Based on the above, cumulative conditions may result in a significant cumulative impact related to the loss of special -status species habitat in the vicinity of the project. Although habitat impacts covered by the Natomas Basin HCP or Metro Air Park HCP are mitigated under the foregoing HCPs, and habitat impacts associated with buildout of the Northlake subdivision were separately addressed through project - specific mitigation measures, the City does not control mitigation for ongoing and future projects in unincorporated Sacramento County.
Therefore, the overall habitat impact would be considered significant 46 and the proposed project’s contribution to the significant impact could be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.4-78 to 4.4-82)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less than cumulatively considerable level:
Industrial Park
4.4-15(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) and 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3, 4.4- 4(a), 4.4-5(a) and 4.4-5(b), 4.4-6, 4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and 4.4-9(b), 4.4- 10(a), 4.4-11(a) through 4.4-11(c), and 4.4-13(a).
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-15(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) and 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3, 4.4- 4(a), 4.4-5(a) and 4.4-5(b), 4.4-6, 4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and 4.4-9(b), 4.4- 10(b) and 4.4-10(c), 4.4-11(e) and 4.4-11(f), and 4.4-13(b) and 4.4- 13(c).
Finding: As discussed throughout Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR , development of the proposed project has the potential to impact special-status species and their habitat, riparian habitat or other Sensitive Natural Communities , protected wetlands, and other biological resources. Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures would ensure that impacts to the foregoing areas would be reduced. For example, mitigation measures would require implementation of applicable Natomas Basin HCP Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures for Covered Species to address potential impacts that could occur as a result of all project - associated construction activities, regardless of whether they occur within or outside of the Natomas Basin HCP permit area. Compliance with the aforementioned Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures would reduce potential impacts to protected plant species, giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike to a less-than-significant level.
For species not covered under the Natomas Basin HCP, such as northern harrier, white-tailed kite, song sparrow, and other nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and CFGC, mitigation measures are also included to address potential impacts.
Such measures necessitate preconstruction surveys to identify active nests and further provisions should active nests be on-site or in areas immediately adjacent to the site. In addition, in the event that a portion of the City’s surplus HCP coverage acreage is not available to the project to address potential impacts to on-site foraging habitat outside of the Natomas Basin HCP permit area, Mitigation Measure 4.4-5(b) requires the project to preserve Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat elsewhere, in accordance with applicable CDFW guidelines.
Furthermore, potential impacts to riparian habitat or other Sensitive Natural Communities are addressed through mitigation requiring compliance with s ection 1600 of the CFGC , and potential impacts to protected wetlands are addressed through mitigation requiring compliance with sections 404 and 401 of the CWA.
47 As discussed above, projects within the cumulative setting of the proposed project would be subject to applicable policies, regulations, and standards set forth at the federal, State, and local level, including preconstruction surveys, compliance with CFGC section 1600, and s ections 404 and 401 of the CWA. Therefore, all potential impacts that could occur through development in the cumulative setting would be reduced through applicable regulatory requirements.
Overall, with incorporation of the mitigation measures set forth herein, potential impacts to biological resources that could occur as a result of the proposed project would all be reduced to a less -than-significant level. Thus, the mitigation would reduce the project’s cumulative loss of habitat for special -status species impacts to a less-than -significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.4-81 to 4.4-82)
3. Cultural Resources
Impact 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. 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. 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 48 remains. As such, the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, s ection 15064.5 or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, and a significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15 to 4.5-16)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
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 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
49 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 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.
Finding: Implementation of the foregoing mitigation measure would require protocols be followed in the event that subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction of the proposed project . The protocols include implementation of a buffer area a round any discoveries and consultation with a qualified professional archaeologist , the City of Sacramento and applicable landowner , Sacramento County Coroner , and/or MLD as applicable. In cases where a cultural resources is positively identified, appropriate treatment measures that preserve or restore the character and integrity of a find shall be implemented and/or 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.
Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.5-15 to 4.5-18)
4. Geology and Soils
50 Impact 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. 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. 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. D uring the field exploration of the project site, undocumented fill was encountered at a depth of approximately four feet below ground surface. According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project , 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.
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 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.
Similarly, a ccording 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 51 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. Without implementation of the aforementioned corrective actions, the proposed project would have the potential to be exposed to substantial risks related to expansive soils.
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. (DEIR, p.
4.6-14 to 4.6-16)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.6-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the grading plans shall incorporate the geotechnical recommendations specified in the Preliminary 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.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 requires that geotechnical recommendations from the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration would be incorporated int o the project design prior to issuance of grading perm its, thereby ensuring that t he geological and soil conditions on the site would be adequate to support development of the proposed project, thus reducing potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4 .6- 16 to 4.6-17)
Impact 4.6-4 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. 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 52 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; the closest known paleontological resources found within the County were discovered at the former Arco Aren a 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, ground- disturbing activity, such as grading, trenching, or excavating associated with implementation of the proposed project, could have the potential to disturb or destroy unknown paleontological resources, and a significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4.6-17 to 4.6-18)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
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.
Finding: Implementation of M itigation Measure 4.6-4 would require buffer areas around unique paleontological resources, should they be discovered, as well as notification of the find to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department, and assessment by an archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian to assess the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources . Implementation of such protocols would reduce the potential impact of direct or indirect destruction of unique paleontological resources or geologic features to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.6-18)
5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.7-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 53 involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. The Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project by Environmental Investigation Services, Inc. (EIS) included an analysis of potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) within the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels. T he project site was historically used as hay fields, with possible intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Therefore, the potential exists for organochloride pesticides (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 on- site 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.
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.
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 asbestos -containing building materials (ACBMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) may be present within the areas of former structures. The potential presence ACBMs and lead contamination is considered an REC. During demolition and ground- disturbing 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 transported off - site, resulting in the release of hazardous material into the environment.
Based on the above, 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 54 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. (DEIR, p. 4.7-16 to 4.7-18)
Mitigation Measures : Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park
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.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.7-2(a) and 4.7-2(b) would require the recommendations of the Phase I ESA be implemented by the proposed project, including testing for residual pesticides, lead, asbestos, and other contaminants of concern, and, i f contaminants are discovered, that contaminated soils be properly excavated and disposed of, thus reducing the impact to a l ess-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17 to 4.7-18)
Impact 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 55 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. 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 , which is addressed in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) . The ALUCP 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.”
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 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. (DEIR, p. 4.7-20 to 4.7-22)
Mitigation Measures : Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
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 56 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 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
57 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:
• 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.
58 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;
• 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.
59 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:
• 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.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) would ensure that the final location and design of the detention basins are consistent with the recommendations of the ALUC regarding wildlife hazards to aviation, require the project applicant to prepare a design and management plan for the proposed drainage feature, and that the plan would be prepared in coordination with the Sacramento International Airport Operations Manager before the commencement of construction. Thus, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) would ensure that design features would minimize bird strikes and other wildlife-related airspace safety hazards in the vicinity of the project area, thereby reducing potential impacts to a less-than -significant level. (DEIR, p. 4 .7-22)
6. Hydrology and Water Quality
60 Impact 4.8-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during constr uction. 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.
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 storm water pollution prevention plan ( 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.
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. 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.
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 for Construction and for New Development/Redevelopment and Section 11 of the Development Standards (or other similar source as approved 61 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. (DEIR, p. 4.8 -14 to 4.8- 17)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
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.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.8.1 would require the preparation of a SWPPP for the proposed project, ensuring proper compliance with the aforementioned regulations, thus ensuring that the proposed project’s construction activities would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality.
Therefore, impacts related to v iolation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality during construction impact would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17)
Impact 4.8-2 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during operations. Development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of a rural area to an 62 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.
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. 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. 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.
In order to ensure continued operation of the proposed LID control features, the City would provide regular inspection and maintenance of such features. 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.
Based on the above, the proposed project includes site design measures to ensure that stormwater runoff is properly treated prior to discharge. 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 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. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17 to 4.8-22)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
63 Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
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.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 .8-2, a BMP and water quality maintenance plan would be required prior to approval of final project improvement plans for any on-site development. The BMP and water quality maintenance plan would ensure that the project mee ts the standards of the City’s National Pollutant discharge Elimination system ( NPDES) permit and the CASQA stormwater Quality Association Handbook. Compliance with the standards therein would ensure that stormwater runoff is properly treated prior to discharge. Thus, the proposed project would not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantial degradation of surface or ground water quality during operations , and impacts related to such would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p.
4.8-22)
Impact 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. 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 64 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. T he proposed project would raise the building pads above the 100-year base flood elevation, in compliance with Section 15.104.050.
Furthermore
Wood Rodgers has confirmed that the proposed project
would result in reduced water surface elevations ( 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 of on-site grading.
With respect to risking release of pollutants due to project inundation, the future tenants of the proposed industrial buildings are not currently known, 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.
Based on the above, t he 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. (DEIR, p. 4.8-27 to 4.8-28)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
65 Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.8-5 Prior to approval of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a
Conditional 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.
Finding: With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-5, the project would be required to obtain a CLOMR or CLOMR -F letter from FEMA and submit the CLOMR or CLOMR-F letter to the City engineer prior to acceptance of grading permits , which would provide the information needed to ensure the project’s compliance with existing regulations. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p.
4.8-28 to 4.8-29)
7. Noise
Impact 4.10-2 Generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies . The primary sources of noise associated with the proposed project would be traffic noise associated with traffic on local roadways, operational noise associated with the loading docks and truck circulation, and parking lot circulation.
Traffic noise levels were predicted for the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project -area roadway segment for the proposed project .
Traffic noise levels
associated with operation of the proposed project were compared to the applicable noise level increase significance criteria and determined to be under the criteria thresholds. Similarly, operation of the proposed industrial park would result in noise thresholds below the City’s noise level standards. However, full buildout of the annexation area, including the nonparticipating parcels, would result in operational noise in excess of the City’s nighttime noise level standard. Therefore, the increase in noise levels at existing sensitive receptors due to on-site operations would be potentially significant.
Based on the above, although the proposed project would not result in an increase in traffic noise levels at existing sensitive receptors that would be considered significant, operational noise associated with the proposed project, including the future development of the nonparticipating parcels, could result in noise increases in exceedance of the applicable noise standards. Saxelby Acoustics calculated that the inclusion of an eight -foot-tall sound wall along the eastern frontage of the project site would reduce nighttime noise levels at the existing 66 sensitive receptors to below the City’s nighttime noise level standard.
As such, without the inclusion of a sound wall along the project site’s eastern frontage, full buildout of the annexation area could result in the generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, and a significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4. 10-16 to
4.10-23)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.10-2 Prior to approval by the City’s Public Works Department of the final Improvement Plans for the nonparticipating parcels portion of the proposed project, the Improvement Plans shall include the following requirements:
• An eight-foot-tall sound wall shall be constructed along the eastern project boundary, in the location indicated in Figure
4.10-6 and the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared
for the proposed project by Saxelby Acoustics, in order to achieve the City’s nighttime 50 dBA L
50 noise level
standards.
• Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of concrete panels, concrete masonry units, earthen berms, or any combination of these materials that achieve the required total height.
Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and
degradation of acoustical performance.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.10-2 would require that the project implement improvement plans that would include and eight -foot-tall sound wall along the eastern project boundary in compliance with the recommendations of the project-specific Environmental Noise Assessment, thus reducing nighttime noise levels created by project operations to below the City’s allowable thresholds. With implementation of the above mitigation, the project’s impact to operational noise would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.10-19 to 4.10-24)
8. Transportation
Impact 4.12-2 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system during operations. The pedestrian system in the project site vicinity consists of sidewalks along Del Paso Road and El Centro Road as the roadways pass through the Sundance Lake and Westlake neighborhoods, as well as an internal trail system within the neighborhoods. In addition, a sidewalk is located along Bayou Way 67 just east of the project site, associated with the existing self -storage facility. The bicycle system in the site vicinity consists of a Class I bike path and Class II bike lanes to the south and east of the project site, around the Westlake and Sundance Lake neighborhoods. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are not currently located along the project site frontage, as the location is currently undeveloped. As such, the proposed project would not adversely affect existing pedestrian or bicycle facilities. However, the existing site plan does not illustrate where planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities would be on-site.
Additionally, the site plan does not currently show the planned Class IV cycle track on the east side of the site, which is in the City’s master bicycle network. Because such facilities are not shown on the current site plan, operations of the proposed project could be considered to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a potentially significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4.10-18)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.12-2 The following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department:
• The project should construct pedestrian and bicycle
facilities along its frontage to City Standards.
• Class IV separated bicycle facilities shall be
accommodated within the proposed cross section to
provide separation between cyclists and heavy truck
traffic.
• The bicycle network shall be connected to the existing and planned City and County bikeway system, including,
but not limited to, Bayou Way at the northeast corner of the site, the Class I bikeway at the southeast corner of the site, and Metro Air Parkway north of I-5.
• The off-street Class IV cycle track shown on the eastern side of the site in the City Bikeway Master Plan shall be accommodated in the proposed plans.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would require that project site plans be updated to contain pedestrian bicycle facilities to City standards, including bicycle facilities along the project frontage, Class IV bicycle lanes, connection to the existing and planned City and County bikeway system, and accommodation of the off -street Class IV bicycle track shown on the eastern side of the site in the City Bikeway Master Plan. Compliance with the above would ensure that operations of the proposed project would not be considered to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian 68 and bicycle facilities , and a less-than-significant impact would occur . (DEIR, p. 4.10- 18 to 4.10-19)
Impact 4.12-3 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The City of Sacramento Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines do not specify a significance threshold for industrial land uses. As such, a regional baseline (2016) average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per employee metric was used to establish the threshold, which was determined to be 100 percent of the regional average VMT per employee. The regional average was determined to be 17.33. Based on the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) SACSIM 19 travel demand model, the on-site M -1-PUD uses are anticipated to generate 22.21 VMT per employee, which is 128 percent of the regional average; above the significance threshold established for the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and a significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4.12-19 to 4.12-21)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.12-3 Prior to the certificate of occupancy for each on-site industrial building, the owner/operator of each building shall be required to prepare and implement a VMT Reduction Plan that includes a sufficient selection of CAPCOA Trip Reduction Programs (T -6 through T-13) to reduce VMT by at least 22 percent, consistent with the VMT Mitigation Memorandum prepared by the City’s Public Works Department for the proposed project (see Appendix Q to the EIR). CAPCOA Trip Reduction Programs T -6 through T-13 include measures such as implementing a commute trip reduction program and/or marketing, providing a rideshare program, implementing a subsidized or discounted transit program, providing end-of -trip bicycle facilities, providing employer -sponsored vanpool, pricing workplace housing, and implementing employee parking cash-out.
The VMT Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the City’s Department of Public Works and Community Development
Department for review and approval.
Finding: In order to reduce VMT associated with the on-site M -1-PUD uses to 100 percent of the regional average, the proposed project would be required to achieve a 22 percent reduction in VMT. Consistent with SB 743, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Technical Advisory, and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), the proposed project is required to reduce VMT through the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. With implementation of such measures, as required by Mitigation Measure 4.12-3, the proposed project would 69 achieve a 22 percent reduction in VMT. Therefore, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than -significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.12-21)
9. Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 4.13-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074. While the project site is located within District P -34-005225, which was recorded in 2018 as a Tribal Cultural Landscape of the Nisenan and the Plains Miwok, the site-specific Cultural Resources Study concluded that important elements of the Tribal Cultural Landscape, including waterways, tule habitats, fisheries, and wildlife, are not present within the project site.
In addition, archaeological resources associated with Native American tribes were not discovered on the project site during field surveys conducted by Tom Origer & Associates , and, a records search of the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) did not indicate the presence of tribal cultural resources within the project site. While known tribal cultural resources are not located within the project site, the possibility exists that buried tribal cultural resources associated with local tribes could occur within the project site. In addition, a lthough the proposed off -site force main alignment occurs along existing roadway ROW and other previously disturbed areas, d ue to the off -
site force main’s location underground, the
possibility of construction of the proposed off -site improvements encountering unknown tribal cultural resources cannot be entirely ruled out. Therefore, ground- disturbing activities associated with the proposed project could cause a substantial change in the significance of a t ribal cultural resource as defined in PRC s ection 21074, and a significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.13-1(a) Conduct Cultural Resources Sensitivity and Awareness Training Prior to Ground-Disturbing Activities
The City shall require the applicant/contractor to provide a tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP will be developed in coordination with culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The WEAP shall be conducted before any project -related construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP will include relevant information regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources, including 70 applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations.
