscaping. In addition, the project would be subject to Chapter 15.88 of the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 15.88 of the City Code regulates grading and erosion by requiring all projects that grade within the City, except where exempt, submit an application for review by the City prior to approval of a grading permit. The application must include a grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan which would be reviewed for safety of grading and potential for erosion. Therefore, the project applicant would be required to prepare a grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan. The grading plan and a sediment and erosion plan would include erosion control measures and sediment control measures to ensure the stability of the ground surface and soil within the project site during construction activities.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Non-stormwater management and material management controls reduce nonsediment-related pollutants from potentially leaving the construction site to the extent practicable. The Construction General Permit prohibits the discharge of materials other than stormwater and authorized non-stormwater discharges (such as irrigation and pipe flushing and testing). Non-stormwater BMPs tend to be management practices with the purpose of preventing stormwater from coming into contact with potential pollutants. Examples of non-stormwater BMPs include preventing illicit discharges, and implementing good practices for vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning, and fueling operations, such as using drip pans under vehicles. Waste and materials management BMPs include implementing practices and procedures to prevent pollution from materials used on construction sites. Examples of materials management BMPs include the following:
 Good housekeeping activities such as storing of materials covered and elevated off the ground, in a central location;
 Securely locating portable toilets away from the storm drainage system and performing routine maintenance;
 Providing a central location for concrete washout and performing routine maintenance;
 Providing several dumpsters and trash cans throughout the construction site for litter/floatable management; and
 Covering and/or containing stockpiled materials and overall good housekeeping on the site.

While the final materials management BMPs to be used during construction of the proposed project are currently unknown, the project would likely include a combination of the BMP examples listed above. Final BMPs for the proposed project construction would be chosen in consultation with the applicable California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater BMP Handbooks and Section 11 of the City’s Development Standards, and implemented by the project contractor.

In accordance with the Construction General Permit, the project site would also be inspected during construction before and after storm events and every 24 hours during extended storm events in order to identify maintenance requirements for the implemented BMPs and to determine the effectiveness of the implemented BMPs. As a “living document”, the site-specific SWPPP that would be prepared for the proposed project would be modified as construction activities progress. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would ensure compliance with the SWPPP through regular monitoring and visual inspections during construction activities. The QSP for the project would amend the SWPPP and revise project BMPs, as determined necessary through field inspections, to protect against substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite.

Compliance with the State’s Construction General Permit, Section 11 of the Development Standards, and Chapter 15.88 of the Sacramento City Code, as described above, would minimize the potential degradation of stormwater quality and downstream surface water associated with construction of the proposed project. In addition, BMPs would be required to be designed in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

for Construction and for New Development/Redevelopment and Section 11 of the Development Standards (or other similar source as approved by the City). However, because a SWPPP has not yet been prepared for the proposed project, proper compliance with the aforementioned regulations cannot be ensured at this time, and the proposed project’s construction activities could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a significant impact related to short-term construction-related water quality.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.8-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the contractor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Central Valley RWQCB. The contractor shall file the Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall serve as the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of BMPs. The contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Construction (temporary) BMPs for the project may include, but are not limited to: fiber rolls, straw bale barrier, straw wattles, storm drain inlet protection, velocity dissipation devices, silt fences, wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrance, hydroseeding, revegetation techniques, and dust control measures.

The SWPPP shall be submitted to both the City Director of Public Works, and the City Engineer for review and approval and shall remain on the project site during all phases of construction. Following implementation of the SWPPP, the contractor shall subsequently demonstrate the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

4.8-2 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during operations. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Given that both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels would result in the development of similar land uses on contiguous parcels, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during operations. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements. Because the proposed off-site force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would be constructed in accordance with the applicable standards set forth in the SacSewer Standards and Specifications and installed underground, the proposed off-site force main would not Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality during project operation.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of a rural area to an industrial park, which would include the development of industrial uses, as well as retail/highway commercial uses, and hotel/hospitality uses, within the project site.

Such new land uses could result in new stormwater pollutants being introduced to the project area. Pollutants associated with the operational phase of the proposed project could include nutrients, oil and grease, metals, organics, pesticides, bacteria, sediment, trash, and other debris. Nutrients that could be present in post-construction stormwater include nitrogen and phosphorous resulting from fertilizers applied to landscaping. Excess nutrients could affect water quality by promoting excessive and/or a rapid growth of aquatic vegetation, which reduces water clarity and results in oxygen depletion. Pesticides, which are toxic to aquatic organisms and can bioaccumulate in larger species, such as birds and fish, can potentially enter stormwater after application to landscaped areas within the project site. Oil and grease could enter stormwater from vehicle leaks, traffic, and maintenance activities. Metals could enter stormwater as surfaces corrode, decay, or leach. Clippings associated with landscape maintenance and street litter could be carried into storm drainage systems.

Pathogens (from wildlife and human activities) have the potential to affect downstream water quality. It should also be noted that the project site was historically used as hay fields, with possible intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Therefore, the potential exists for residual pesticides and/or to fertilizers be present in on-site soils.

Development of the proposed project could also increase polluted non-stormwater runoff (e.g., wash water and landscape irrigation runoff). Such non-stormwater runoff could flow down sidewalks, parking areas, and streets, and pick up additional pollutants deposited on impervious surfaces prior to discharge into the storm drain system and surface waters. Discharge of polluted stormwater or non-stormwater runoff could violate waste discharge requirements.