The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and will outline what to do and who to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered.
The WEAP will emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and will discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values.
4.13-1(b) In the Event that Tribal Cultural Resources are Discovered During Construction, Implement Procedures to Evaluate Tribal Cultural Resources and Implement Avoidance and
Minimization Measures to Avoid Significant Impact.
If tribal cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, or human remains) are encountered at the project site during construction, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find (based on the apparent distribution of cultural materials), and the construction contractor shall immediately notify the project’s City representative. Avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources. This will be accomplished, if feasible, by several alternative means, including:
• Planning construction to avoid tribal cultural resources, archaeological sites and/or other cultural resources;
incorporating cultural resources within parks, green-space or other open space; covering archaeological resources;
deeding a cultural resource to a permanent conservation easement; or other preservation and protection methods
agreeable to consulting parties and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the activity.
• Recommendations for avoidance of tribal cultural resources will be reviewed by the City representative, interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and other
appropriate agencies, in light of factors such as costs, logistics, feasibility, design, technology and social, cultural and environmental considerations, and the extent to which avoidance is consistent with project objectives. Avoidance and design alternatives may include realignment within the project site to avoid tribal cultural resources, modification of the design to eliminate or reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources or modification or realignment to avoid highly 71 significant features within a cultural resource or tribal cultural resource.
• Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes will be notified to review and comment on these analyses and shall have the opportunity to meet with the City representative and its representatives who have technical expertise to identify and recommend
feasible avoidance and design alternatives, so that
appropriate and feasible avoidance and design alternatives can be identified.
• If the discovered tribal cultural resource can be avoided, the construction contractor(s), will install protective fencing outside the site boundary, including a 100-foot buffer area, before construction restarts. The boundary of a tribal cultural resource will be determined in consultation with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and tribes will be notified to monitor the installation of fencing. Use of temporary and permanent forms of protective fencing will be determined in consultation with Native American
representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes.
• The construction contractor(s) will maintain the protective fencing throughout construction to avoid the site during all remaining phases of construction. The area will be
demarcated as an “Environmentally Sensitive Area”.
If a tribal cultural resource cannot be avoided, the following performance standard shall be met prior to continuance of construction and associated activities that may result in damage to or destruction of tribal cultural resources:
• Each resource will be evaluated for California Register of Historical Resources - (CRHR) eligibility through application of established eligibility criteria (California Code of Regulations 15064.636), in consultation with consulting Native American tribes, as applicable.
If a tribal cultural resource is determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, the City will avoid damaging effects to the resource in accordance with California PRC Section 21084.3, if feasible. The City shall coordinate the investigation of the find with a qualified archaeologist (meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology) approved by the City and with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes that respond to the City’s notification. As part of the site investigation and resource assessment, the City and the archaeologist shall consult with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to 72 assess the significance of the find, make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary and provide proper management recommendations should potential impacts to the resources be determined by the City to be significant. A written report detailing the site assessment, coordination activities, and management recommendations shall be provided to the City representative by the qualified archaeologist. These
recommendations will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations made by interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes that are not implemented, a justification for why the recommendation was not followed will be provided in the project record.
Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and the City representative will also consult to develop measures for long-term management of any discovered tribal cultural resources. Consultation will be limited to actions consistent with the jurisdiction of the City and taking into account ownership of the subject property. To the extent that the City has jurisdiction, routine operation and maintenance within tribal cultural resources retaining tribal cultural integrity shall be consistent with the avoidance and minimization standards identified in this mitigation measure.
If the City determines that the project may cause a significant impact to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the following are examples of mitigation capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to the resource. These measures may be considered to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts and constitute the standard by which an impact conclusion of less - than significant may be reached:
• Avoid and preserve resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning
greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and
management criteria.
• Treat the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the Tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
o Protect the cultural character and integrity of the
resource.
o Protect the traditional use of the resource.
o Protect the confidentiality of the resource.
73 o Establish permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or
using the resources or places.
o Protect the resource.
4.13-1(c) Implement Procedures in the Event of the Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains.
If an inadvertent discovery of human remains is made at any time during project-related construction activities or project planning, the City will implement the procedures listed above. The following performance standards shall be met prior to implementing or continuing actions such as construction, which may result in damage to or destruction of human remains. In accordance with the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), if human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, the City shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation in the area of the remains and notify the Sacramento County Coroner and a
professional archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains.
The Coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or State lands (HSC Section 7050.5[b]).
If the human remains are of historic age and are determined to be not of Native American origin, the City will follow the provisions of the HSC Section 7000 (et seq.) regarding the disinterment and removal of non-Native American human remains.
If the Coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (HSC Section 7050[c]). After the Coroner’s findings have been made, the archaeologist and the NAHC -designated Most Likely Descendant (MLD), in consultation with the landowner, shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains. The responsibilities of the City for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California PRC Section 5097.9 et seq.
Finding: Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures would require that the proposed project applicant or contractor provide a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all personnel involved in project construction, so each individual is aware of relevant information regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the 74 project site and will outline what to do and who to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 (b) establishes protocols to be followed in the event that t ribal cultural resources or Native American human remains are discovered during construction. Compliance with the training and protocols therein would reduce the likelihood that a tribal cultural resource could be inadvertently impacted, and would implement steps to take to protect t ribal cultural resources, if they are identified. Thus, implementation of the foregoing m itigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 4.1 3-10 to 4.13-14)
B. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts of the proposed project, including cumulative impacts, are set out below. The basis for the finding for each identified impact is set forth below.
1. Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-3 In a non -urbanized area, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). Given that the existing development in the immediate vicinity of the site is primarily rural in nature, the analysis considers the project area to be non- urbanized. The industrial park component of the proposed project would include the development of an industrial park within an approximately 353.5- acre portion of the project site, located immediately south of Bayou Way. The industrial park would allow for construction of up to 5,204,500 sf of industrial uses, as well as approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality, on approximately 13.4 acres of the overall site.
The proposed project would include planting new trees along the northern border of the project site. Such landscaping would help screen the project from public views. Although the proposed landscaping would partially obscure views of the industrial park from looking southeast from the southbound lane of I-5, the trees would not screen views until after 20 years of growth. Similarly, even following 20 years of growth, the trees would not obscure views of the site from Metro Air Parkway, looking southeast or from the southbound lane of I-5, looking southwest.
As such, the existing visual character and quality of public views of the project site would be considered to be substantially degraded by the industrial park component of the proposed project.
Based on the above, although the inclusion of landscaping trees would partially obscure views of the industrial park portion of the project site, the 75 existing visual character and quality of public views of the site would be substantially degraded by development of both components of the proposed project. Thus, a significant impact could occur. (DEIR, p. 4.1 - 16 to 4.1-22)
Finding: Although the proposed project would be required to comply with PUD Guidelines which would help to reduce the severity of the aesthetic impact of the proposed project, feasible mitigation does not exist to reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level. Due to the substantial degradation of the existing visual character and quality of public views of the project site, the impact associated with construction of both components of the proposed project would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.1-24)
Impact 4.1-5 Long-term changes in visual character associated with cumulative development of the proposed project in combination with future buildout of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento County General Plan. As discussed under Impact 4.1- 3, development of the proposed industrial park and future development of the nonparticipating parcels would substantially degrade the visual character and the quality of public views of the project site. In context with the planned development along the I -5 corridor in the project vicinity, the proposed project would contribute towards significantly altering the visual character of the surroundings. Therefore, the proposed project’s incremental contribution to such impacts would be significant . (DEIR, p.
4.1-26 to 4.1-27)
Finding: Feasible mitigation does not exist to reduce the above impact to a less-than- significant level. Due to the substantial degradation of the existing visual character and quality of public views of the project site, the impact associated with construction of both components of the proposed project in combination with cumulative development would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.1-27)
2. Agricultural Resources
Impact 4.2-1 Impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non- agricultural use. While the nonparticipating parcels do not contain land that is defined as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, and, thus, would not result in negative impacts to such resources upon future development, construction activities on the rest of the project site would result in conversion of approximately 31.3 acres of Prime Farmland and approximately 12.1 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance in the northeast corner of the project site. Therefore, because the proposed project would result in the conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses, a significant impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.2-16 to 4.2-17.)
76 Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
Industrial Park
4.2-1 The City shall ensure that, prior to impacting agricultural/open space resources within the project site by the issuance of a grading permit, any and all project -related subdivision maps satisfy the On- Site Open Space and Off -Site Open Space requirements as defined herein. Open space dedications made pursuant to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) shall be made to the City and/or the Natomas Basin Conservancy and shall be located in the Natomas Basin. The remaining non-Natomas Basin HCP mitigation acreage may be located in unincorporated Sacramento County, Yolo County, and/or Sutter County, and may be held and managed by a qualified third-party entity with the approval of the City. Preservation shall be ensured in perpetuity via conservation easement, fee, or irrevocable offer of dedication to the satisfaction of the City. All mitigation acreage shall consist of land of equal agricultural value and habitat type as the agricultural/open space resources impacted by the proposed project, as determined by the City. All mitigation acreage shall consist of land of comparable agricultural and habitat value as the agricultural/open space resources impacted by the proposed project, as determined by the City.
a. On-Site Agricultural/Open Space Requirements : The
following on-site open space properties shall be dedicated to The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC):
• 86 acres of detention basins.
• 37.9 acres of freeway buffer.
• 2.3 acres of canal buffers.
b. Off-site Agricultural/Open Space Requirements : The
following Off-Site Open Space properties:
• 141.51 acres of currently unidentified
agricultural/open spaced mitigation property to
be located in the unincorporated Sacramento
County and/or unincorporated Sutter County.
• 50-acre habitat mitigation property APN 225-
0020-014.
• 67.59-acre habitat mitigation property APN
225-0020-015.
c. Phasing: The Airport South Industrial Project will develop in phases, as such, the amount of On-Site and Off -Site Open 77 Space to be provided hereunder shall be in proportion to the amount of acreage proposed to be impacted by such
development by the issuance of a grading permit therefor.
d. With respect to each unidentified open space property listed above, and any proposed substitution of an open space
property listed above, the City must determine, in writing, that the proposed agricultural/open space property and/or acreage satisfies the requirements for agricultural/open space to be counted towards the requisite Off -Site
Agricultural/Open Space acreage total.
e. Nothing in this Agricultural/Open Space Mitigation is intended to limit or restrict USFWS and CDFW in their
consideration of Developer's applications for incidental take and/or other habitat mitigation permits or other entitlements under the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. (FEIR p. 3.2 to 3.3)
Finding: The easternmost portion of the project site, including the entirety of the nonparticipating parcels, are located within the Natomas Basin HCP permit area boundaries. The proposed project would be subject to applicable fees for the conversion of habitat to urban uses within the Natomas Basin HCP policy area. In addition, surplus acreage under the City’s Natomas Basin HCP allocation may be available for use by the remainder of the project site acreage. Thus, pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.4-5(b) of the DEIR, the proposed project would be required to identify appropriate lands to be set aside in permanent conservation easement at a ratio of one acre of habitat located within the Natomas Basin HCP policy area converted to urban land uses to 0.5-acre of habitat preserved. Therefore, although the proposed project would involve the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, through compliance with Natomas Basin HCP requirements, open space lands would be preserved elsewhere at a 0.5:1 ratio.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 would similarly require the preservation of off -site farmland at a ratio of one Farmland acre converted to urban land uses outside the Natomas Basin HCP policy area to 0.5-acre preserved, which, combined with the biological resources mitigation required by Mitigation Measure 4.4-5(b), would result in an overall preservation at a 1:1 ratio. While Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 would preserve an equivalent acreage of Farmland elsewhere, the proposed project would result in the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and would not create new agricultural land; as such, the proposed project would lead to an overall loss of Farmland. Therefore, although implementation of the preceding mitigation measure would reduce the above potentially significant impact, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable . (DEIR, p.
4.2-17 to 4.2-18)
Impact 4.2-4 Impacts related to compliance with the requirements of the Cortese - Knox-Hertzberg act (Government Code, Section 56000 et. seq.) 78 pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land. The proposed project site is currently located within Sacramento County and has a Sacramento County General Plan land use designation of Agricultural Cropland and is zoned AG -80. The proposed project would include a request for annexation of the 474.4- acre project site to the City of Sacramento, which ultimately requires the approval of Sacramento LAFCo. Sacramento LAFCo has specific policies related to agricultural land. Because the project site is proposed to be annexed into the City of Sacramento and the industrial park portion of the site is proposed for development, on- site soils are evaluated in comparison to the Sacramento LAFCo’s definition of prime agricultural land pursuant to Government Code s ection 56064. Should on- site soils meet any one criterion, such land would be considered prime agricultural land by Sacramento LAFCo.
The project site contains an approximate total of 385.3 acres of soils that qualify for rating as Class II when irrigated in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification. Criteria (a) of the Sacramento LAFCo’s definition of prime agricultural land applies to soils that qualify as Class I or Class II, regardless of whether the soil is non- irrigated or irrigated, provided that irrigation is feasible. Thus, soils within the proposed project site meet criteria (a) to qualify as prime agricultural farmland under section 56064 of the Cortese-Knox -Hertzberg Act.
Therefore, the project would result in a significant impact with regards to compliance with LAFCo’s policies related to the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. (DEIR, p. 4.2-21 to 4.2-22)
Finding: Potential mitigation for impacts related to the conversion of prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uses could include purchasing agricultural conservation easements outside the project area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 would help reduce the project’s potential impacts related to conversion of important farmland.
However, as discussed under Impact 4.2-1 of the DEIR, such mitigation would not create new agricultural land; rather, the mitigation would simply preserve existing agricultural land elsewhere. Feasible mitigation measures do not exist to reduce the above impact to a less -than-significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-23)
Impact 4.2-5 Impacts related to cumulative loss of agricultural land.
The City’s 2040 General Plan MEIR determined that the net decrease of Important Farmland for crops from 2018 to 2020 within Sacramento County was 7,053 acres. Buildout of the 2040 General Plan could result in the further conversion, and therefore loss, of agricultural land to urban uses. Sufficient agricultural land does not exist within the City to be preserved in compensation with the amount of farmland converted to urban uses. Many of the goals and policies of the 2040 General Plan encourage the continued productivity and preservation of existing local agricultural lands and operations in areas outside of the City. 79 Although the project site is not currently within the City’s SOI, following the proposed Annexation, the project would be required to comply with all applicable policies. However, the project was not anticipated within the City’s General Plan MEIR analysis. As such, the most relevant cumulative setting for the proposed project is within the County.
According to the County’s General Plan EIR, the County contains approximately 110,278 acres of Prime Farmland, 56,140 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 15,187 acres of Unique Farmland, and 39,873 acres of Farmland of Local Importance. The County’s General Plan EIR determined that even with the preservation of farmland at a one-to-one ratio, buildout of the County General Plan would result in a net loss of farmland, and a significant impact would occur.
Thus, development of the proposed project, as well as other development within the County’s General Plan policy area, such as the proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan, the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan, the Grandpark Specific Plan, and Metro Air Park, would contribute to the aforementioned impact. As such, the impact would be cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-24)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
Industrial Park
4.2-5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-1.
Finding: Implementation of the forgoing mitigation measure would help reduce the project’s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impact related to conversion of important farmland. However, due to the permanent loss of agricultural land attributable to the project, even with implementation of mitigation, the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative impact is cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-24)
3. Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
Impact 4.3-2 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan during project operation. Emissions of ROG, NO x, and PM 10 would be generated during operations of the proposed project from both mobile and stationary sources. The most significant source of emissions related to the proposed project would be from mobile sources. E missions resulting from operation of the proposed project under both the Proposed Project Scenario and the Full Buildout of the Annexation Area Scenario would be below the applicable SMAQMD thresholds for PM 2.5 and PM10.
However, ROG and NO X emissions would be above the applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance under both project scenarios. 80 Therefore, operation of the proposed project could create a conflict with or obstruct implementatio n of the applicable air quality plan, and a significant impact could result. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-44 to 4.3-46)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.3-2 Prior to the approval of project improvement plans for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels, the project applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Air Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D), and incorporate all requirements into the Airport South Industrial Project conditions of approval. The measures included in the AQMP include the following:
1. Natural gas use shall be prohibited in all land uses, with the exception of the restaurant kitchen.
2. The project shall implement a Transportation Management Association (TMA), such as Jibe North Natomas (for more information, visit https://jibe.org/). The TMA must comply with the following criteria, and is subject to approval by the City of Sacramento and SMAQMD:
a. The TMA must be legally constituted as a non-profit
organization, Property/Business Improvement District
(PBID), or a government entity with a non-revocable
funding mechanism, such as a community finance
district, dedicated to TMA operations and services;
and
b. The TMA must provide a minimum level of TDM
services to employees and residents within the area
covered by the AQMP sufficient to achieve the
emission reductions claimed by the measure.