Proposed Storm Drain System
According to the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project would include an on-site storm drain system composed of post construction stormwater quality measures such as Low Impact Development (LID) components, dedication of landscaping areas, and six on-site detention basins, consistent with the Sacramento Region Stormwater Quality Design Manual.

Impervious surfaces proposed as part of the project include building roofs, driveways, and roadways. Runoff from such surfaces would be captured by the on-site stormwater drainage system. The on-site drainage system would consist of a series of detention basins located adjacent to the RD 1000 ditches and canals that border the western and southern boundaries of the project site, and areas adjacent to the RD 1000 L Drain (which bisects the eastern portion of the project site) (see Figure 4.8-3). The basins would each be interconnected with 36-inch diameter culvert(s) or larger in order to provide a single continuous system. The basins would be connected to the RD 1000 system through weirs to meet the pre-project spill conditions and to provide on-site floodplain storage (see Figure 4.8-4).

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Figure 4.8-3
Proposed On-Site Drainage Conditions
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Figure 4.8-4
Post-Project Drainage Conditions Within the Project Area Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

The on-site stormwater drainage system would be controlled by a pump station currently planned to be located near the intersection of the RD 1000 L Drain and the proposed Airport South Industrial Drive. The pump station discharge capacity would be 35 cfs, modeled as two 17.5-cfs pumps. A low-flow pump may also be incorporated to maintain the flood control depth needed in the basin for the winter months, or as needed to keep the basins drawn down in the summer months. Low flow pumps are typically not operated during flood control operations. The two basin areas on the east side of the RD 1000 L Drain would interconnect from south to north.

The north basin would then connect to the proposed drainage pump station through a pipe crossing under the RD 1000 L Drain, and a box structure and manhole/vault on each side of the RD 1000 L Drain, prior to a connection to the proposed pump station. Trash capture is anticipated to be achievable at the inlet to the pump station through screen mechanisms or mesh bags. The proposed on-site stormwater drainage system is a closed system that would only experience external influences during larger events like the 100-year event. Therefore, 10-year system modeling and design is anticipated to be significantly lower than 100-year levels. Therefore, the approximate volumes for pre-project and post-project detention during the 100-year storm event are presented in Table 4.8-1.

Table 4.8-1
Proposed Detention Basin Sizing
Property
Owner Acreage
Pre-Project
Acreage within
100-Year
Floodplain
Pre-Project
Maximum
Water Volume
Stored During
100-Year Event
(acre feet)
Post-Project
Maximum
Water Volume
Stored During
100-Year Event
(acre feet)
North Pointe
AKT 353.5 308.8 174.6 362.3
Cayocca* 64.3 37.1 18.4 75.0
Campbell* 6.5 6.5 3.5 1.8
Isgur* 4.6 4.6 2.5 1.3
Patel* 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.2
Caltrans
Remnant* 6.9 6.8 3.7 1.9
Total 436.5 364.1 203.0 442.5
Note: Some of the maximum water volumes reported in the table above were obtained by dividing model results by property owner boundaries, rather than watershed and/or development boundaries. An area weighting method was used to aggregate and divide postproject storage volume on a property owner basis for the Campbell, Isgur and Patel properties that share a single detention basin.
*At the time of the Preliminary Drainage Study was prepared, preliminary on-site grading has not been assessed. Detention volumes are preliminary.

Source: Wood Rodgers, 2023.

As shown in the table, the proposed LID features would be sufficiently sized to meet the required storage volumes. Thus, project runoff would be properly treated, and would not pollute downstream waterways. It should be noted that the City would own Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

and operate the future on-site system that would detain and/or retain storm drainage runoff prior to discharge into the RD 1000 System.

Maintenance and Inspection
In order to ensure continued operation of the proposed LID control features, the City would provide regular inspection and maintenance of such features. For example, plants and vegetation within the detention basins would be inspected monthly, and the basins would be inspected for the presence of standing water 72 hours after rain events. Maintenance activity would include, but not necessarily be limited to, removal of debris from basins and removal of debris from outlets of basins. In addition, any method of trash capture would require frequent monitoring and cleaning to keep the pump station fully operational.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the proposed project includes site design measures to ensure that stormwater runoff is properly treated prior to discharge. Thus, urban pollutants entering and potentially degrading local water quality would not be expected to occur as a result of the project. In addition, it should be noted that Mitigation Measure 4.7- 5(a) requires preparation of a design and management plan to determine the appropriate size and location for the proposed detention basins and incorporate specific design measures deemed sufficient by the Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). However, because a final BMP and water quality maintenance plan has not been prepared, the incorporation of proper source control measures cannot be ensured. Should the project applicant fail to prepare and implement such documentation, the proposed project could result in a significant impact related to a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality during operations.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.8-2 Prior to approval of final project improvement plans for any on-site development, the project applicant shall submit a detailed Best Management Practice (BMP) and water quality maintenance plan to the City for review and approval. The BMP and water quality maintenance plan shall meet the standards of the City’s NPDES Permit, the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento region. Site design measures, source control measures, hydromodification management, and Low Impact Development (LID) standards, as necessary, shall be incorporated into the design and shown on the improvement plans.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8-3 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Given that the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels are located within the same groundwater subbasin and would be provided water from the same source, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Because the proposed off-site force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would be installed either in existing roadway right-of-way (ROW) or in other previously disturbed areas, the proposed off-site force main would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
Upon annexation into the City as part of the proposed project, the City would be responsible for providing water to the project site. The City’s water infrastructure network consists of two surface water treatment facilities, two pressure zones, and a supporting system of groundwater wells, pumping facilities, storage tanks, and distribution/transmission pipelines. As discussed in Chapter 4.11, Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems, of this EIR, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes a water service reliability assessment of the City’s projected supplies and demands during normal, single dry, and five consecutive dry years.

Under the various water year types, the total annual water supply sources available are compared to the total annual projected water use for the City’s water service area from 2025 to 2045 in five-year increments. As shown in Table 4.11-9 of this EIR, the City is projected to have a surplus of water supplies in all water year types through 2045. With respect to the demand anticipated to be generated by the proposed project, the Targeted Municipal Services Review (MSR) prepared for the proposed project incorporates results from the modeling conducted as part of the Preliminary Water Study prepared for the proposed project to estimate the project’s water demands, which are summarized in Table 4.11-10 of this EIR. As shown therein, the City’s existing water supplies would be able to accommodate the demand anticipated to be generated by the City’s existing commitments, as well as the water demand projected for the proposed project. Therefore, while a portion of the water supplied to the project site by the City would be obtained through groundwater resources, such groundwater usage would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies within the project area.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

The proposed project would result in an increase in on-site impervious surfaces, which would reduce the infiltration of groundwater as compared to existing conditions.

However, as discussed above, the soils within the project area have extremely low infiltration rate (0.0031 inch/hour). As such, the project site would not be considered an important groundwater recharge area. Furthermore, the proposed project would include the development of six on-site detention basins, which would allow for the onsite infiltration of surface water to continue, and contribute to groundwater recharge.

Given the limited recharge potential of the project site, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the groundwater subbasin within which the project site is located is not currently in a state of overdraft.

Considering that the project site is not considered an important groundwater recharge area, stormwater from the project site would continue to replenish groundwater through percolation into soils within the on-site detention basins, and that the project would not involve substantially increased demand on groundwater supplies within an area in a state of overdraft, the proposed project would not create a conflict with, or impede the implementation of, a sustainable groundwater plan. Thus, impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.8-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would: substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff. Based on the analysis below, the impact is less than significant.

Given that both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels would result in the development of similar land uses on contiguous parcels, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to substantially alter the drainage pattern of the site or area, or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff within the project area. Because the proposed off-site force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would be installed either in existing roadway ROW or in other previously disturbed areas, the proposed off-site force main would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the off-site force main alignment.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
It should be noted that the potential for the proposed project to result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, including erosion, is addressed under Impacts

4.8-1 and 4.8-2 above. Further discussion regarding erosion is provided in Chapter

4.6, Geology and Soils, of this EIR.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Increases to peak runoff flows or volumes resulting from alterations to the existing drainage pattern of the site have the potential to result in exceedance of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or flooding on- or off-site.

As discussed previously, runoff from impervious surfaces created as part of the proposed project would be routed to six new detention basins located adjacent to the RD 1000 ditches and canals that border the western and southern boundaries of the project site, and areas adjacent to the RD 1000 L Drain (which bisects the eastern portion of the project site). The basins would be connected to the RD 1000 system through weirs to meet the pre-project spill conditions and to provide on-site floodplain storage.

To assess the changes in runoff volumes from the project site that could occur due to the proposed project, Wood Rodgers calculated the pre- and post-construction water surface elevations (WSEs) at key locations within the project site’s drainage shed. Preand post-construction WSEs are presented in Table 4.8-2 below. It should also be noted that peak flows within the West Drainage Canal downstream of the RD 1000 L Drain and West Drainage Canal confluence decrease slightly from pre-project to postproject conditions, from 465.5 cfs to 461.7 cfs. Water surface elevations within the connecting channel just upstream of Pumping Plant 3 also decrease from 13.789 feet to 13.764 feet, and water surface elevations within the channel upstream of Pumping Plant 5 decrease from 14.589 feet to 14.550 feet during post-project conditions. As shown in the table, the proposed project would result in reduced WSEs relative to existing conditions for the design-storm event (i.e., the 100-year storm event).

Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable hydromodification requirements, and would not increase the rate or amount of runoff leaving the project site during the design storm event. In addition, as noted in the Preliminary Drainage Report, the post-project condition provides more storage than is required, pumping 35 cfs into the RD 1000 system while maintaining peak on-site water surface elevations below the RD 1000 channel system peak water surfaces, which overflow into on-site detention.

An exhaustive evaluation to determine the exact peak pumping rate that would create an increase in the RD 1000 system was not conducted as part of the Preliminary Drainage Report; however, pumping may be determined to exceed 35 cfs during final design, making the on-site detention system operate even more effectively. Increased pumping could potentially allow for a smaller detention volume after final design features, such as inlet/outlet access ramps and encroachments, are fully accounted for during the improvement plan process.

It should also be noted that the while the worst case 100-year flooding in the RD 1000 system occurs during a 10-day duration storm event, different parts of the system may behave differently under shorter duration rainfall conditions. As such, Wood Rogers also evaluated the drainage system during 100-year, 24-hour rainfall conditions to verify whether the higher intensity rainfall patterns occurring in a 24-hour duration storm would produce a higher on-site peak condition in the detention basin system.