Services must be enumerated and funded to the
satisfaction of the lead agency and SMAQMD.
3. The project applicant shall require all tenants of the on-site industrial uses to use zero-emission forklifts.
4. The project applicant shall require that 4.5 percent of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet be zero emission by full buildout of the annexation area. It should be noted that in the event there is a disruption in the manufacturing of zero emission vehicles/trucks or that sufficient vehicles/trucks are not commercially available for the intended application, the “clean fleet requirements” may be adjusted as minimally as possible by the City’s Community Development Department to accommodate the manufacturing disruption or
unavailability of commercially available vehicles/trucks. 81 5. The project shall provide complete sidewalks separated from roadway throughout the project site and pedestrian crossing at intersections on-site to ensure employees and visitors can walk between land uses/businesses. The project shall also connect the pedestrian network on-site to the adjacent
properties off-site (including South Bayou Way, Power Line Road and potential future connections) as indicated on the preliminary site plan when those portions of the site develop.
6. Provide EV Ready parking spaces at the ratio with which the current CalGreen Tier 2 standards require EV Capable
spaces.
Finding: For land development projects that are anticipated to exceed the SMAQMD’s operational emissions thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, such as the proposed project, SMAQMD requires that the project proponent develop an Air Quality Mitigation Plan (AQMP) describing what features the project will incorporate to reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions from baseline conditions. SMAQMD guidance provides that the creation and implementation of an AQMP represents all feasible mitigation, provided that the AQMP demonstrates a 15 percent reduction of ozone precursors below baseline emissions for projects considered in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and 35 percent for projects not considered in the SIP. As the proposed project was not anticipated by the City in its current General Plan or other community plan, development of the project is not included in the growth assumptions of the SIP. As such, a reduction of 35 percent below baseline emissions of ozone precursors is required for the proposed project. According to SMAQMD, a project’s ozone precursor emissions reductions goals should be based on mobile emissions only.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires preparation and implementation of a project -specific AQMP. The AQMP was prepared using assumptions associated with full buildout of the annexation area, to represent a worst -case scenario. As shown in Table 4.3-10 of Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, Greenhous Gas Emissions, and Energy of the DEIR , the proposed project would meet the 35 percent reduction target with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-2, which represents all feasible mitigation. However, even with a 35 percent reduction, emission levels would still exceed the applicable threshold of significance and, therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable . (DEIR, p. 4.3-46 to 4.3-47)
Impact 4.3-6 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). The proposed project is within a nonattainment area for ozone and PM 10. By nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact.
The population growth and vehicle usage within the nonattainment area from the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within Sacramento and surrounding areas, contributes to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis, and could either delay attainment of Ambient Air 82 Quality Standards (AAQS) or require the adoption of additional controls on existing and future air pollution sources to offset emission increases.
Thus, the project’s emissions of criteria air pollutants would contribute to cumulative regional air quality effects. SMAQMD directs lead agencies to use the region’s existing attainment plans as a basis for analysis of cumulative emissions. A project’s interference with such plans may be determined through the use of the SMAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance for ozone precursors, PM2.5, and PM10.
If the proposed project would result in an increase of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 in excess of SMAQMD’s operational phase cumulative- level emissions threshold, which are equivalent to SMAQMD’s project -level operational emissions thresholds, the project could potentially result in a significant incremental contribution towards cumulative air quality impacts. The proposed project’s unmitigated cumulative contribution to regional emissions is equivalent to the project’s unmitigated operational emissions, as presented in Table 4.3-9 of Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, of the DEIR.
The proposed project’s unmitigated operational emissions of PM 10 and PM2.5 would be below the SMAQMD’s applicable thresholds of significance. However, the proposed project would result in operational emissions of ROG and NO X, which exceed all applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the proposed project could be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment. (DEIR, p.
4.3-63)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.3-6 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-2.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4. 3-6 represents all feasible mitigation to address criteria pollutant emissions. However, as presented in Table 4.3-10 of Chapter 4.3, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy, of the DEIR, emission levels would still exceed the applicable thresholds of significance and, therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.3-63)
C. Findings Related to the Relationship Between Local Short -term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity.
Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the project’s balancing of local short term uses of the environment and the maintenance of long term productivity:
83 The proposed plan, land uses, zoning, and public improvements for the project site would create up to 5,204,500 sf of industrial uses on approximately 235.6 acres, as well as approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality, on approximately 13.4 acres. The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres, and would result in first tier entitlements for future industrial uses of approximately 1,404,800 sf.
The purpose of the project is to construct a high-quality industrial park with elevated aesthetics, that incorporates energy efficient and low water use principles in order to promote the City’s environmental goals. The industrial park would be capable of serving warehouse, distribution, research, and other light industrial uses, as well as retail and commercial uses. The construction of the proposed project would create substantial, permanent employment opportunities for residents of the City of Sacramento and surrounding areas, attract new businesses and jobs to the C ity, provide light industrial and warehousing opportunities closer to the City of Sacramento developed areas, and provide needed retail, commercial, and hotel uses along the I -5 corridor in close proximity to Sacramento International Airport. (DEIR, p. 7-2 to 7-3.)
The project has the following project objectives:
• Utilize a targeted municipal service review to amend the City’s SOI, followed by Annexation of the project site into the City of Sacramento, to construct a high-quality industrial park with elevated aesthetics to be capable of serving warehouse, distribution, research, and other light industrial uses, as well as retail and commercial uses.
• Utilize a targeted municipal service review to amend the Sphere of Influence of the SacSewer to provide wastewater services to the project site. • Create substantial, permanent employment opportunities for residents of the City of Sacramento and surrounding areas, including the North Natomas area and the Northlake project site.
• Provide light industrial and warehousing opportunities closer to the City of Sacramento developed areas, thereby lowering local and regional VMT and traffic congestion.
• Provide retail, commercial, and hotel uses along the I -5 corridor in close proximity to Sacramento International Airport.
• Attract new businesses and jobs to the City, thereby improving the jobs/housing balance both in the City and the region.
• Construct an industrial park that incorporates energy efficiency and low water use principles in order to promote the City’s environmental goals. • Utilize alternative energy sources, including solar panels, where feasible. • Locate the project as near as possible to existing developed areas and utility infrastructure with anticipated capacity.
• Create an internal roadway network for the project site that will allow for efficient access to the site and limit impacts to offsite roadways by directing truck traffic directly to I-5.
84 • Phase project construction to be responsive to market demands. • Minimize environmental impacts to surrounding areas, including residential communities and other sensitive land uses.
D. Project Alternatives.
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” (Public Resources Code, section 21002, italics added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” ( Ibid., italics added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects.” (Ibid.)
CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” (Public Resources Code, section 21061.1.) The CEQA Guidelines add another factor: “legal” considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15364; see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 ( Goleta II ).) Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6, subd. (f)(1).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.)
Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an “acceptable level”) solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of alternatives with respect to that impact, even if the alternative would mitigate the impact to a greater degree than the project. (Public Resources Code, section 21002; Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 691, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility of modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15091, subds. (a), (b).)
85 With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Public Resources Code, section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interest, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” ( Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
The preceding discussion regarding project impacts reveals that nearly every significant effect identified in the EIR has been at least substantially lessened, if not fully avoided, by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
Thus, as a legal matter, the City, in considering alternatives in these findings, need only determine whether any alternatives are environmentally superior with respect to those significant and unavoidable impacts. If any alternatives are in fact superior with respect to those impacts, the City is then required to determine whether the alternatives are feasible. If the City determines that no alternative is both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified in the DEIR, the City may approve the proposed project as mitigated, after adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
CEQA does not require that all possible alternatives be evaluated, only that “a range of feasible alternatives” be discussed so as to encourage both meaningful public participation and informed decision making. (CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6, subd. (a).) “The discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive, and the requirement as to the discussion of alternatives is subject to a construction of reasonableness. The statute does not demand what is not realistically possible given the limitation of time, energy, and funds. ‘Crystal ball’ inquiry is not required.” ( Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 286; see also CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6, subd. (f)(3).) Indeed, as stated by the court in Village of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1028, although there may be “literally thousands of “reasonable alternatives’ to the proposed project . . . ‘the statutory requirements for consideration of alternatives must be judged against a rule of reason.’” ( Ibid., quoting Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 910.) “‘Absolute perfection is not required; what is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.’” ( Id., at p. 1029.) The requirement has been fulfilled here; the DEIR examined the proposed project alternatives in detail, exploring their comparative advantages and disadvantages with respect to the proposed project . As the following 86 discussion demonstrates, however, only the p roject as proposed is feasible in light of proposed project objectives and other considerations.
The City Council has considered the proposed project alternatives presented and analyzed in the F EIR and presented during the comment period and public hearing process. Some of these alternatives have the potential to avoid or reduce certain significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, as set forth below. The City Council finds, based on specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, that these alternatives are infeasible. Each alternative and the facts supporting the finding of infeasibility of each alternative are set forth below.
Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration
CEQA requires that the lead agency identify any alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the infeasibility determination (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.6[c]).
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The DEIR included the following alternatives that were considered, but dismissed from further consideration. (DEIR, p. 7-4 to 7-5.)
1. Off-Site Alternative
The possibility of an off -site location was considered as an alternative to the proposed project. The County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) database was consulted to provide information regarding vacant properties in the area of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed project. In considering sites potentially available for future development, the objectives of the proposed project were used to assess the suitability of available sites.
Various potential sites were reviewed. The location that comes closest to feasibility is located northwest of the intersection of Fruitridge Road and South Watt Avenue in the southeast portion of the City, and is already designated Industrial Mixed-Use by the Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Use of this land for an off -site alternative would not require the City to annex the land or expand its SOI. Other sites were not identified, and thus, the Fruitridge and South Watt Avenue site was reviewed.
In order to include a comparable amount of acreage to the proposed project, the off -site alternative would require the demolition of several commercial businesses, including, but not limited to, a building materials store, furniture store, and 7-Eleven convenience store. In addition, approximately 117 acres of the 354 acres required of the alternative would consist of land already set aside for L and D Landfill. Given that buildout of the Off-Site Alternative at this location would require the project applicant to either redesign the proposed project to build around existing commercial businesses or reduce the amount of land designated for residential development while simultaneously demolishing existing businesses, the Off -Site Alternative would be in direct conflict with 87 the project objectives concerning improvement of the job and housing balance in the City and the region. Finally, the project applicant does not own the identified alternative site.
Overall, off -site alternatives that could accomplish the project objectives or accommodate a similar type and intensity of development as the proposed project are not considered feasible. As a result, the Off -Site Alternative was dismissed from detailed evaluation. (DEIR, p. 7-5)
2. Mixed Use Residential Alternative
The Mixed-Use Residential Alternative would include buildout of the project site as proposed for the majority of the parcels, while designating Parcels 5 and 8 for a residential neighborhood. The Mixed-Use Residential Alternative would result in the development of 704,320 fewer sf of industrial buildings than the proposed project, and would develop approximately 109.7 acres of agricultural land as residential.
However, the development of portions of the project site with residential uses would prevent the proposed project from developing employment uses, as specified in the project objectives, and could result in conflicts related to the incompatibility between residential and industrial land uses. Buildout of the Mixed-Use Residential Alternative would require the modification of the proposed entitlement actions, such as the addition of residential designations to the requested GPA and Prezoning. Additionally, the proximity of the new residential development on-site, such as on Parcel 8, may result in significant impacts (e.g., noise conflicts, exposure to toxic air contaminants, etc.) with the planned industrial uses of the proposed project.
Overall, a Mixed-Use Residential Alternative that could accomplish the project objectives is not considered feasible. As a result, the Mixed-Use Residential Alternative was dismissed from detailed evaluation. (DEIR, p. 7-5 to 7-6)
3. 100 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative
The 100 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site as proposed, including the future industrial warehouse buildout, and would require all active warehouses to develop the entire truck fleet with electric vehicles (EVs) at full buildout.
Because the 100 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include development of the project site with the proposed uses, all of the project objectives would be met. In addition, because the 100 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include the operation of EVs over gas -powered vehicles, the project objectives concerning energy efficiency, utilizing alternative energy sources, and minimizing impacts would be improved. In the case of an electric fleet, impacts associated with Air Quality and GHG Emissions would be most significantly reduced by this Alternative.
88 However, requiring the proposed project to maintain a completely electric fleet would render the project infeasible. EVs are an emerging technology and are not yet produced on a scale that would allow future tenants of the proposed industrial park to maintain a completely electric fleet. As such, requiring a fully electric fleet of any future tenants would limit the pool of potential tenants to such a degree that extensive vacancies could occur, or that the project site would be unable to develop the parcels consistent with the project objectives. As such, the 100 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative was dismissed from detailed evaluation. (DEIR, p. 7-6)
Alternatives Considered in the EIR
1. No Project (No Build) Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the current conditions of the project site would remain, and the site would not be developed. The project site would not be annexed into the City of Sacramento; the site would remain in the unincorporated area of the County of Sacramento. The project site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations identified by Sacramento County would remain in effect. The Sacramento County General Plan designates the site for Agricultural Cropland, and the site is zoned by the Sacramento County Zoning Code as AG -80. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would be consistent with the designated land uses for the project site but would not meet any of the project objectives. This Alternative would not develop the project site with industrial land uses. (DEIR, p. 3-1 and 7-7)
Comparative Environmental Effects
Because development, construction, and operations would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, impacts related to Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy ; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; Transportation; and Tribal Cultural Resources would not occur under the Alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-22)
Impacts related to Biological Resources would be greater under the Alternative as compared to the proposed project . The Natomas Basin H CP covers the area within Parcels 5 and 8. As such, any project including development on Parcels 5 and 8 would be required to pay a total of $3,925,275.12 in HCP impact fees (based on the current 2024 HCP Fee of $32,259 per acre) and 60.84 acres of off -site land dedication in support of the Natomas Basin HCP. However, under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Natomas Basin HCP would not receive such funds nor open space land dedications, which would hinder the HCP’s ability to operate as compared to operations with the funds generated by the proposed project. Therefore, the potential impact to the Natomas Basin HCP would be slightly greater under the No Project (No Build) Alternative.
Significant and Unavoidable Impact That Would No Longer Occur 89 The EIR determined that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts and cumulatively considerable impacts related to substantially degrading the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. In addition, the EIR determined that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to long-term changes in visual character associated with cumulative development of the proposed project in combination with future buildout of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento County General Plan. The EIR also determined that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, even with implementation of mitigation measures. While the nonparticipating parcels do not contain such land, construction activities on the rest of the project site would result in conversion of approximately 31.3 acres of Prime Farmland and approximately 12.1 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance. Similarly, because the project site is proposed to be annexed into the City of Sacramento and the industrial park portion of the site is proposed for commercial and industrial development, on-site soils are evaluated in comparison to the Sacramento LAFCo definition of prime agricultural land.
The EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to compliance with the policies of the Sacramento LAFCo pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land even with implementation of mitigation measures.
The DEIR determined that the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan during project operation under both the Proposed Project Scenario and the Full Buildout of the Annexation Area Scenario because the ROG and NO
X emissions would be above the applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance.
Additionally, the EIR determined that the amount of ROG and NO X emissions generated by the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State AAQS.
Because the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not introduce any new structures or buildings on the site, and would consist of the continuation of the existing conditions of the project site, the existing visual character would remain unchanged, farmland would not be converted to non-agricultural uses, and emissions resulting from construction and operational activities would not occur. Thus, all significant and unavoidable impacts discussed above would not occur under the No Project (No Build) Alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-3 to 7-4)
Feasibility/Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives
The No Project (No Build) Alternative maintains the status quo. The No Project (No Build) Alternative will avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project, provided the existing physical conditions on the site continue to exist. Despite the fact that most of the significant impacts associated with implementation of the project would be reduced in significance under the No Project (No Build) Alternative, 90 implementation of th e No Project (No Build) Alternative would not meet any of the project’s objectives.