Based on the Wood Rogers analysis, while the RD 1000 system would still produce elevated channel levels high enough to spill into the project site during the 100-year 24-hour event, the resulting peak stage in the proposed on-site detention basin would Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

be 11.2 feet, which is more than 2.6 feet lower than the peak stage during the 10-day storm event. Finally, the outflow that would occur during post-project conditions closely mirrors the existing conditions of the project site. Thus, the proposed drainage system would not result in extensive period of standing water in the basins.

Table 4.8-2
Pre- and Post-Project Peak Flow Elevations
Location
Model
Node
Name
COSD NAVD 88
PreProject
Model
WSE
(feet)
PostProject
Model
WSE
(feet)
PreProject
Model
WSE
(feet)
PostProject
Model
WSE
(feet)
Western Development
Storage Node 1132 12.201 11.86 14.182 13.841
Northern Portion of
Eastern Development
Storage Node
Proposed
Development - 11.903 - 13.884
Patel, Isgur, Campbell,
and Caltrans Remnant Node 317 - 11.861 - 13.842
Cayocca Storage Node 11215 12.209 12.052 14.19 14.033
RD 1000 L Drain –
Downstream of I-5 11536 12.579 12.353 14.56 14.334
RD 1000 L Drain – New
Node to Connect New
Pump to the RD 1000 L
Drain
Node 316 - 12.071 - 14.052
RD 1000 L Drain – New
Node to Connect
Eastern Development
to the RD 1000 L Drain
Node 314 - 12.066 - 14.047
RD 1000 L Drain and
West Drainage Canal
Confluence
167 12.198 11.986 14.179 13.967
West Drainage Canal
and Reach 6
Confluence
1103 12.219 12.018 14.2 14.002
West Drainage Canal –
Node to Connect
Western Development
and West Drainage
Canal
166 12.198 11.972 14.179 13.953
West Drainage Canal -
Upstream of Del Paso
Road
11013 12.071 11.878 14.052 13.862
Source: Wood Rodgers, 2023.

Based on the above, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to substantially altering the drainage pattern of the site or area, or increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.8-5 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. Based on the analysis below and with implementation of mitigation, the impact is less than significant.

Given that both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels would result in the development of similar land uses on contiguous parcels, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to impede or redirect flood flows or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. Because the proposed off-site force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would be installed either in existing roadway ROW or in other previously disturbed areas, the proposed off-site force main would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the off-site force main alignment.

Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
The project site is not located in a tsunami or seiche zone. Therefore, impacts related to tsunamis and seiches are not discussed further. Rather, the following discussion is focused on potential impacts related to flooding and flood hazards.

As discussed above, and shown in Figure 4.8-2, the entirety of the project site is located within Zone A, which is designated as a SFHA. However, due to levee improvements, portions of the Natomas Basin are now classified as A-99 flood zones, including the eastern portion of the project site. A-99 is an interim designation that allows new development to proceed without elevation verification while the improvements needed to provide 100-year protection are under construction.

Nonetheless, the A-99 flood zone is still a SFHA until construction of the levees is complete, and the levees are certified by FEMA. In addition, given that the majority of the project site is classified as Zone A, FEMA requires a more detailed local drainage assessment to remove the site from the SFHA, in addition to addressing the levee flooding issues.

Because the project site is located within a SFHA, the site must be raised above the existing 100-year floodplain. Pursuant to Section 15.104.050 of the City’s Municipal Code, new construction is required to place the lowest floor of structures at least one foot above the base flood elevation. In addition, Section 11 of the City’s Design and Procedure Manual requires the new construction place the lowest floor of structures at least one foot above the overland release path. Figure 4.8-3 provides a grading cross-section that illustrates the relationship between the 100-year WSE in the off-site RD 1000 canals, the detention basins, public roadways, parking, and industrial warehouse building elevations. As shown therein, the proposed project would raise Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

the building pads above the 100-year base flood elevation, in compliance with Section

15.104.050.

Furthermore, as discussed in Impact 4.8-4, Wood Rodgers has confirmed that the proposed project would result in reduced WSEs relative to existing conditions for the design storm event. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable hydromodification requirements, and would not increase the rate or amount of runoff leaving the project site during the design storm event, or increase the base flood elevation off-site as a result if on-site grading. Because pre-development and post-development flows associated with the project site would be the same, the proposed project would not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows.

With respect to risking release of pollutants due to project inundation, the future tenants of the proposed industrial buildings are not currently known, a large segment of the current retail market consists of regional suppliers, such as Amazon and Walmart, that deliver goods directly to consumers. As such, a strong need exists for light industrial warehousing to act as fulfillment centers for regional retailers.

Operations associated with the proposed project would be typical of other warehouses in the City. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR, while not currently anticipated, in the event that future operations associated with the proposed warehouses involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials, such materials would be safely managed in accordance with applicable regulations and would be subject to City review depending on the type or quantity of chemicals proposed for use. Chapter 8.64 of the City’s Municipal Code requires that any use of hazardous materials be disclosed to the City’s fire department. In addition, Chapter 8.60 of the City’s Municipal Code includes regulations regarding hazardous materials cleanup, in the event that any hazardous substance or waste is unlawfully released, discharged, deposited, or abandoned upon or into any property, water, or facilities within the City. Furthermore, all stormwater exiting the project site would be directed to on-site stormwater quality features to ensure that any pollutants entrained within stormwater from the project site are removed prior to discharge.

Considering the above, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in the impediment or redirection of flood flows such that on- or off-site structures would be exposed to flood risk. However, a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) would be required prior to grading permit approval in order to ensure the project’s compliance with existing regulations. Therefore, in the absence of a CLOMR submitted to FEMA, a significant impact could occur related to alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of a course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows.

Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

4.8-5 Prior to approval of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Conditional Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) for fill within a Special Flood Hazard Area, if required. A copy of the letter shall be provided to the Engineering Services Division. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), or a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) from FEMA shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to acceptance of grading permits as complete.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, “cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

For further detail related to the cumulative setting of the proposed project, refer to Chapter 6, Statutorily Required Sections of this EIR. The cumulative setting for impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be the RD 1000 drainage area identified within the Preliminary Drainage Study.

4.8-6 Cumulative impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts
resulting from the alteration of existing drainage patterns.

Based on the analysis below, the cumulative impact is less than significant.

Given that both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels would result in the development of similar land uses on contiguous parcels, the following discussion applies to the potential for both project components to result in cumulative impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts resulting from the alteration of existing drainage patterns.

Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
As noted previously, the project site is located within the Natomas Basin. The Natomas Basin comprises approximately 50,000 acres. In the vicinity of the project site, RD 1000 owns and operates the existing canals and pumping plants that move storm drainage from the local area to the Sacramento River. RD 1000 collects all runoff within the Natomas Basin through a system of interconnected channels and directs this runoff to pumping plants in order to lift the water into the leveed rivers and channels surrounding Natomas.

Currently, the Natomas Basin includes existing development, as well as various open space and agricultural areas in the project vicinity. However, the potential exists for new development to occur within the basin area. Runoff from new construction sites within the watersheds could carry sediment from erosion of graded or excavated surface materials, leaks or spills from equipment, or inadvertent releases of building products, which could result in water quality degradation if runoff containing such Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.8 – Hydrology and Water Quality

sediment or contaminants should enter receiving waters in sufficient quantities.

Furthermore, cumulative development within the watershed has the potential to create new impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the stormwater runoff rates and volumes within the RD 1000 channels, and, ultimately the Sacramento River.

Nonetheless, similar to the proposed project, any future development in the project area would be required to comply with Section 11 of the Development Standards, and Chapter 15.88 of the Sacramento City Code, as described above. In addition, BMPs would be required to be designed in accordance with the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for Construction and for New Development/Redevelopment and Section 11 of the Development Standards (or other similar source as approved by the City), and cumulative development would also be required to comply with the Central Valley RWQCB requirements, including, but not limited to, the NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permits, Industrial Stormwater General Permits, and any necessary Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 Permits, and Dewatering Permits. Thus, all future development would be required to include appropriate site design measures, source controls, and hydraulically-sized stormwater treatment and flow control measures to limit post-development runoff rates and amounts to below pre-development levels. As such, cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

As discussed in Impacts 4.8-1 through 4.8-5 above, all identified impacts associated with the proposed project, including future development of the nonparticipating parcels, would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth herein. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING/

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

4.9.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing chapter of this EIR is to examine the proposed project’s compatibility with existing land uses in the area and to identify any incompatibilities with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects, including the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan,1 the City of Sacramento 2040 Master EIR (MEIR),2 the City of Sacramento Housing Element,3 the City of Sacramento Planning and Development Code (Title 17), the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS),4 the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Change of Organization Policies and Procedures,5 and the Sacramento International (SMF) Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).6
This chapter also includes discussion of the potential for the proposed project to induce substantial population growth in the project area, either directly or indirectly. The reader is referred to the various environmental resource evaluations presented in the technical chapters of this EIR for a discussion of potential physical/environmental effects that may result from the proposed land use changes.

As described further in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the 474.4-acre project site is divided into two portions: the industrial park (353.5 acres), which consists of the majority of the western portion and the northeast corner of the overall site, and the nonparticipating parcels (83 acres), primarily located in the southeastern portion of the overall site. The project site also includes 37.9 acres of Caltrans I-5 fee title right-of-way (ROW), which would not be developed as part of the proposed project.

While the proposed project would require approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment and Annexation of the entire project site into the City limits, only the industrial park is currently proposed for development. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of an offsite force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way.
1 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Adopted February 27, 2024. 2 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. August 2023. 3 City of Sacramento. City of Sacramento 2021-2029 Housing Element. Adopted August 17, 2021. Amended December 14, 2021. 4 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. November 18, 2019. 5 Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission. Sacramento LAFCo Policy, Standards, and Procedures Manual. Available at: https://saclafco.saccounty.gov/PolicyStandardsandProceduresManual/Pages/TOC.aspx.

Accessed January 2023. 6 Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Adopted December 12, 2013.

4.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING/

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

4.9.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section describes the existing land uses on the project site, including the industrial park portion and the nonparticipating parcels, and within the surrounding area, as well as the existing plans and policies that guide the development of the project site. In addition, the Existing Environmental Setting section describes current population and housing trends in the project region.

Project Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses
The 474.4-acre project site is currently located within the Natomas area of unincorporated Sacramento County, west of the City of Sacramento limits, and southeast of the intersection of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Power Line Road (see Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map and Figure 3-2 Project Site Boundaries, in Chapter 3 of this Draft EIR). The City limits currently make up the project’s northeastern and eastern boundaries. The project site is situated outside of the City of Sacramento’s SOI and is identified by Sacramento County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 225-0020-010, -016, -017, -021, -022, -023, -024, -026, -027, -030, -032, -033, -034, and -035, as well as 225-0030-023, -024, -045, and -048.

Within the northern portion of the site, Bayou Way, a paved road consisting of two vehicle lanes, meanders in a west-to-east direction through the site. The project site currently consists of vacant, fallow agricultural land. The site was historically used as hay fields, with possible intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Unnamed drainage canals run roughly north-south in both the western and eastern portions of the site. Numerous unimproved dirt roads provide access to the interior of the project site, which is subdivided into multiple agricultural plots. The project site is currently not developed with residential development.

Surrounding existing land uses include a Life Storage facility and the Westlake single-family residential subdivision to the east; the West Drainage Canal, vacant agricultural land, open space land, and the Paso Verde K-8 School to the south; undeveloped agricultural land to the west; the Sacramento International Airport to the northwest, across I-5; and the Metro Air Park, Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center, and the under-construction Northlake (Greenbriar) subdivision to the north, across I-5.

Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts
The project site has a current Sacramento County land use designation of Agricultural Cropland.

The project site is within the Sacramento County zoning district of Agricultural 80 (AG-80).

Land surrounding the project site to the north is designated as Intensive Industrial (INT-IND) by the Sacramento County General Plan and land surrounding the project site to the northeast is designated Parks and Recreation, Open Space, Neighborhood, and Commercial Mixed-Use by the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan. The land surrounding the project site to the south is designated as Agricultural Cropland and the land surrounding the project site further to the east is designated as Public/Quasi-Public by the Sacramento County General Plan. The land surrounding the project site to the east is designated as Neighborhood (N), Commercial MixedUse (CMU), Employment Mixed-Use (EMU), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Open Space (OS) by the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan.

Table 4.9-1 below provides a summary of the current land use designations and zoning districts of the properties surrounding the project site.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

Land Use Designation Definitions
The following section provides definitions of the land use designations noted above, as summarized from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento County General Plan.

Table 4.9-1
Summary of Adjacent General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts
Relationship
to Project
Site
Present
Land Use
City of
Sacramento
Land Use
Designation
Sacramento
County Land
Use
Designation
City of
Sacramento
Zoning
District
Sacramento
County
Zoning
District
North of the
Project Site
Metro Air
Park,
Amazon
Fulfillment
Center, and
SingleFamily
Residences
N; CMU; PR;
and OS
Intensive
Industrial and
Agricultural
Cropland
Standard
Single Family
(R-1); Single
Family
Alternative (R1A); MultiFamily (R-2B);
Multi-Family
(R-3); MultiFamily
Alternative (R3A); Limited
Commercial (C1); and
AgricultureOpen Space
(A-OS)
Special
Planning Area
(SPA) – Metro
Air Park
South of the
Project Site
West
Drainage
Canal,
Agricultural
and Open
Space Land,
and Paso
Verde K-8
School
N/A
Agricultural
Cropland;
Agricultural
Cropland
Combining
Resource
Conservation
Area; and
Natomas Joint
Vision Area
Overlay
N/A AG-80
East of the
Project Site
Self-Storage
Facility and
SingleFamily
Residences
N; CMU; EMU;
PR; and OS N/A
R-1; R-1A; MultiFamily, up to 17
units/acre (R-2A);
R-3; General
Commercial (C2); Shopping
Center (SC); and
A-OS
N/A
West of the
Project Site
Agricultural
Land N/A
Agricultural
Cropland and
Public/Quasi
Public
N/A Agricultural – 20
acres (AG-20)
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
The City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan provides land use designations for all land uses within the City of Sacramento, as well as those within the City’s SOI. The City defines the N, CMU, EMU, PR, and OS land use designations as follows:

Neighborhood (N)
The N land use designation applies throughout Sacramento’s established residential neighborhoods and in newly annexed areas in the north of the city where primarily residential development is planned. The N land use designation is intended to maintain and enhance livability and sense of place. The N land use designation is primarily comprised of residential uses, with some complementary neighborhood-serving commercial and public uses. Allowable uses include detached and attached residential dwelling units; neighborhood support uses (schools, parks, libraries, community centers, and care facilities); neighborhood-serving commercial and employment uses like corner markets, coffee shops, hair salons, shops, gyms, and fitness centers; office uses; assembly facilities; and compatible public and quasi-public uses.

Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU)
The CMU land use designation is intended to foster vibrant retail and commercial centers of varying scales throughout the community. The CMU land use designation applies to existing regional, community, and neighborhood shopping centers and provides for their redevelopment with a wide range of commercial and/or residential uses to complement existing development.

Allowable uses include a full range commercial uses, including retail, dining, entertainment, offices, lodging, recreational, and cultural facilities, as well as attached residential dwelling units and compatible public, quasi-public, and special uses.

Employment Center Mixed-Use (EMU)
The EMU land use designation is intended to buffer residential uses from more intense industrial and service commercial activities and to provide compatible employment uses near higher-density and mixed-use housing. The EMU land use designation provides for a range of light industrial and high technology uses. The EMU land use designation generally applies to industrial areas that are next to residential neighborhoods, including McClellan Airfield Pell-Main Industrial Park, Cannon Industrial Park, and portions of the Sacramento Railyards, River District, and the Power Inn Business Improvement District. Allowable uses include light/advanced manufacturing, production, distribution, repair, testing, printing, research, and development; service commercial uses that do not generate substantial noise or odors; accessory office uses; and retail and service uses that provide support to employees. Other allowable uses include compatible residential uses such as live-work spaces or employee housing; hotels and motels; care facilities; assembly facilities; and compatible public and quasi-public uses.