The concept of “feasibility” encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes existing City policies, as well as the underlying goals and objectives of a project. “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA also encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” ( City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) The No Project (No Build) Alternative would preclude any development at the project site, thereby eliminating project objectives relating to development of a high-quality industrial park capable of serving warehouse, distribution, research, and other light industrial uses; incorporation of retail and commercial uses into the industrial area; creation of employment opportunities for the City of Sacramento and surrounding area; reducing VMT and traffic congestion by providing light industrial and warehouse opportunities closer to the City of Sacramento developed area; provision of retail, commercial, and hotel uses closer to the Sacramento International Airport; attraction of new businesses to the C ity thereby improving the jobs/housing balance in the region; and minimization of environmental impacts to surrounding areas and residential communities through construction of an energy and water efficient development as opposed to other potential land uses . (DEIR, p. 7-2 to 7-3)
The No Project (No Build) Alternative is not on balance with the proposed project in terms of its economic, environmental, social and technological elements due to the fact that the project objectives, and therefore, the City’s applicable goals would not be met under the Alternative. The proposed project would meet the City’s goals related to economy, environmental, social, and technical goals, and thus, is the more feasible choice for the community and the region. Therefore, the No Project (No Build) Alternative is rejected as infeasible.
2. 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative
The 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site as proposed, including the future industrial warehouse buildout. Based on the square footages of the total developable lands, the proposed industrial warehouse development, and the future industrial development, the Alternative would require the active warehouses to maintain 20 percent of the truck fleet as electric vehicles at full buildout of the Annexation area. (DEIR, p. 7-10)
Comparative Environmental Effects
Overall, impacts related to Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy would be fewer under the Alternative. Impacts to Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing; Noise; 91 Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; Transportation; and Tribal Cultural Resources would be similar under the Alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-22)
Impacts Reduced Under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative:
Industrial uses are generally anticipated to involve the use of heavy -duty diesel trucks associated with the movement of goods to and from the sites. As previously noted, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would require 20 percent of the associated truck fleet to be electric vehicles, rather than the proposed diesel -powered fleet, which would reduce criteria pollutant emissions associated with on-site development. Overall, because emissions would be fewer, impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and energy would be fewer under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative as compared to the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 7-12)
Impacts Similar Under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative:
The 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site as proposed. The project site is predominantly undeveloped and affords views of a rural landscape from I-5, Metro Park Airway, and Access Roadway. Therefore, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would be similar to the impacts evaluated in the Aesthetics chapter of the D EIR, including significant and unavoidable impacts. Because the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would result in the same development as the proposed project, t he Alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use, as well as significant and unavoidable impacts related to compliance with the policies of the Sacramento LAFCo pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land, as the proposed project . Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-5 would still apply to the Alternative; however, implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures would not reduce impacts related to conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use and loss of agricultural land, to a less-than-significant level.
For development projects that are anticipated to exceed the SMAQMD’s operational emissions thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, SMAQMD requires that the project proponent develop an AQMP describing how the project would reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions from baseline conditions. Mitigation Measure
4.3-1 requires the use of a combination of engine Tier 3 or Tier 4 off -road construction equipment, or hybrid, electric, or alternatively fueled equipment during construction of the proposed project to reduce construction-related NO
X emissions, and Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2 requires preparation and implementation of a project -specific AQMP ; both of the foregoing Mitigation Measures would still be required under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative. In addition, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would still exceed SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO
2e/yr threshold of significance during construction.
Similar to the proposed project, compliance with the SMAQMD BMPs would not be guaranteed. Thus, buildout of the Alternative would still be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the 92 purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Consequently, Mitigation Measures 4.3- 7(a) through (c) would still be required. Furthermore, Parcel 8 would still be designated for future industrial development under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3, related to conducting a health risk assessment if Parcel 8 is developed with a distribution center, would still be required. The significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality would still occur under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative.
Similar to the proposed project, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include ground-disturbing activities on the project site and, thus, would have the potential to impact special -status plants, giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and other birds protected under the MBTA. Because the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include buildout of the proposed project, the Alternative would result in a similar disturbance area as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the analysis within the Biological Resources chapter of th e DEIR would still apply to the Alternative, and Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) and (b), 4.4-3(a) and (b), 4.4-4(a) and (b), 4.4-5(a) and (b), 4.4-6(a),
4.4-8(a), 4.4-9(a) and (b), 4.4-10(a) through (c), 4.4-11(a) through (f), 4.4-12, and 4.4- 13(a) through (c) would still be required. Therefore, overall impacts to Biological Resources would be similar under the Alternative compared to the proposed project.
Similar to the proposed project, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would result in on-site disturbance to accommodate new development. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
4.5-2 would still apply to the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative to mitigate the potentially significant impact associated with the disturbance or destruction of historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains during construction.
Under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative, the project site would still be developed with commercial and industrial uses, as well as associated improvements. As noted above, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include the same overall area of disturbance compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would have a similar potential to result in the disturbance or destruction of cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources without implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-2, 4.6-4, and 4.13-1(a), (b), and (c) . In addition, the potential for
grading and other ground-disturbing activities to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, significant disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcrowding of the soil, or substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features , would be similar to the proposed project. As a result, the Alternative would have a potential impact associated with subsidence/settlement, liquefaction, and/or expansive soils, and Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 requiring preparation of a final geotechnical engineering report to ensure adequate structural support of the proposed improvements would still be required.
Because the disturbance area for the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would be the same as compared to the proposed project, all RECs identified on the project site would still occur under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative. As such, Mitigation Measures
4.7-2(a) and 5.7-2(b) would still be required. Additional impacts related to Water Quality, 93 Land Use/Planning and Population, and Noise or would be similar to the proposed project under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative due to a similar overall area of disturbance. Regarding hydrology, the project site would still be developed with impervious surfaces under the Alternative, and the potential for changes in drainage patterns and increases in stormwater runoff rates would be the same when compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.8-1 through 4.8-5 would still be required. Regarding Noise, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would not eliminate noise from standard engines that would comprise 80 percent of the fleet. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.10-2, which reduces impacts associated with a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, would still be required.
As detailed in Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of th e D EIR, the VMT analysis contained therein focused on the impact of employee-generated trips, as industrial uses often inherently have higher VMT per employee than other employment types. Therefore, the electrification of 20 percent of the truck fleet would not change the conclusions of the DEIR. Because the development under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would be the same as compared to the proposed project, the Alternative would still require Mitigation Measures 4.12-2 and 4.12-3 to reduce potential conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, as well as CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), during operations. (DEIR, p. 7-11 to 7-15)
Feasibility/Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives
The concept of “feasibility” encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes existing City policies, as well as the underlying goals and objectives of a project. ( City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) ( “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA also encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
Because the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include development of the project site with the same proposed uses, all of the project objectives would be met. In addition, because the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include the operation of 20 percent of the overall fleet as electric vehicles over diesel -powered, the project objectives concerning energy efficiency, utilizing alternative energy sources, and minimizing impacts would be improved. In the case of an electric fleet, impacts associated with air quality and GHG emissions would be most significantly reduced by the Alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-11)
However, as discussed in Chapter 4.3 Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy of the DEIR, Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires preparation and implementation of a project - specific AQMP including a requirement for 4.5 percent zero emissions forklifts, zero emissions, heavy duty fleet, and application of “clean fleet requirements .” As stated therein, the “clean fleet requirements” may be minimally adjusted by the City’s 94 Community Development Department to accommodate the manufacturing disruption or unavailability of commercially available vehicles and trucks. T he 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would have a 15.5 percent higher demand for commercially available EVs and trucks, as well as for commercially available EV infrastructure, as compared to the proposed project. Because sufficient EVs to meet the demands of the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative, as well as the infrastructure necessary to operate such EVs, may not be available and/or may be prohibitively expensive, the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative is considered less feasible than the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 4.3-48)
3. Reduced Footprint Alternative
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site as proposed for the majority of the parcels and leave Parcels 9, 10, and 11, as well as an approximately 51.3-acre portion of Parcel 8, as undeveloped agricultural land. In comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in a reduction of 419,809.4 sf of industrial buildings and would preserve approximately 51.3 acres of agricultural land and 18 acres of other land, including the wetlands contained within Parcels 10 and 11, for a total of 69.3 acres of preserved land. The Reduced Footprint Alternative would generally meet most of the project objectives; however, because less industrial square footage would be constructed at the project site, Objectives #3 and #4 would only be partly met. (DEIR, p. 8-11)
Comparative Environmental Effects
Overall, impacts related to Aesthetics; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing; and Transportation would be similar under the Alternative. Impacts to Agricultural Resources; Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; and Tribal Cultural Resources would be fewer under the Alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-22)
Impacts Reduced Under the Reduced Footprint Alternative:
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would include development of the project site with commercial and industrial uses, similar to the proposed project. However, the Alternative would preserve 51.3 acres of agricultural land located on the project site in Parcel 8. Nonetheless, because the prime agricultural land located on-site is contained entirely within Parcel 5, which would not be preserved under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses, as well as impacts associated with compliance with the policies of the Sacramento LAFCo pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land, would not be eliminated under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. Overall, due to the slightly decreased disturbance area, impacts related to Agricultural Resources would be fewer under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as compared to the proposed project, and Mitigation Measures 4.2-1 and 4.2-5 would still be required. It should be noted that the significant and unavoidable impacts related to agricultural resources would still occur, and, similar to the proposed project, feasible mitigation measures to reduce the 95 identified significant and unavoidable impacts to a less -than-significant level do not exist.
Under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the project site would still be developed with commercial and industrial uses, as well as associated improvements. Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would involve a smaller area of disturbance and building envelope than the proposed project, the criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with the Alternative would be less than the proposed project. Nonetheless, emissions associated with project operations could still create a potentially significant impact related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan. For development projects that are anticipated to exceed the SMAQMD’s operational emissions thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, SMAQMD requires that the project proponent develop an AQMP describing how the project would reduce operational criteria pollutant emissions from baseline conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 requires preparation and implementation of a project -specific AQMP, and would still be required under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. In addition, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would still exceed SMAQMD’s 1,100 MTCO 2e/yr
threshold of significance during construction and compliance with the SMAQMD BMPs could not be ensured. Thus, the Alternative would still be considered to generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Consequently, Mitigation Measures 4.3- 7(a) through (c) would still be required. Although the Reduced Footprint Alternative includes preserving approximately 13 acres of Parcel 8 for future development, it should
be noted that any future development would be located in the northwestern corner of the parcel. Therefore, the new footprint would restrict building envelope to locations outside the 1,000-foot setback distance for sensitive land uses from distribution centers recommended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and Mitigation Measure
4.3-3 would not be required. Overall, impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and energy would be fewer under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as compared to the proposed project due to the decreased on-site industrial development. It should be noted that the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and energy would still occur under the Alternative.
The lands associated with the Natomas Basin HCP are contained within the portion of Parcel 8 preserved under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. As such, the mitigation measures associated with non-HCP lands, specifically Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a),
4.4-3(a), 4.4 -3(b), 4.4 -4(a), 4.4-5(a), 4.4 -5(b), 4.4 -6(a), 4.4-8(a), 4.4-10(c), and 4.4-12, would not apply to the preserved acreage, but would still be required under the Alternative. However, similar to the No Project (No Build) Alternative, the Natomas Basin HCP would receive reduced permitting funds under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. In addition, the Alternative would result in a decreased disturbance area as compared to the proposed project, which would result in a lesser potential to affect the aforementioned species. Similarly, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would preserve the USFWS -designated wetlands in Parcels 10 and 11, thereby preserving potentially sensitive habitat. Mitigation Measures 4.4-11(a) through (f), which mitigate impacts associated with aquatic resources on-site, would still be required under the Reduced 96 Footprint Alternative because of the aquatic resources located outside the preserved parcels. Overall, impacts to biological resources would be fewer under the Alternative compared to the proposed project, given that the amount of habitat disturbed during construction would be reduced.
Because of the reduced disturbance area that would occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, potential impacts related to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources could be fewer under the Reduced Footprint Alternative compared to the proposed project. However. given that the Alternative would still result in ground disturbance, Mitigation Measures 4.5-2 and 4.13-1(a) through (c) would still be required.
As noted above, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would include a smaller overall area of disturbance compared to the proposed project. Consequently, the potential for grading and other ground-disturbing activities to result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, significant disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcrowding of the soil, or substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features would be decreased. Nonetheless, because construction and grading activities would still occur on the project site outside of the preserved parcels, Mitigation Measure 4.6-4 would still be required. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.6-3, which requires preparation of a final geotechnical engineering report, would still be required to ensure the industrial buildings under the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be provided adequate structural support.
Given that the Reduced Footprint Alternative would include a smaller overall area of disturbance compared to the proposed project, the potential for the Alternative to result in construction or operational impacts related to water quality would be decreased. In addition, because a smaller portion of the site would be developed with impervious surfaces, the potential for changes in drainage patterns and increases in stormwater runoff rates would be reduced compared to the proposed project. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measures 4.8-1 through 4.8-5 would still be required to ensure that impacts to on-site drainage patterns, as well as to water quality during project construction and operation, would not occur.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would include a smaller overall area of disturbance compared to the proposed project and, thus, the potential to result in construction and operational impacts related to noise or vibration generation would be decreased. In addition, the preserved parcels would function as an attenuation buffer, and would reduce the noise and vibration perceived by the sensitive receptors to the east and southeast of the project site. Therefore, Mitigation Measure 4.10-2, which required installation of noise barrier walls to reduce impacts associated with a permanent increase in ambient noise levels, would not be required under the Reduced Footprint Alternative.
Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in less development on-site, a decrease in demand for public services and utilities would occur. (DEIR, p. 7-15 to 7-20)
Impacts Similar Under the Reduced Footprint Alternative:
97 Given that the project site is predominantly undeveloped and affords views from I -5, Metro Park Airway, and Access Roadway, the existing visual character of the site would be similarly degraded under the Reduced Footprint Alternative, as compared to the proposed project. Overall, impacts related to Aesthetics would be similar under the Reduced Footprint Alternative as compared to the proposed project, and the project - specific significant and unavoidable impacts related to substantially degrading the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings would still occur under the Alternative.
Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would include ground-disturbing activities on the project site and, thus, would have the potential to impact special -status plants, giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle, northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and other birds protected under the MBTA. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3(a), 4.4-3(b), 4.4-4(b),
4.4-5(b), 4.4-9(a) and (b), 4.4-10(a) through (c), 4.4-11(a) through (f), and 4.4-13(a) through (c) would still be required.
As discussed above, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would entail a similar buildout of the project as proposed. Although the overall disturbance area for the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be decreased as compared to the proposed project, the Alternative would still result in impacts related to all RECs identified on the project site.
Thus, similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative 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 related to soils associated with residual OCPs, the existing on-site soil stockpiles in the northwest portion of the project site, to the east of the cell tower, and/or ACBMs and LBPs. As such, Mitigation Measures 4.7-2(a) and 4 .7-2(b) would still be required. Furthermore, because the Alternative would still be located within an airport land use plan, Mitigation Measure 4.7-5(a) would still be required. Overall, impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials under the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be similar to the proposed project.
Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would include buildout of the proposed project as proposed, impacts to Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing would be similar to the proposed project, as evaluated in the DEIR.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would preserve Parcels 9, 10, and 11, as well as a portion of Parcel 8, and result in a reduction of 419,809.4 sf of industrial buildings, which would reduce the number of truck trips associated with on-site development. As previously noted, Chapter 4.12, Transportation, of th e DEIR focused on the impact of employee-generated trips, as industrial uses often inherently have higher VMT per employee than other employment types. Therefore, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would have a lower VMT rate than the proposed project. However, because the Alternative would still result in industrial development and new roadways, the Alternative would still require Mitigation Measures 4.12-2 and 4.12-3 to reduce potential conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, as well as CEQA Guidelines s ection 15064.3, subdivision (b), during operations. Overall, because 98 the mitigation measures would be adjusted but still required, potential impacts related to Transportation would be similar under the Reduced Footprint Alternative compared to the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 7-15 to 7-20)
In addition, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would not develop a total of 69.3 acres of preserved land uses, including agricultural land and wetlands, overall impacts to Agricultural Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality would be reduced. The reduced area of disturbance would also result in fewer impacts to Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; and Noise. The decreased on-site industrial development would also reduce impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy; Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; and Transportation due to a decreased demand for transportation and utility services.
Feasibility/Relationship of Alternative to Project Objectives
As stated above, the concept of “feasibility” encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes existing City policies, as well as the underlying goals and objectives of a project. ( City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA also encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v.
City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417; Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would include development of the project site with the proposed uses for the majority of the parcels, the project objectives would be met. However, the reduction in development of industrial buildings would result in Objectives #3, #4, #5, and #6, regarding the provision of industrial, commercial, and hotel opportunities, as well as jobs and businesses resulting from the increased opportunities, being fulfilled to a lesser extent than the proposed project. (DEIR, p. 7 -15 to 7-.20)
Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the alternatives to the proposed project, CEQA requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives considered be selected and the reasons for such selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would generate the fewest or least severe adverse impacts. In the case of the project, the No Project (No Build) A lternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would not create any new site-specific adverse environmental impacts. However, CEQA requires the identification of another environmentally superior alternative when the “no project” alternative is identified as environmentally superior (State CEQA Guidelines s ection 15126[e][2]).
99 The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.
Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative and the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include development of the project site following an amendment to the City’s Sphere of Influence and an Annexation of the project site into the City, Objective #1 would be met by both Alternatives. In addition, because the Alternatives would include the development of industrial and commercial uses on-site, most of the remaining project objectives would be fully or partially met. More specifically, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would generally meet most of the project objectives; however, because less industrial square footage would be constructed at the project site, Objectives #3 and #4 would only be partly met.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to nine of the 13 issue areas, and would result in similar impacts as the proposed project for the remaining four issue areas for which project impacts were identified. However, under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative and the Reduced Footprint Alternative, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics, which were identified for the proposed project, would still occur. Similarly, the significant and unavoidable impact related to agricultural resources would still occur under the 20 Percent Electric Fleet alternative, and the Reduced Footprint Alternative would still include the significant and unavoidable impact associated with air quality, GHG emissions, and energy associated with the proposed project.
Based on the above, because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts than the proposed project related to nine of the 13 issue areas, and would result in similar impacts as the proposed project for the remaining four issue areas for which project impacts were identified, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As discussed above, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, and Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy that were identified for the proposed project would still occur under the Reduced Footprint Alternative. (DEIR, p. 7-20 to 7-21.)
F. Statement of Overriding Considerations:
Pursuant to Guidelines section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the proposed project it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant and potentially significant effects of the proposed project on the environment where feasible. The City Council further finds that it has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project against the remaining unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the proposed project and has determined that those benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental risks and that those risks are acceptable. The City Council makes this statement of overriding considerations in accordance with section 15093 of the Guidelines in support of approval of the proposed project. Each of these overriding considerations is individually sufficient to support the project approval.
The Proposed Project Will Support Development of the Planned Industrial and Commercial Land Uses.
100
Approval of the proposed project advances key p roject objectives to revitalize underutilized lands that are appropriate for infill development in which workers can enjoy an environment comprised of modern professional and administrative facilities, research institutions, manufacturing operations, warehouse and distribution facilities, experimental and testing laboratory and related uses compatible with surrounding land uses in the area, and the City’s General Plan. (Objectives #1, #5, #11, and #12).
The Proposed Project Will Provide Neighborhood and Community Retail Near Residential Development to Shorten or Reduce the Number of Vehicle Trips and Provide Permanent Employment Opportunities Near Surrounding Communities.
Approval of the proposed project supports the key proposed project objective to promote industrial development consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives set forth in both the existing City of the Sacramento General Plan, including facilities with high-quality architectural design, landscaping, and signage that are consistent with the City’s design standards and guidelines. Such facilities would provide jobs with competitive salaries, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and provide necessary off -site and on-site improvements to the area roadway system, public works, power, and telecommunications infrastructure consistent with planned infrastructure systems (Objectives #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #9, and #10).
The Proposed Project is Consistent with and Supportive of Key Sacramento General Plan Goals Regarding Efficient Land Use and Utility Infrastructure , Such That Service Systems Are Well Designed and Environmental Impacts Are Minimized.
Approval of the proposed project advances key Citywide goals related to Land Use and Placemaking, Economic Development, Environmental Resources and Constraints, and Public Facilities and Safety as outlined in the City’s 2040 General Plan(Objectives #1, #2, #4, #7, #8, and #12). Th e proposed project would create logical and future City boundaries in cooperation with the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County that align with the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, and Sacramento LAFCo requirements. In addition, the proposed project would improve an off -site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch SacSewer North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way , thus improving the design and efficiency of service systems in the proposed project area. Furthermore, the proposed project’s proximity to major transportation corridors such as I -5, and the City of Sacramento urban areas, would contribute to the City’s goals to lower VMT and traffic congestion. Construction of the industrial park would incorporate energy efficient and low water use principles, and incorporate alternative energy resources where feasible in order to promote the City’s environmental goals and minimize environmental impacts to surrounding residential communities and sensitive land uses.
101
The Proposed Project Will Provide Revenue to the City.
Approval of the proposed project would generate long-term sustainable property tax , transit occupancy tax, and sales tax revenue for the City of Sacramento by way of the annexation of the project site for industrial and commercial development (Objective #3, #5, #6, and #11). The proposed project would also generate funding for the Natomas Basin HCP through payment of the HCP impact fees (Objective #12).
The Proposed Project Will Include the Preservation of the 117.59-Acres of Habitat Mitigation Property.
The project applicant has elected to include as part of the proposed project the preservation of the 50-acre habitat mitigation property (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 225-0020-014) and preservation of the 67.59-acre habitat mitigation property (APN 225-0020-015) which are also listed in section b of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 (i.e., the Rosa Properties).
The parcels consist entirely of vacant grasslands and have a history of agricultural use. As such, a total of 117.59 acres of off -site lands in the Natomas Basin would be dedicated to TNBC for the preservation and management in perpetuity of open space/agricultural lands.
The dedication of the Rosa Properties would result in TNBC completing a required 400- acre minimum size reserve in proximity to Fisherman’s Lake, located southeast of the project site. The proposed reserve sites would improve connectivity of habitats and TNBC reserves as contemplated in the NBHCP (see pages IV -8 through IV -11 of the NBHCP). The dedication of the Rosa Properties would also ensure the continued connectivity of canal habitats and TNBC reserves in the project area and would help to ensure that the Natomas Basin’s giant garter snake population is not divided into two smaller, and thus less viable, populations, as well as provide suitable Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat in the Basin.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all State and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency whenever approval involves the adoption of either a “mitigated negative declaration” or specified environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.
The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Airport South Industrial Park Project (proposed project). The intent of the MMRP is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified within the EIR for the proposed project. Unless otherwise noted, the cost of implementing the mitigation measures as prescribed by this MMRP shall be f unded by the applicant.
4.2 COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
The MMRP contained herein is intended to satisfy the requirements of CEQA as they relate to the EIR prepared for the proposed project . This MMRP is intended to be used by City of Sacramento staf f, and mitigation monitoring personnel to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures identified in this MM RP were developed in the EIR .
The EIR presents a detailed set of mitigation measures that will be implemented throughout the lifetime of the project. Mitigation is defined by CEQA Guidelines, Section 15370, as a measure that:
• Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; • Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
• Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; • Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project; or
• Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
The intent of the MM RP is to ensure the implementation of adopted mitigation measures. The MMRP will provide for monitoring of construction activities as necessary and in- the-field identification and resolution of environmental concerns.
Monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures will be coordinated by the City of Sacramento. The table attached to this report identifies the mitigation measures, the monitoring action for each mitigation measure, the responsible party for the monitoring action, and timing of the monitoring action. The applicant will be responsible for fully understanding a nd
4. MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
effectively implementing the mitigation measures contained within the MM RP. The City will be responsible for monitoring compliance.
4.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The following table indicates the mitigation measure number, the impact the measure is designed to address, the measure text, the monitoring agency, implementation schedule, and an area for sign-off indicating compliance.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.2 Agricultural Resources
4.2-1 Impacts related to the
conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
to non -agricultural use.
Industrial Park
4.2-1 The City shall ensure that, prior to impacting
agricultural/open space resources within the
project site by the issuance of a grading
permit, any and all project-related subdivision
maps satisfy the On-Site Open Space and Off-
Site Open Space requirements a s defined
herein. Open space dedications made
pursuant to the Natomas Basin Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) shall be made to the
City and/or the Natomas Basin Conservancy
and shall be located in the Natomas Basin.
The remaining non- Natomas Basin HCP
mitigation acreage may be located in
unincorporated Sacramento County, Yolo
County, and/or Sutter County, and may be
held and managed by a qualified third- party
entity with the approval of the City.
Preservation shall be ensured in perpetuity via
conservation easement, fee, or irrevocable
offer of dedication to the satisfaction of the
City. All mitigation acreage shall consist of land
of comparable agricultural and habitat v alue as
the agricultural/open space resources
impacted by the proposed project, as
determined by the City.
a. On-Site Agricultural/Open Space
Requirements: The following on-site
open space properties are consistent
with the mitigation requirements:
• 86 acres of detention basins.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to issuance of
a grading permit
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• 37.9 acres of freeway buffer.
• 2.3 acres of canal buffers.
b. Off-site Agricultural/Open Space
Requirements: The following Off-Site
Open Space properties shall be
dedicated to The Natomas Basin
Conservancy (TNBC):
• 141.51 acres of currently
unidentified agricultural/open
spaced mitigation property to
be located in the
unincorporated Sacramento
County and/or unincorporated
Sutter County.
• 50-acre habitat mitigation
property APN 225-0020-014.
• 67.59-acre habitat mitigation
property APN 225-0020-015.
c. Phasing: The Airport South Industrial
Project will develop in phases, as
such, the amount of On-Site and Off-
Site Open Space to be provided
hereunder shall be in proportion to the
amount of acreage proposed to be
impacted by such development by the
issuance of a grading permit therefor.
d. With respect to each unidentified open
space property listed above, and any
proposed substitution of an open
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
space property listed above, the City
must determine, in writing, that the
proposed agricultural/open space
property and/or acreage satisfies the
requirements for agricultural/open
space to be counted towards the
requisite Off -Site Agricultural/Open
Space acreage total.
e. Nothing in this Agricultural/Open
Space Mitigation is intended to limit or
restrict USFWS and CDFW in their
consideration of Developer's
applications for incidental take and/or
other habitat mitigation permits or
other entitlements under the federal
Endangered Species Act and the
California Endangered Species Act.
4.2-5 Impacts related to
cumulative loss of
agricultural land.
4.2-5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. See Mitigation Measure 4.2-1
See Mitigation
Measure 4.2-1
4.3 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
4.3-1 Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan
during project
construction.
4.3-1(a) The following SMAQMD’s Basic Construction
Emissions Control Practices (BMPs) for dust
control shall be included through a notation on
all project grading plans prior to the issuance
of grading permits, to the satisfaction of the
City of Sacramento Community Dev elopment
Department and SMAQMD.
• Water all exposed surfaces two times
daily. Exposed surfaces include, but
are not limited to soil piles, graded
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
SMAQMD
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
areas, unpaved parking areas, staging
areas, and access roads;
• Cover or maintain at least two feet of
free board space on haul trucks
transporting soil, sand, or other loose
material on the site. Any haul trucks
that would be traveling along freeways
or major roadways should be covered;
• Use wet power vacuum street
sweepers to remove any visible
trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent
public roads at least once a day. Use
of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
• Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved
roads to 15 miles per hour (mph);
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks,
parking lots to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In
addition, building pads should be laid
as soon as possible after grading
unless seeding or soil binders are
used;
• Minimize idling time either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or
reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes
[CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3)
and 2485]. Provide clear signage that
posts this requirement for workers at
the entrances to the site;
• Provide current certificate(s) of
compliance for CARB’s In- Use Off -
Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation
[CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
2449.1]. For more information contact
CARB at 877- 593-6677,
[email protected], or
www.arb.ca.gov/doors/compliance_
cert1.html.; and
• Maintain all construction equipment in
proper working condition according to
manufacturer’s specifications. The
equipment must be checked by a
certified mechanic and determine to
be running in proper condition before
it is operated.
4.3-1(b) Prior to approval of any Improvement Plans,
the project applicant shall provide proof of
compliance with the following to the
satisfaction of the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department and
SMAQMD:
The project applicant shall show on the
plans via notation that the contractor shall
ensure that the heavy -duty off -
road
vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be
used in the construction of all project
components (i.e., construction of the
industrial park, n onparticipating parcels,
and off-site force main), including owned,
leased, and subcontractor vehicles, shall
be a combination of engine Tier 3 or Tier 4
off-road construction equipment, or hybrid,
electric, or alternatively fueled equipment
(or any combin
ation of the above),
sufficient to achieve a fleet-wide average
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
SMAQMD
Prior to the approval
of any Improvement
Plans
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
reduction in construction -related NOX
emissions to below the applicable
SMAQMD thresholds of significance (85
lbs/day). For instance, the emissions
presented in Table 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR
were achieved by requiring all equipment
used during construction to be engine Tier
4. In addition, all off -road equipment
operating at the construction site must be
maintained in proper working condition
according to manufacturer’s
specifications. Idling shall be limited to five
minutes or less in accordance with the In-
Use Off -Road Diesel
Vehicle Regulation
as required by CARB. Clear signage
regarding idling restrictions shall be placed
at the entrances to the construction site.
Portable equipment over 50 horsepower
must have either a valid SMAQMD Permit
to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide
Portable Equipment Registration Program
(PERP) placard and sticker issued by
CARB.
Conformance with the foregoing
requirements shall be included as notes
and be confirmed through review and
approval of grading plans by the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.3-2 Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan
during project operation.
4.3-2 Prior to the approval of project improvement
plans for both the industrial park and
nonparticipating parcels, the project applicant
shall comply with the provisions of the Air
Quality Management Plan prepared for the
proposed project (see Appendix D), and
incorporate all requirements into the Airport
South Industrial Project conditions of approval.
The measures included in the AQMP include
the following:
1. Natural gas use shall be prohibited in
all land uses, with the exception of the
restaurant kitchen.
2. The project shall implement a
Transportation Management
Association (TMA), such as Jibe North
Natomas (for more information, visit
https://jibe.org/). The TMA must
comply with the following criteria, and
is subject to approval by the City of
Sacramento and SMAQMD:
a. The TMA must be legally
constituted as a non- profit
organization,
Property/Business
Improvement District (PBID),
or a government entity with a
non-
revocable funding
mechanism, such as a
community finance district,
dedicated to TMA operations
and services; and
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the approval
of project
Improvement Plans
for both the
industrial park and
nonparticipating
parcels
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
b. The TMA must provide a
minimum level of TDM
services to employees and
residents within the area
covered by the AQMP
sufficient to achieve the
emission reductions claimed
by the measure. Services
must be enumerated and
funded to the satisfaction of
the lea d agency and
SMAQMD.
3. The project applicant shall require all
tenants of the on-site industrial uses to
use zero-emission forklifts.
4. The project applicant shall require that
4.5 percent of the heavy-duty vehicle
fleet be zero emission by full buildout
of the annexation area. It should be
noted that in the event there is a
disruption in the manufacturing of zero
emission vehicles/trucks or that
sufficient vehicles/trucks are not
commercially available for the
intended application, the “clean fleet
requirements” may be adjusted as
minimally as possible by the City’s
Community Development Department
to accommodate the manufacturing
disruption or unavailability of
commercially available
vehicles/trucks.
5. The project shall provide complete
sidewalks separated from roadway
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
throughout the project site and
pedestrian crossing at intersections
on-site to ensure employees and
visitors can walk between land
uses/businesses. The project shall
also connect the pedestrian network
on-site to the adjacent properties off-
site (includin g South Bayou Way,
Power Line Road and potential future
connections) as indicated on the
preliminary site plan when those
portions of the site develop.
6. Provide EV Ready parking spaces at
the ratio with which the current
CalGreen Tier 2 standards require EV
Capable spaces.
4.3-3 Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
4.3-3 If Parcel 8 (the 64.3 -acre nonparticipating
parcel owned by Cayocca) is proposed to be
developed with a distribution center (i.e., an
industrial warehouse that accommodates more
than 100 heavy-duty trucks per day, more than
40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration
units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit
operations exceed 300 hours per week) within
1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor, prior to the
issuance of any building permit, a Health Risk
Assessment (HRA) shall be conducted to
calculate the cancer risk associated with on-
site truck diesel particulate matter (DPM)
emissions.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with
SMAQMD guidelines, as well as the guidelines
identified in the California Office of
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
As part of the
application for any
development on
Parcel 8
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of
Health Risk Assessments. If health risks
associated with Parcel 8 , combined with the
health risks calculated for the Industrial Park
portion of the proposed project (see Table 4.3-
11 of this EIR), are determined to exceed the
applicable SMAQMD thresholds, a qualified air
quality consultant shall identify measures
sufficient to reduce the project’s health risks to
below the SMAQMD’s thresholds of
significance. Reduction measure s ma y
include, but are not limited to, relocation of
loading docks to further than 1,000 feet from
sensitive receptors, electrification of the heavy-
duty truck fleet, and/or other options as they
become available. Conformance with the
foregoing requirement , including
implementation of identified reduction
measures, shall be confirmed through review
and approval of the HRA by the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department.
4.3-6 Result in a cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the
project region is in non-
attainment under an
applicable federal or
State ambient air quality
standard (including
releasing emissions
which exceed
4.3-6 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. See Mitigation Measure 4.3-2
See Mitigation
Measure 4.3-2
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors).
4.3-7 Generation of GHG
emissions that may have
a significant impact on
the environment or
conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose
of reducing the
emissions of GHGs.
Construction
4.3-7(a) Prior to the initiation of construction of the industrial park, the project applicant shall
demonstrate that construction- related GHG
emissions would be reduced to 935 MTCO2e/yr
and shall submit proof to the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department. In addition, prior to the initiation of
construction of the nonparticipating parcels,
the future applicant of all future development
proposals on such parcels shall dem onstrate
that construction- related GHG emissions
would be reduced to 165 MTCO2e/yr and shall
submit proof to the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department.
Construction-related GHG emissions can be
reduced through several options. The
SMAQMD recommends the following options
for reducing greenhouse gas emission from
construction projects:
• Modify the construction schedule to
reduce the intensity of construction to
lower emissions;
• Ensure that phases of development do
not overlap;
• Use of renewable diesel for
construction fuel rather than diesel;
• Improve fuel efficiency from
construction equipment by:
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the initiation
of construction of
the industrial park
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
o Minimizing idling time either
by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing
the time of idling to no more
than three minutes (five-
minute limit is required by the
state airborne toxics control
measure [Title 13, sections
2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the
California Code of
Regulations]). Provide clear
signage that posts this
requirement for workers at the
entrances to the site; and
o Using equipment with new
technologies (repowered
engines, electric drive trains).
• Perform on-site emission reductions
such as implementing on-site material
hauling with trucks equipped with on-
road engines (if determined to be less
emissive than the off-road engines) or
real, quantifiable, permanent,
verifiable, and enforceable on- site
emission reductions;
• Use alternative fuels for generators at
construction sites such as propane or
solar, or use electrical power;
• Use a CARB -approved low carbon
fuel for construction equipment; (NOX
emissions from the use of low carbon
fuel must be reviewed and increases
mitigated.)
• Encourage and provide carpools,
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
shuttle vans, transit passes and/or
secure bicycle parking for construction
worker commutes;
• Reduce electricity use in the
construction office by using LED
bulbs, powering off computers every
day, and replacing heating and cooling
units with more efficient ones;
• Recycle or salvage non- hazardous
construction and demolition debris
(goal of at least 75 percent by weight);
• Use locally sourced or recycled
materials for construction materials
(goal of at least 20 percent based on
costs for building materials, and based
on volume for roadway, parking lot,
sidewalk and curb materials). Wood
products utilized should be certified
through a sustainable forestry
program;
• Minimize the amount of concrete for
paved surfaces or utilize a low carbon
concrete option;
• Produce concrete on- site if
determined to be less emissive than
transporting ready mix;
• Use SmartWay certified trucks for
deliveries and equipment transport;
and
• Develop a plan to efficiently use water
for adequate dust control.
The project applicant may elect to implement
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
any combination of the foregoing measures to
reduce construction- related GHG emissions.
All GHG emissions reductions must be
quantified. Compliance with the
aforementioned measures shall be ensured by
the City of Sacramento Community
Development Department.
If the quantified reduction measures do not
reduce construction-related GHG emissions to
below 935 MTCO 2e/yr for the industrial park
and 165, MTCO 2e/yr for the nonparticipating
parcels, offsite carbon credits may be
purchased to make up the difference. The
purchase of off-site mitigation credits shall be
negotiated with the City and SMAQMD at the
time that credits are sought. Off-site mitigation
credits shall be real, quantifiable, permanent,
verifiable, enforceable, and additional,
consistent with the standards set forth in
Health and Safety Code section 38562,
subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). The offsets shall
be retired, and emissions must be offset
through the year 2045. Such credits shall be
based on CARB-approved protocols that are
consistent with the criteria set forth in
subdivision (a) of Section 95972 of Title 17 of
the California Code of Regulations, and shall
not allow the use of offset projects originating
outside of California, except to the extent that
the quality of the offsets, and their suffic iency
under the standards set forth herein, can be
verified by the City of Sacramento and/or the
SMAQMD. Such credits must be purchased
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
through one of the following: (i) a CARB -
approved registry, such as the Climate Action
Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and
the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry
approved by CARB to act as a registry under
the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii)
any registry established by SMAQMD.
Operations
4.3-7(b) Prior to the approval of any building permits, the applicant shall implement the following
measures:
1. The proposed project shall be
designed such that all project
components, with the exception of the
on-site restaurant kitchens, are built
all-electric. The kitchens shall include
pre-wiring to allow for the future retrofit
of all natural gas appliances with all -
electric appliances. If the kitchens are
electrically powered and do not use
natural gas, further mitigation is not
required; and
2. If natural gas is installed in the
kitchens, the applicant shall reduce
GHG emissions associated with on-
site restaurant kitchens at a rate of
158.77 MTCO 2e/yr through any
combination of the following on- site
mitigation options:
o Requiring on- site renewable
energy generation in excess
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
SMAQMD
Prior to approval of
any building permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
of Code requirements.
o Increasing the number of EV
charging stations.
o Constructing on-site or fund
off-site carbon sequestration
projects (such as tree
plantings or reforestation
projects).
o Implementing a
Transportation Demand
Management Program.
o Should new and quantifiable
GHG emission reduction
technology become available,
the applicant may otherwise
achieve the required GHG
emissions reduction through
other means, subject to
review and approval by the
City of Sacramento and the
SMAQMD.
The project applicant may elect to
implement any combination of the
foregoing measures to reduce
operational GHG emissions. All GHG
emissions reductions must be
quantified.
If it is determined that the above on-
site mitigation options are not
sufficient to achieve the required GHG
reduction, subject to the discretion of
the City of Sacramento and the
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
SMAQMD, off-site carbon credits may
be purchased to make up the
difference. The purchase of off -site
mitigation credits shall be negotiated
with the City and SMAQMD at the time
that credits are sought. Off -site
mitigation credits shall be real,
quantifiable, permanent, verifiable,
enforceable, and additional,
consistent with the standards set forth
in Health and Safety Code section
38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2).
The offsets shall be retired, and
emissions must be offset through the
year 2045. Such c redits shall be
based on CARB-approved protocols
that are consistent with the criteria set
forth in subdivision (a) of Section
95972 of Title 17 of the California
Code of Regulations, and shall not
allow the use of offset projects
originating outside of California,
except to the extent that the quality of
the offsets, and their sufficiency under
the standards set forth herein, can be
verified by the City of Sacramento
and/or the SMAQMD. Such credits
must be purchased through one of the
following: (i) a CA RB-approved
registry, such as the Climate Action
Reserve, the American Carbon
Registry, and the Verified Carbon
Standard; (ii) any registry approved by
CARB to act as a registry under the
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
California Cap and Trade program; or
(iii) any registry established by
SMAQMD.
Compliance with the aforementioned
measures shall be ensured by the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department.
4.3-7(c) Consistent with SMAQMD’s GHG BMP-2, prior
to the approval of project improvement plans,
the applicant shall indicate that EV Ready
parking spaces shall be installed throughout
the project site at the ratio with which the
current CalGreen Tier 2 standards require EV
Capable spaces. Compliance with this
measure shall be ensured by the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department.
4.3-7(d) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-3.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
See Mitigation
Measure 4.12-
3 Prior to the approval
of project
Improvement Plans
See Mitigation
Measure 4.12-3
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4-1 Impacts to special-status
plant species, either
directly (e.g., threaten to
eliminate a plant
community) or through
substantial habitat
modifications.
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-1(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground-disturbing activities
associated with development of the industrial
park footprint and nonparticipating parcels, the
following Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) Take Avoidance, Minimization,
and Mitigation Measures shall be
implemented, as applicable:
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.1 :
Not less than 30 days or more than 6 months
prior to commencement of construction
activities, a pre- construction survey of the
portion of the site to be disturbed shall be
conducted to determine the status and
presence of, and likely impacts to, all Covered
Species on the site. However, pre-construction
surveys for an individual species may be
completed up to one year in advance if the sole
period for reliable detection of that species is
between May 1 and December 31. The project
proponent will be responsi ble for contracting
with qualified biological consultants to carry
out the pre- construction surveys, and as
necessary, to implement specific take
minimization, and other Conservation
Measures set forth in the Natomas Basin HCP
and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
The results of the pre- construction surveys
along with recommended take minimization
measures shall be documented in a report and
shall be submitted to the City, USFWS, CDFG
and the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Based
upon the survey results, the City will id
entify
applicable take avoidance and other site-
specific Conservation Measures, consistent
with the Natomas Basin HCP, required to be
carried out on the site. The approved pre-
construction survey documents and list of
Conservation Measures will be submitted by
Service
(USFWS)
California
Department of
Fish and
Wildlife
(CDFW)
Natomas
Basin
Conservancy
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the developer to the City to demonstrate
compliance with the Natomas Basin HCP.
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.o:
If Sanford’s arrowhead plants are identified
through a pre- construction survey, the City
shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFG and the
California Native Plant Society. Under such
circumstances, the development proponent
shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to
site disturbance.
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.p:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City
shall require a pre-construction survey. If such
survey determines Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop,
Sacramento orcutt grass, Slender orcutt grass,
Colusa grass, or legenere are present, the City
shall require the developer to consult wi
th
USFWS to determine appropriate measures to
avoid and minimize loss of individuals.
4.4-1(b) With respect to special -status plant species
not covered under the Natomas Basin HCP,
prior to the commencement of construction
activities associated with the nonparticipating
parcels, a qualified biologist shall conduct
preconstruction protocol -level sur veys for
special-status plants with potential to occur on-
site. The surveys may be conducted
concurrently with the preconstruction surveys
set forth by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a). The
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
CDFW
USFWS
Prior to the
commencement of
construction
activities associated
with the
nonparticipating
parcels
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
results of the surveys shall be submitted for
review and approval to the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department and
shall be valid for two years. If special -s tatus
plant species are not found, further mitigation
shall not be required.
If any special-status plants are located during
the foregoing surveys, the appropriate agency
(i.e., CDFW and/or USFWS, depending on the
species) shall be consulted to develop
appropriate mitigation for the proposed project
for expected impacts. If special -
status plants
would be impacted, as determined by the
qualified biologist, a mitigation plan shall be
developed in coordination with the appropriate
agency and submitted for review and approval
to the City of Sacramento Community
Development Department. M itigation shall
include that if special-status perennial species
are found in areas proposed for disturbance,
the plants shall be dug up and transplanted
into a suitable avoided area on- site prior to
construction. If the plant found is an annual,
then mitigation shall consist of collecting seed-
bearing soil and spreading it into a suitable
location.
4.4-3 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
giant garter snake.
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-3(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground- disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall ensure
that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measures have been implemented:
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.a:
1. Within the Natomas Basin, all
construction activity involving
disturbance of habitat, such as site
preparation and initial grading, is
restricted to the period between May 1
and September 30. This is the active
period for the giant garter snake and
direct mortality is lessened, because
snakes are expected to actively move
and avoid danger.
2. Pre-construction surveys for giant
garter snake, as well as other NBHCP
Covered Species, must be completed
for all development projects by a
qualified biologist approved by
USFWS. If any giant garter snake
habitat is found within a specific site,
the follo wing additional measures
shall be implemented to minimize
disturbance of habitat and harassment
of giant garter snake, unless such
project is specifically exempted by
USFWS.
3. Between April 15 and September 30,
all irrigation ditches, canals, or other
aquatic habitat should be completely
dewatered, with no puddled water
remaining, for at least 15 consecutive
days prior to the excavation or filling in
of the dewatered habitat. Ma
ke sure
dewatered habitat does not continue
USFWS
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
to support giant garter snake prey,
which could detain or attract snakes
into the area. If a site cannot be
completely dewatered, netting and
salvage of prey items may be
necessary. This measure removes
aquatic habitat component and allows
giant garter sna ke to leave on their
own.
4. For sites that contain giant garter
snake habitat, no more than 24-hours
prior to start of construction activities
(site preparation and/or grading), the
project area shall be surveyed for the
presence of giant garter snake. If
construction activities stop on the
project site for a period of two weeks
or more, a new giant garter snake
survey shall be completed no more
than 24-hours prior to the re- start of
construction activities.
5. Confine clearing to the minimal area
necessary to facilitate construction
activities. Flag and designate avoided
giant garter snake habitat within or
adjacent to the project as
Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This
area shall be avoided by all
construction personnel.
6. Construction personnel completing
site preparation and grading
operations shall receive USFWS
approved environmental awareness
training. This training instructs workers
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
on how to identify giant garter snakes
and their habitats, and what to do if a
giant garter snake is encountered
during construction activities. During
this training an on- site biological
monitor shall be designated.
7. If a live giant garter snake is found
during construction activities,
immediately notify the USFWS and
the project’s biological monitor. The
biological monitor, or his/her
assignee, shall do the following:
a. Stop construction in the
vicinity of the snake. Monitor
the snake and allow the snake
to leave on its own. The
monitor shall remain in the
area for the remainder of the
work day to make sure the
snake is not harmed or if it
leaves the site, does not
return. Escape routes for giant
garter snake should be
determined in advance of
construction and snakes
should always be allowed to
leave on their own. If a giant
garter snake does not leave
on its own within 1 working
day, further consultation with
USFWS is required.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
8. Upon locating dead, injured or sick
threatened or endangered wildlife
species, the project applicant must
notify within 1 working day the
Service’s Division of Law Enforcement
(2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento CA
95825) or the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Offi ce (2800 Cottage Way,
Room W2605, Sacramento, CA
95825, telephone 916 414- 6600).
Written notification to both offices
must be made within 3 calendar days
and must include the date, time, and
location of the finding of a specimen
and any other pertinent information.
9. Fill or construction debris may be used
by giant garter snake as an over -
wintering site. Therefore, upon
completion of construction activities
remove any temporary fill and/or
construction debris from the site. If this
material is situated near undisturbed
giant garter snake habitat and it is to
be removed between October 1 and
April 30, it shall be inspected by a
qualified biologist to assure that giant
garter snake are not using it as
hibernaculae.
10. No plastic, monofilament, jute, or
similar erosion control matting that
could entangle snakes will be placed
on a project site when working within
200 feet of snake aquatic or rice
habitat. Possible substitutions include
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
coconut coir matting, tactified
hydroseeding compounds, or other
material approved by the Wildlife
Agencies.
4.4-3(b) To address potential impacts to giant garter
snake on- site, but outside of the Natomas
Basin HCP permit area, the project applicant
shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct pre-
construction surveys for giant garter snake
prior to the issuance of any grading permit and
commencement of project -related ground-
disturbing activities outside of the Natomas
Basin HCP Permit Area. If giant garter snake
habitat is not identified on-site and giant garter
snakes are not detected, the project may
commence as scheduled. If giant garter snake
habitat is found and/or giant garter snake
individuals are detected, in areas outside of
the Natomas Basin HCP Permit Area that
would be impacted by the project, the project
applicant shall either:
(1) provide on- and or off -site
preservation of giant garter snake
habitat at a ratio determined by
USFWS and CDFW, and as subject
to regulatory permitting requirements
of the CDFW, USACE, and or
RWQCB, as prescribed by Mitigation
Measures 4.4- 10(a) through 4. 4-
10(c) and 4.4- 11(a) through 4.4-
11(d), as applicable. Applicant
purchase of conservation easements
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
USFWS
CDFW
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
(USACE)
Central Valley
Regional
Water Quality
Control Board
(RWQCB)
Prior to issuance of
any grading permit
and commencement
of project -related
ground-disturbing
activities outside of
the Natomas Basin
HCP
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
or fee title of lands shall be
acceptable if approved by the
applicable permit-issuing regulatory
agency. Final mitigation
requirements shall be determined by
the permit-issuing regulatory agency.
OR
(2) Should a portion of the City’s surplus
HCP coverage be made available to
the proposed project, the project
applicant for development projects
less than 50-acres in size shall pay
the Natomas Basin HCP mitigation
fees for land acquisition,
enhancement, and management and
monitoring activities; otherwise, off-
site land dedication and payment of
NBHCP fees are required for project
greater than 50-acres in size.
4.4-4 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
northwestern pond turtle.
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-4(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground-
disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall ensure
that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.j :
1. Take of the northwestern pond turtle
as a result of habitat destruction
during construction activities,
including the removal of irrigation
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
ditches and drains, and during ditch
and drain maintenance, will be
minimized by the dewatering
requirement described above for giant
garter snake (see Section 5.a.(3)).
4.4-4(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a), 4.4-
3(a), 4.4-3(b).
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-
1(a), 4.4-3(a),
and 4.4-3(b)
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-1(a),
4.4-3(a), and 4.4-
3(b)
4.4-5 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
Swainson’s hawk.
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-5(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground-
disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall ensure
that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.b:
Measures to Reduce Nest Disturbance
1. Prior to the commencement of
development activities, a pre-
construction survey shall be
completed to determine whether any
Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be
removed on-site, or active Swainson’s
hawk nest sites occur on or within ½
mile of the development site. These
surveys shall be conducted according
to the Swainson’s Hawk Technical
Advisory Committee’s (May 31, 2000)
methodology or updated
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
methodologies, as approved by the
Service and CDFG, using
experienced Swainson’s hawk
surveyors.
2. If breeding Swainson’s hawks (i.e.
exhibiting nest building or nesting
behavior) are identified, no new
disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment
operation associated with
construction) will occur within ½ mile
of an active nest between March 15
and September 15, or until a qualified
biologist, with concurrence by CDFG,
has determined that young have
fledged or that the nest is no longer
occupied. If the active nest site is
located within 1/4 mile of existing
urban development, the no new
disturbance zone can be limited to the
¼ mile versus ½ mile. Routine
disturbances such as agricultural
activities, commuter traffic, and
routine facility maintenance activities
within ½ mile of an active nest are not
restricted.
3. Where disturbance of a Swainson’s
hawk nest cannot be avoided, such
disturbance shall be temporarily
avoided (i.e., defer construction
activities until after the nesting
season) and then, if unavoidable, the
nest tree may be destroyed during the
non-nesting season. For purposes of
this provision the Swainson's hawk
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
nesting season is defined as March 15
to September 15. If a nest tree (any
tree that has an active nest in the year
the impact is to occur) must be
removed, tree removal shall only
occur between September 15 and
February 1.
4. If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree is to be
removed and fledglings are present,
the tree may not be removed until
September 15 or until the California
Department of Fish and Game has
concurred that the young have fledged
and are no longer dependent upon the
nest tree.
5. If construction or other project related
activities which may cause nest
abandonment or forced fledgling are
proposed within the ¼ mile buffer
zone, intensive monitoring (funded by
the project sponsor) by a Department
of Fish and Game approved raptor
biologist will be required. Exact
implementation of this measure will be
based on specific information at the
project site.
4.4-5(b) To address potential impacts to Swainson’s
hawk foraging habitat that occurs on-site, but
outside of the Natomas Basin HCP permit
area, the project applicant shall preserve
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat off-site at a
1:1 ratio, which shall consist of a minimum
0.5:1 ratio habitat preservation off -site plus
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
CDFW
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
project -related
ground-disturbing
activities outside of
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
0.5:1 ratio as prescribed by Mitigation Measure
4.2-1. The preserved habitat shall be provided
through applicant purchase of conservation
easements or fee title of lands with suitable
Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat as approved
by CDFW (consistent with CDFW guidelines).
Additionally, prior to the issuance of any
grading permit and commencement of project-
related ground-disturbing activities outside of
the Natomas Basin HCP permit area the
project applicant shall consult with CDFW for a
Section 2081 Inciden
tal Take Permit, or
demonstrate to the City that none was required
by CDFW.
OR
Should a portion of the City’s surplus HCP
coverage be made available to the proposed
project, the project applicant shall pay the
Natomas Basin HCP mitigation fees for land
acquisition, enhancement, and management
and monitoring activities for development
projects less than 50-acres in size; otherwise
off-site land dedication and payment of
NBHCP fees are required for projects greater
than 50-acres in size.
the Natomas Basin
HCP permit area
4.4-6 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
burrowing owl.
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-6 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and
commencement of ground- disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall comply
with applicable portions of Measure 4.4- 5(b)
regarding consultation with CDFW,
demonstration that no incidental take permit
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
was required, or payment of fees (with or
without land dedication as applicable) under
the Natomas Basin HCP and shall ensure that
the following Natomas Basin HCP Take
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.h:
1. Prior to the initiation of grading or
earth disturbing activities, the
applicant/developer shall hire a CDFG
approved qualified biologist to perform
a pre-construction survey of the site to
determine if any burrowing owls are
using the site for foraging or nes ting.
The pre-construction survey shall be
submitted to the City prior to the
developer’s commencement of
construction activities and a mitigation
program shall be developed and
agreed to by the City and developer
prior to initiation of any physical
disturbance on the site.
2. Occupied burrows shall not be
disturbed during nesting season
(February 1 through August 31) unless
a qualified biologist approved by the
CDFG verifies through non- invasive
measures that either: 1) the birds have
not begun egg-
laying and incubation;
or 2) that juveniles from the occupied
burrows are foraging independently
USFWS
CDFW
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
and are capable of independent
survival.
3. If nest sites are found, the USFWS
and CDFG shall be contacted
regarding suitable mitigation
measures, which may include a 300
foot buffer from the nest site during the
breeding season (February 1 - August
31), or a relocation effort for the
burrowing owls if the birds have not
begun egg-laying and incubation or
the juveniles from the occupied
burrows are foraging independently
and are capable of independent
survival. If on- site avoidance is
required, the location of the buffer
zone will be determined by a qualified
biologist. The developer shall mark the
limit of the buffer zone with yellow
caution tape, stakes, or temporary
fencing. The buffer will be maintained
throughout the construction period.
4. If relocation of the owls is approved for
the site by USFWS and CDFG, the
developer shall hire a qualified
biologist to prepare a plan for
relocating the owls to a suitable site.
The relocation plan must include: (a)
the location of the nest and owls
proposed for relocation; (b) the
location of the proposed relocation
site; (c) the number of owls involved
and the time of year when the
relocation is proposed to take place;
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
(d) the name and credentials of the
biologist who will be retained to
supervise the relocation; (e) the
proposed method of capture and
transport for the owls to the new site;
(f) a description of the site
preparations at the relocation site
(e.g., enhancem ent of existing
burrows, creation of artificial burrows,
one-time or long- term vegetation
control, etc.); and (g) a description of
efforts and funding support proposed
to monitor the relocation.
Relocation options may include
passive relocation to another area of
the site not subject to disturbance
through one way doors on burrow
openings, or construction of artificial
burrows in accordance with the
CDFG’s October 17, 1995, Staff
Report on Burrowing Owls Mitigation
(see Appendix D).
5. Where on- site avoidance is not
possible, disturbance and/or
destruction of burrows shall be offset
through development of suitable
habitat on TNBC upland reserves or in
other suitable preserved uplands.
Such habitat shall include creation of
new burrows with adequate foraging
area (a minimum of 6.5 acres) or 300
feet radii around the newly created
burrows. Additional habitat design and
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
mitigation measures are described in
CDFW’s March 7, 2012, Staff Report
on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
4.4-8 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
loggerhead shrike.
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-8 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and
commencement of ground-
disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall ensure
that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.g:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,
the City shall require a pre-
construction survey.
2. If surveys identify an active
loggerhead shrike nest that will be
impacted by development, the
developer shall install brightly colored
construction fencing that establishes a
boundary 100 feet from the active
nest. No disturbance associated with
development shall occur within the
100 foot fenced area during the
nesting season of March 1 through
July 31. A qualified biologist, with
concurrence of USFWS must
determine young have fledged or that
the nest is no longer occupied prior to
disturbance of the nest site.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
USFWS
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities
4.4-9 Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-9(a) Raptors: If ground disturbance or other
construction activities are proposed during the
City of
Sacramento
If ground
disturbance or other
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
habitat modifications, on
northern harrier, white-
tailed kite, song sparrow,
and other nesting birds
and raptors protected
under the MBTA and
CFGC.
nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a
focused survey for nesting raptors protected
under the California Fish and Game Code
(CFGC) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
within seven days prior to the beginnin g of
construction activities in order to identify active
nests. The survey shall be conducted within
the proposed construction area and all
accessible areas within 0.5- mile. A report
summarizing the results of the survey shall be
submitted for review and approval to the City
of Sacramento Community Development
Department. If active nests are not found
during the focused survey(s), additional
mitigation shall not be required. For any period
of project inactivity of more than seven days,
the qualified biologi
st shall conduct a field
check of the previously surveyed area before
construction activities recommence to confirm
nesting raptors have not entered during the
interim.
If active raptor nests are found within 0.5-mile
of a construction area, construction shall not
commence within 0.5-mile of the nest until a
qualified biologist determines that the young
have fledged, or the biologist has determined
that the nesting attemp t has failed. If
construction activities within 0.5- mile of the
nest are necessary, the qualified biologist shall
be consulted to determine if the nest buffer can
be reduced. The applicant and qualified
biologist shall jointly determine the nest
Community
Development
Department
construction
activities are
proposed during the
nesting season
(February 1 to
August 31)
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
avoidance buffer, and what (if any) nest
monitoring is necessary.
If an active raptor nest is found within the
project area prior to construction and is in a
tree that is proposed for removal, then the
project applicant shall implement additional
mitigation recommended by a qualified
biologist based on CDFW guidelines an d
obtain any required permits from CDFW.
4.4-9(b) Songbirds: If ground disturbance or other
construction activities are proposed during the
nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a
focused survey for birds protected under the
MBTA shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist within seven days prior to the
beginning of construction activities in order to
identify active nests. The survey shall be
conducted within the proposed construction
area and all accessible areas within 500 feet.
A report summarizing the results of the survey
shall be submitted for review and approval to
the City of Sacramento Community
Development Department. If active nests are
not found during the focused survey(s),
additional mitigation shall not be required. For
any period of project inactivity of more than
seven days, t he qualified biologist shall
conduct a field check of the previously
surveyed area before construction activities
recommence to confirm nesting songbirds
have not entered during the interim.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
If ground
disturbance or other
construction
activities are
proposed during the
nesting season
(February 1 to
August 31)
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
If active special -status species nests/nesting
colonies are located during the survey, the
project applicant shall work with a qualified
biologist to determine a suitable avoidance
buffer and the extent and duration of nest
monitoring needed. The perimeter of the
protected area shall be indicated by bright
orange temporary fencing and signage.
Construction activities and/or personnel shall
not enter the protected area, except with
approval of the biologist. If trees containing
nests or burrows must be removed as a result
of project implementation, removal shall be
completed during the nonbreeding season
(late September to January 31).
If active songbird nests are found, a qualified
biologist shall establish a 100- foot non-
disturbance buffer. The non- disturbance
buffers may be reduced based on consultation
and approval by the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department. The
perimeter of the protected area shall be
indicated by bright orange temporary fencing.
Construction activities or personnel shall not
enter the protected area, except with approval
of the biologist. If trees containing nests must
be removed as a result of proj
ect
implementation, removal shall be completed
during the nonbreeding season (late
September to January 31) or after the adults
and young are not dependent on the nest site,
as determined by a qualified biologist.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.4-10 Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other
Sensitive Natural
Community identified in
local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or
by the CDFW or
USFWS.
Industrial Park
4.4-10(a)Prior to the commencement of ground-
disturbing activities, the project applicant shall
notify CDFW, pursuant to CFGC Section 1600.
The notification shall include a description of
all of the activities associated with the
proposed industrial park, not just those
associated with the drainages and/or riparian
vegetation. Impacts shall be outlined in the
notification and are expected to be in
substantial conformance with the impacts to
biological resources outlined in the Biological
Resources Assessme nt prepared for the
Airport South Industrial Project by Bargas
Environmental Consulting. Impacts for each
activity shall be broken down by temporary and
permanent impacts. A description of the
proposed mitigation for biological resource
impacts shall be outlined per activity and then
by temporary and permanent impact.
Information regarding project-specific drainage
and hydrology changes resulting from project
implementation shall be provided, as well as a
description of stormwater treatment methods.
Minimization and avoidance measures shall be
proposed, as appropriate, and may include
preconstruction species surveys and reporting,
protective fencing around avoided biological
resources, worker environmental awareness
training, seeding disturbed areas adjacent to
open space areas with native seed, and
installation of project-specific stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Mitigation for
impacts to Goodding’s willow – red willow
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
CDFW
Prior to the
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities within
Industrial Park
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
riparian woodland and forest, valley oak
riparian forest woodland, and California
bulrush marsh may include restoration or
enhancement of resources on- or off -s ite, or
any other method acceptable to CDFW.
Mitigation shall not result in a net loss of a
Sensitive Natural Community.
If CDFW determines through the course of the
CFGC Section 1600 notification process that
the project does not require a Lake or
Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) to
address potential impacts to Goodding’s willow
– red willow riparian woodland and fores t,
valley oak riparian forest woodland, and
California bulrush marsh, further mitigation
regarding the aforementioned vegetation
communities shall not be required. Written
verification of the applicant’s compliance with
the Section 1600 LSAA process shall
be
submitted to the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department.
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-10(b)As part of any application associated with
development of the nonparticipating parcels,
the applicant shall ensure that a qualified
biologist has reviewed areas proposed for
disturbance to identify vegetation communities
that occur in the development foot
print and
confirm the presence and acreages of
Sensitive Natural Communities. If a Sensitive
Natural Community would not be impacted,
further mitigation shall not be required. The
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
As part of any
application
associated with
development of the
nonparticipating
parcels
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
qualified biologist shall detail any
recommendations to avoid impacts to
identified Sensitive Natural Communities in a
report, which shall be submitted for review and
approval to the City of Sacramento Community
Development Department.
4.4-10(c)If a Sensitive Natural Community or potentially jurisdictional aquatic resource is identified in a
nonparticipating parcel for which a
development application has been submitted,
the applicant shall implement Mitigation
Measure 4.4-10(a).
See Mitigation
Measure 4.4-
10(a)
If a Sensitive
Natural Community
is identified in a
nonparticipating
parcel for which a
development
application has
been submitted
4.4-11 Have a substantial
adverse effect on State
or federally protected
wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means.
Industrial Park
4.4-11(a)Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the
project applicant shall submit the Aquatic
Resources Delineation (ARD) prepared for the
proposed project by Bargas Environmental
Consulting to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) for a Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination and obtain
authorization for the fill of jurisdictional waters
of the U.S. through the Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 permitting process. Timing for
compliance with the specific conditions of the
Section 404 permit shall b
e pursuant to the
conditions specified by USACE as part of
permit issuance. Proof of compliance with the
requirements established herein shall be
submitted for review and approval to the City
of Sacramento Community Development
Department.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
USACE
Prior to the
issuance of grading
permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.4-11(b)Prior to construction in any areas containing
wetlands or waters of the U.S. and/or State,
the project applicant shall obtain a water
quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of
the CWA. Any measures required as part of
the issuance of the water qual ity certification
shall be implemented.
4.4-11(c)Prior to construction in any areas containing
wetlands or waters of the U.S. and/or State,
the project applicant shall file a report of waste
discharge with the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for
activities affecting wetlands or waters of the
State that are not also under USACE
jurisdiction, if applicable.
4.4-11(d)Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-10(a).
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-11(e)As part of any application associated with
development of the nonparticipating parcels,
the applicant shall ensure that a qualified
biologist has conducted an Aquatic Resources
Delineation (ARD) for areas proposed for
disturbance to identify potential waters of the
U.S. and/or State. The ARD shall be
conducted in accordance with the minimum
standards set forth by the USACE South
Pacific Division and Sacramento District
RWQCB
RWQCB
See Mitigation
Measure 4.4-
10(a)
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
USACE
Prior to construction
in any areas
containing wetlands
or waters of the
U.S. and/or State
Prior to construction
in any areas
containing wetlands
or waters of the
U.S. and/or State
See Mitigation
Measure 4.4-10(a)
As part of any
application
associated with
development of the
nonparticipating
parcels
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Regulatory Program, as well as the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Regional Supplement to the Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid
West Region, and A Field Guide to the
Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the
Western United States or any manuals that
supplement or replace these manuals.
If potential waters of the U.S. and/or State are
not identified, further mitigation shall not be
required. The ARD shall be submitted for
review and approval to the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department and
USACE Sacramento District Regulator y
Division.
4.4-11(f) If waters of the U.S. and/or State are identified within areas proposed for disturbance, the
project applicant shall implement Mitigation
Measures 4.4- 11(a) through 4.4- 11(d), as
applicable.
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-
11(a) through
4.4-11(d)
If waters of the U.S.
and/or State are
identified within
areas proposed for
disturbance
4.4-12 Interfere substantially
with the movement of
any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife
species or with
established native
resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites.
4.4-12 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-3. See Mitigation Measure 4.4-3
See Mitigation
Measure 4.4-3
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.4-13 Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance.
Industrial Park
4.4-13(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit
and commencement of ground- disturbing
activities, the project applicant shall hire a
qualified arborist to evaluate all trees within
areas proposed for disturbance to confirm if
the trees meet the definition of
a Private
Protected Tree, as set forth by Sacramento
City Code Section 12.56.020. Results of the
tree survey shall be submitted for review
and approval to the City of Sacramento
Department of Public Works’ Urban
Forestry section. Should any on- site tree
that would be potentially impacted by the
proposed project be found to qualify as a
Private Protected Tree, the project applicant
shall obtain a Tree Permit from the City of
Sacramento Community Development
Department and comply with the permit
requirements in effect at the time of project
grading for removal, pruning, or soil
disturbance within the canopy dripline of a
Private Protected Tree.
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-13(b) As part of any application associated with
development of the nonparticipating
parcels, the applicant shall hire a qualified
arborist to conduct a tree survey of areas
proposed for disturbance to identify any
trees that meet the definition of a Private
Protected Tree, as established by
Sacramento City Code Section 12.56.020.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of any
grading permit and
commencement of
ground-disturbing
activities within
Industrial Park
As part of any
application
associated with
development of the
nonparticipating
parcels
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
A report detailing the results of the survey
shall be submitted for review and approval
to the City of Sacramento Community
Development Department. If protected trees
are not identified, further mitigation shall not
be required.
4.4-13(c)If protected trees are identified in areas
proposed for disturbance of nonparticipating
parcels, the applicant shall implement
Mitigation Measure 4.4-13(a).
See Mitigation
Measure 4.4-
13(a)
If protected trees
are identified in
areas proposed for
disturbance of non-
participating parcels
4.4-15 Cumulative loss of
habitat for special-status
species.
Industrial Park
4.4-15(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4- 1(a)
and 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3, 4.4-4(a), 4.4-5(a) and
4.4-5(b), 4.4-6, 4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and 4.4-9(b),
4.4-10(a), 4.4-11(a) through 4.4-11(c), and
4.4-13(a).
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-15(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-
1(a) and 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3, 4.4-4(a), 4.4-5(a) and
4.4-5(b), 4.4-6, 4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and 4.4- 9(b),
4.4-10(b) and 4.4- 10(c), 4.4-11(e) and 4.4-
11(f), and 4.4-13(b) and 4.4-13(c).
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-
1(a) and 4.4-
1(b), 4.4-3,
4.4-4(a), 4.4-
5(a) and 4.4-
5(b), 4.4-6,
4.4-8, 4.4-9(a)
and 4.4-9(b),
4.4-10(a), 4.4-
11(a) through
4.4-11(c), and
4.4-13(a).
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-
1(a) and 4.4-
1(b), 4.4-3,
4.4-4(a), 4.4-
5(a) and 4.4-
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-1(a)
and 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3,
4.4-4(a), 4.4-5(a)
and 4.4-5(b), 4.4-6,
4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and
4.4-9(b), 4.4-10(a),
4.4-11(a) through
4.4-11(c), and 4.4-
13(a).
See Mitigation
Measures 4.4-1(a)
and 4.4-1(b), 4.4-3,
4.4-4(a), 4.4-5(a)
and 4.4-5(b), 4.4-6,
4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
5(b), 4.4-6,
4.4-8, 4.4-9(a)
and 4.4-9(b),
4.4-10(b) and
4.4-10(c), 4.4-
11(e) and 4.4-
11(f), and 4.4-
13(b) and 4.4-
13(c)
4.4-9(b), 4.4-10(b)
and 4.4-10(c), 4.4-
11(e) and 4.4-11(f),
and 4.4-13(b) and
4.4-13(c)
4.5 Cultural Resources
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.
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
Secretary of the Interior’s Pr ofes s ional
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 n otifications 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.
Sacramento
City Engineer
Sacramento
County
Coroner
Native
American
Heritage
Commission
(NAHC)
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• 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
cons
ult 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.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• 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
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
the PRC). The burial shall also include
either recording the site with the
NAHC or the appropriate information
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.
4.6 Geology and Soils
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.
4.6-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
grading plans shall incorporate the
geotechnical recommendations specified in
the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
prepared for the proposed project, including,
but not limited to, earthwork
recommendations, fo undation 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.
Sacramento
City Engineer
City of
Sacramento
Chief Building
Official
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
4.6-4 Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature.
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.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Should construction
or grading activities
result in the
discovery of unique
paleontological
resources
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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.
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 acti
on 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
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
grading permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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 le vels, 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.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
grading permits for
Parcel 1 and/or
Parcel 6A
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
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
Sacramento
International
Airport
Operations
Manager
Sacramento
County Airport
Prior to
commencement of
construction
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
excessive noise for
people residing or
working in the project
area.
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 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
System
(SCAS)
Airport Land
Use
Commission
(ALUC)
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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
articula
ted 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 involv e monitoring and employment of
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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:
• 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.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• 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 resp onsible 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 b udget, and
do not conflict with surrounding land
uses or storm water control functions
of the detention basins.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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;
• 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
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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 agricultu ral 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 shal
l
be made aware of the purpose and importance
of various bird control measures being
implemented by the Bird Control Program
Manager.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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:
• 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.
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
• 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.
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality
during construction.
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,
RWQCB
City of
Sacramento
Director of
Public Works
Sacramento
City Engineer
Prior to issuance of
any grading permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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.
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 qualit y
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.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to approval of
final project
Improvement Plans
for any on- site
development
4.8-5 Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern
of the site or area,
4.8-5 Prior to approval of any grading permits, the
applicant shall obtain from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a
City of
Sacramento
Engineering
Prior to approval of
any grading permits
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
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.
Conditional 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.
Services
Division
Sacramento
City Engineer
4.10 Noise
4.10-2 Generation of a
substantial permanent
increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity
of the project in excess
of standards established
in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of
other agencies.
4.10-2 Prior to approval by the City’s Public Works
Department of the final Improvement Plans for
the nonparticipating parcels portion of the
proposed project, the Improvement Plans shall
include the following requirements:
• An eight-foot-tall sound wall shall be
constructed along the eastern project
boundary, in the location indicated in
4.10-6 and the Environmental Noise
Assessment prepared for the
proposed project by Saxelby
Acoustics, in order to achieve the
City’s nightti me 50 dBA L50 noise
level standards.
• Noise barrier walls shall be
constructed of concrete panels,
concrete masonry units, earthen
berms, or any combination of these
materials that achieve the required
total height. Wood is not
recommended due to eventual
City of
Sacramento
Public Works
Department
Prior to approval of
the final
Improvement Plans
for the
nonparticipating
parcels
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
warping and degradation of acoustical
performance.
4.12 Transportation
4.12-2 Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the
circulation system during
operations.
4.12-2 The following requirements shall be noted on
project improvement plans, subject to review
and approval by the City of Sacramento
Community Development Department:
• The project should construct
pedestrian and bicycle facilities along
its frontage to City Standards.
• Class IV separated bicycle facilities
shall be accommodated within the
proposed cross section to provide
separation between cyclists and
heavy truck traffic.
• The bicycle network shall be
connected to the existing and planned
City and County bikeway system,
including, but not limited to, Bayou
Way at the northeast corner of the site,
the Class I bikeway at the southeast
corner of the site, and Metro Air
Parkway north of I-5.
• • The off -street Class IV cycle
track shown on the eastern side of the
site in the City Bikeway Master Plan
shall be accommodated in the
proposed plans.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Prior to the approval
of project
Improvement Plans
4.12-3 Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b).
4.12-3 Prior to the certificate of occupancy for each
on-site industrial building, the owner/operator
of each building shall be required to prepare
and implement a VMT Reduction Plan that
City of
Sacramento
Department of
Public Works
Prior to the
certificate of
occupancy for each
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
includes a sufficient selection of CAPCOA Trip
Reduction Programs (T -6 through T -13) to
reduce VMT by at least 22 percent, consistent
with the VMT Mitigation Memorandum
prepared by the City’s Public Works
Department for the proposed project (see
Appendix Q to the EIR). CAPCOA Trip
Reduction Programs T-6 through T-13 include
measures such as implementing a commute
trip reduction program and/or marketing,
providing a rideshare program, implementing a
subsidized or discounted transit program,
providing end-of-trip bicycle facilities, providing
employer-sponsored vanpool, pricing
workplace housing, and implementing
employee parking cash- out. The VMT
Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the City’s
Department of Public Works and Community
Development Department fo r review and
approval.
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
on-site industrial
building
4.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.13-1 Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined
in PRC Section 21074.
4.13-1(a)Conduct Cultural Resources Sensitivity
and Awareness Training Prior to Ground-
Disturbing Activities
The City shall require the applicant/contractor
to provide a tribal cultural resources sensitivity
and awareness training program (Worker
Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP])
for all personnel involved in project
construction, including field consultant s and
construction workers. The WEAP will be
developed in coordination with culturally
affiliated Native American tribes. The WEAP
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Before any project -
related construction
activities begin at
the project site
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
shall be conducted before any project-related
construction activities begin at the project site.
The WEAP will include relevant information
regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources,
including applicable regulations, protocols for
avoidance, and conseq uences of violating
State laws and regulations.
The WEAP will also describe appropriate
avoidance and impact minimization measures
for tribal cultural resources that could be
located at the project site and will outline what
to do and who to contact if any potential tribal
cultural resources are encount ered. The
WEAP will emphasize the requirement for
confidentiality and culturally appropriate
treatment of any discovery of significance to
Native Americans and will discuss appropriate
behaviors and responsive actions, consistent
with Native American tribal values.
4.13-1(b)In the Event that Tribal Cultural Resources
are Discovered During Construction,
Implement Procedures to Evaluate Tribal
Cultural Resources and Implement
Avoidance and Minimization Measures to
Avoid Significant Impact.
If tribal cultural resources (such as structural
features, unusual amounts of bone or shell,
artifacts, or human remains) are encountered
at the project site during construction, work
shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find
(based on the apparent distribution of cultural
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Culturally
affiliated
Native
American
tribes and
other
During construction
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
materials), and the construction contractor
shall immediately notify the project’s City
representative. Avoidance and preservation in
place is the preferred manner of mitigating
impacts to tribal cultural resources. This will be
accomplished, if feasible, by several
alternative means, including:
• Planning construction to avoid tribal
cultural resources, archaeological
sites and/or other cultural resources;
incorporating cultural resources within
parks, green- space or other open
space; covering archaeological
resources; deeding a cultural resource
t
o a permanent conservation
easement; or other preservation and
protection methods agreeable to
consulting parties and regulatory
authorities with jurisdiction over the
activity.
• Recommendations for avoidance of
tribal cultural resources will be
reviewed by the City representative,
interested culturally affiliated Native
American tribes and other appropriate
agencies, in light of factors such as
costs, logistics, feasibility, desig n,
technology and social, cultural and
environmental considerations, and the
extent to which avoidance is
consistent with project objectives.
Avoidance and design alternatives
may include realignment within the
appropriate
agencies
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
project site to avoid tribal cultural
resources, modification of the design
to eliminate or reduce impacts to tribal
cultural resources or modification or
realignment to avoid highly significant
features within a cultural resource or
tribal cultural resource.
• Native American representatives from
interested culturally affiliated Native
American tribes will be notified to
review and comment on these
analyses and shall have the
opportunity to meet with the City
representative and its representatives
who have techn ical expertise to
identify and recommend feasible
avoidance and design alternatives, so
that appropriate and feasible
avoidance and design alternatives can
be identified.
• If the discovered tribal cultural
resource can be avoided, the
construction contractor(s), will install
protective fencing outside the site
boundary, including a 100-foot buffer
area, before construction restarts. The
boundary of a tribal cultural resource
will be determined in consultation with
interested culturally affiliated Native
American tribes and tribes will be
notified to monitor the installation of
fencing. Use of temporary and
permanent forms of protective fencing
will be determined in consultation with
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Native American representatives from
interested culturally affiliated Native
American tribes.
• The construction contractor(s) will
maintain the protective fencing
throughout construction to avoid the
site during all remaining phases of
construction. The area will be
demarcated as an “Environmentally
Sensitive Area”.
If a tribal cultural resource cannot be avoided,
the following performance standard shall be
met prior to continuance of construction and
associated activities that may result in damage
to or destruction of tribal cultural resources:
• Each resource will be evaluated for
California Register of Historical
Resources- (CRHR) eligibility through
application of established eligibility
criteria (California Code of Regulations
15064.636), in consultation with
consulting Native American tribes, as
applicable.
If a tribal cultural resource is determined to be
eligible for listing in the CRHR, the City will
avoid damaging effects to the resource in
accordance with California PRC Section
21084.3, if feasible. The City shall coordinate
the investigation of the find
with a qualified
archaeologist (meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
Standards for Archeology) approved by the
City and with interested culturally affiliated
Native American tribes that respond to the
City’s notification. As part of the site
investigation and resource assessment, the
City and the archaeologist shall consult with
interested culturally affiliated Native American
tribes to assess the significance of the find,
make recommendations for further evaluation
and treatment as necessary and provide
proper management recommendations should
potential impacts to the resou rces be
determined by the City to be significant. A
written report detailing the site assessment,
coordination activities, and management
recommendations shall be provided to the City
representative by the qualified archaeologist.
These recommendations will be documented
in the project record. For any
recommendations made by interested
culturally affiliated Native American tribes that
are not implemented, a justification for why the
recommendation was not followed will be
provided in the project record.
Native American representatives from
interested culturally affiliated Native American
tribes and the City representative will also
consult to develop measures for long- term
management of any discovered tribal cultural
resources. Consultation will be limite d to
actions consistent with the jurisdiction of the
City and taking into account ownership of the
subject property. To the extent that the City
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
has jurisdiction, routine operation and
maintenance within tribal cultural resources
retaining tribal cultural integrity shall be
consistent with the avoidance and
minimization standards identified in this
mitigation measure.
If the City determines that the project may
cause a significant impact to a tribal cultural
resource, and measures are not otherwise
identified in the consultation process, the
following are examples of mitigation capable of
avoiding or substantially lesse ning potential
significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource
or alternatives that would avoid significant
impacts to the resource. These measures may
be considered to avoid or minimize significant
adverse impacts and constitute the standard
by which an impact conclusion of less -than
significant may be reached:
• Avoid and preserve resources in
place, including, but not limited to,
planning construction to avoid the
resources and protect the cultural and
natural context, or planning
greenspace, parks, or other open
space, to incorporate the resources
with culturall y appropriate protection
and management criteria.
• Treat the resource with culturally
appropriate dignity taking into account
the Tribal cultural values and meaning
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Airport South Industrial Park Project
Impact
Number Impact Mitigation Measures Monitoring
Agency
Implementation
Schedule Sign-off
of the resource, including, but not
limited to, the following:
o Protect the cultural character
and integrity of the resource.
o Protect the traditional use of
the resource.
o Protect the confidentiality of
the resource.
o Establish permanent
conservation easements or
other interests in real
property, with culturally
appropriate management
criteria for the purposes of
preserving or using the
resources or places.
o Protect the resource.
4.13-1(c)Implement Procedures in the Event of the
Inadvertent Discovery of Native American
Human Remains.
If an inadvertent discovery of human remains
is made at any time during project -related
construction activities or project planning, the
City will implement the procedures listed
above. The following performance standards
shall be met prior to implementing or
continuing actions such as construction, which
may result in damage to or destruction of
human remains. In accordance with the
California Health and Safety Code (HSC), if
human remains are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities, the City shall
City of
Sacramento
Community
Development
Department
Sacramento
County
Coroner
NAHC
If an inadvertent
discovery of human
remains is made at
any time during
project -related
construction
activities or project
planning
Final EIR
Airport South Industrial Park Project
March 2025
Chapter 4 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program