Parks and Recreation (PR)
The PR land use designation includes parkways, public parks, and other areas primarily used for recreation. Typically, these areas are characterized by a high degree of managed green space and a limited number of buildings. Recreational facilities in the PR land use designation frequently include sports fields, playground equipment, picnic areas, sitting areas, concession businesses, open turf and natural areas, trails, and golf courses. Allowable uses include parks (neighborhood, community, and regional parks); parkways and trails; golf courses, and commercial recreation facilities; and compatible public and quasi-public uses.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

Open Space
The OS land use designation includes areas that are intended to remain open with limited or no development, including largely unimproved open spaces used primarily for passive recreation, resource protection, and/or hazard avoidance. The OS land use designation is intended to preserve natural features, establish quality living environments, and maintain boundaries and buffers between communities and incompatible uses. Allowable uses include natural underdeveloped parks; woodland preserves; habitat and wetlands; agriculture; floodplains; areas with permanent open space easements; buffers between urban areas; and compatible public and quasi-public uses.

Sacramento County General Plan
The County defines the Intensive Industrial, Agricultural Cropland, Agricultural Cropland Combining Resource Conservation Area, Natomas Joint Vision Area Overlay, and Public/QuasiPublic land use designations as follows:

Intensive Industrial
The Intensive Industrial land use designation allows for manufacturing and related activities including research, processing, warehousing, and supporting commercial uses, the intensive nature of which require urban services. Intensive Industrial areas are located within the urban portion of the county and receive an urban level of public infrastructure and services. FARs range from 0.15 to 0.80.

Agricultural Cropland
The Agricultural Cropland land use designation represents agricultural lands most suitable for intensive agriculture. The agricultural activities included are row crops, tree crops, irrigated grains and dairies. The Agricultural Cropland land use designation is generally limited to areas where soils are rated from Class I to Class IV by the Soil Conservation Service, or are classified Prime, Statewide, or Unique significance by the State of California Conservation Department. These lands have at least some of the following attributes: deep to moderately deep soils, abundant to ample water supply, distinguishable geographic boundaries, absence of incompatible residential uses, absence of topographical constraints, good to excellent crop yields, and large to moderate sized farm units. These attributes indicate the need for ambitious preservation policies and techniques. The Agricultural Cropland land use designation allows single family dwelling units at a density no greater than 40 acres per unit.

Resource Conservation Area
The purpose of the Resource Conservation Area combining land use designation is to identify areas with special resource management needs. The Resource Conservation Area land use designation targets certain natural resources as being important on the Land Use Diagram while recognizing the validity of the underlying land use designation. The intent is to develop programs and incentives to assist landowners with resource protection and enhancement. Compliance with the Resource Conservation Area land use designation will rely on the voluntary support of landowners who seek cooperative conservation agreements with the County. The Resource Conservation combining land use category may be combined with Recreation, Natural Preserve, Agricultural Cropland, AG-20, and AG-80 land use designations in suitable areas outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB). Resource Conservation areas address vernal pools, wetland creation, waterfowl management, peat soil conservation, and Blue Oak woodland harvesting.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

Natomas Joint Vision Area Overlay
On December 10, 2002, the Sacramento City Council and Board of Supervisors adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining principles of land use and revenue sharing between the City and County of Sacramento for the Natomas area, setting the stage for what has come to be known as the “Natomas Joint Vision.” The Natomas Joint Vision Area overlay on the County’s General Plan land use diagram indicates the area addressed by this MOU. The cooperative effort addresses land use, economic development, and environmental opportunities and challenges in Natomas. The goal of the MOU and related efforts is high quality development balanced with permanent open space preservation systems.

SACOG’s Blueprint shows significant development in the Natomas Joint Vision Area. Because of the MOU, the Blueprint and the importance of the Natomas Joint Vision Area to the region, the County anticipates development in portions of the Natomas Basin within the timeframe of the General Plan. The project site is located within the Natomas Joint Vision Area. Therefore, subject to the preparation and certification of the appropriate environmental documentation, development of the proposed project in the Natomas Joint Vision Area shall be accomplished by approval of an SOIA.

Public/Quasi-Public
The Public/Quasi-Public land use designation establishes areas for uses such as education, solid and liquid waste disposal, and cemeteries. The Public/Quasi-Public land use designation identifies public and quasi-public areas that are of significant size, under County jurisdiction, regional in scope, specified by State law, or have significant land use impacts.

Zoning District Definitions
The following sections provide definitions of the zoning districts noted above, as summarized from the City of Sacramento Planning and Development Code (Title 17 of the City Code) and the Sacramento County Zoning Code.

City of Sacramento Zoning Code
The City defines the R-1, R-1A, R-2A, R-2B, R-3, R-3A, C-1, C-2, SC, and A-OS zoning districts as follows:

Standard Single Family (R-1)
The purpose of the R-1 zoning district is to accommodate low-density residential uses composed of single-unit detached residences and duplex dwellings on corner lots. The R-1 zoning district may also include recreational, religious, and educational facilities as the basic elements of a balanced neighborhood. Allowable uses include, but are not limited to, single-unit dwellings; duplexes; model home temporary sales offices; community markets; community gardens; market gardens; and commercial solar energy systems.

Single Family Alternative (R-1A)
The purpose of the R-1A zoning district is to permit single-unit or duplex dwellings, whether attached or detached, at a higher density than is permitted in the R-1 zone. Dwellings that do not have interior side yards, such as townhouses and rowhouses, are allowed. The uses allowed in the R-1 zoning district are also allowed in the R-1A zoning district.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

Multi-Family, up to 17 units/acres (R-2A)
The purpose of the R-2A zoning district is to permit garden apartments and cluster housing. The R-2A zoning district is regulated to minimize the ground area covered by structures and maximize open space. The uses allowed in the R-1 zoning district are also allowed in the R-2A zoning district, as well as multi-family dwellings.

Multi-Family (R-2B)
The purpose of the R-2B zoning district is to accommodate broader density flexibility as a transition from the garden-apartment setting to a more traditional apartment setting. The uses allowed in the R-2A zoning district are also allowed in the R-2B zoning district.

Multi-Family (R-3)
The purpose of the R-3 zoning district is to accommodate traditional types of apartments. The R3 zoning district is located outside the central city, serving as a buffer along major streets and near shopping centers. The uses allowed in the R-2A zoning district are also allowed in the R-3 zoning district, as well as dormitories.

Multi-Family Alternative (R-3A)
The purpose of the R-3A zoning district is to accommodate higher density development in the central city, along major commercial corridors, and in areas near major institutions and public transit facilities. The uses allowed in the R-3 zoning district are also allowed in the R-3A zoning district.

Limited Commercial (C-1)
The purpose of the C-1 zoning district is to provide for certain offices, retail stores, and commercial service establishments that are compatible with residential developments. The C-1 zoning district is intended to be applied to small lots that are surrounded by a residential neighborhood.

Allowable uses, include, but are not limited to, single-unit dwellings; multi-unit dwellings; childcare centers; commercial services; non-commercial care facilities; offices; restaurants; retail stores; schools for dance, music, art, and martial arts; and community gardens.

General Commercial (C-2)
The purpose of the C-2 zoning district is to provide for the sale of goods; the performance of services, including repair facilities; office uses; dwellings; small wholesale stores or distributors; and limited processing and packaging. Allowable uses, include, but are not limited to, single-unit dwellings; multi-unit dwellings; residential care facilities; cinemas; commercial services; nonresidential care facilities; offices; restaurants; retail stores; veterinary clinics; cannabis manufacturing and testing; and community gardens.

Shopping Center (SC)
The purpose of the SC zoning district is to provide a wide range of goods and services to the community. However, general commercial uses that are incompatible with a retail shopping center are prohibited. Allowable uses, include, but are not limited to, dormitories; multi-unit dwellings; residential care facilities; childcare centers; commercial services; hotels/motels; non-residential care facilities; offices; restaurants; retail stores; veterinary clinics; and community gardens.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing

Agriculture-Open Space (A-OS)
The purpose of the A-OS zoning district is to ensure the long-term preservation of agricultural and open space land. The A-OS zoning district is intended to prevent the premature development of land to urban uses. Allowable uses include, but are not limited to, farm worker housing; temporary commercial buildings; agriculture uses; community gardens; and solar energy systems.

Sacramento County Zoning
The County defines the AG-20, AG-80, and SPA – Metro Air Park zoning districts as follows:

Agricultural – 20 Acres (AG-20)
The AG-20 zoning district identifies land that is generally suitable for agricultural production with the specific intent to provide an opportunity for starter farms or large hobby farms. Much of the land in this category is classified as "statewide in significance", with soils generally in the class III and IV range. Approximately 30 percent of the land in this category is primarily suitable for grazing.

The AG-20 zoning district allows single family dwelling units at a density no greater than 20 acres per unit. Uses other than agricultural production are not permitted in the AG-20 zoning district.

Agricultural – 80 Acres (AG-80)
The AG-80 zoning district identifies land that is generally used for agricultural purposes, but less suited for intensive agricultural than Agricultural Cropland. The minimum size allowable is 80 acres, large enough to maintain an economically viable farming operation. Typical farming activities include dry land grain, and irrigated and dry land pasture. Most soil classes range between IV and VI on the Soil Conservation Service scale. Constraints found in areas with this designation include shallow soils, uncertain water supply, moderate slopes, fair to poor crop yield, and farm unit fragmentation. Only agricultural production is permitted in areas with this designation. The AG-80 zoning district allows single family dwelling units at a density no greater than 80 acres per unit.

Special Planning Area (SPA) – Metro Air Park
SPAs impose a “special” set of development standards for select areas that have unique qualities or problems that cannot be adequately addressed by the County’s Zoning Code. SPAs can tailor the Zoning Code to meet the needs of distinct districts, such as historic areas or main streets, or for areas subject to unique environmental conditions, such as steep slopes or flooding. SPAs may require more stringent development standards than the Zoning Code, or may actually relax such standards, depending upon the nature of the area in question. SPAs adapt the Zoning Code to effectively implement the policies of the County’s General Plan in areas where the adopted Code is inappropriate.

Population and Housing
The City of Sacramento and Sacramento County’s historical, current, and projected population and housing, as well as a discussion on employment and the jobs-to-housing ratio are provided below.

Historical and Current Population and Housing
According to the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, between 2010 and 2021, Sacramento County experienced population growth, averaging approximately one percent for the entire County, including incorporated cities and unincorporated communities. As shown in Table 4.9-2, the population within the City of Sacramento limits has experienced a similar growth rate of one percent, increasing from 466,488 residents in 2010 to 518,161 residents in 2023.

Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.9 – Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing