2025-01126 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) (Noticed on 11072025; Published 11072025; Passed for Publication 10212025; Published 10242025) [Updated 11/18/2025 @4:41 PM] - Part 1A — Sacramento City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 1 of 7)

CITY COUNCIL
Kevin McCarty, Mayor
Lisa Kaplan, District 1
Roger Dickinson, District 2
Karina Talamantes, Vice Mayor, District 3
Phil Pluckebaum, District 4
Caity Maple, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8

CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Gustavo Limón Martinez, Interim City Attorney
Farishta Ahrary, City Auditor
Leyne Milstein, Interim City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer

City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency Successor Agency
City Hall Complex
915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-7200

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

Description: Attached is supplemental material received after publishing the agenda, additional attachments.

For the Meeting of: Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 5:00 p.m.

Agenda Item: Public Hearing Item 11

11. Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) [Noticed on 11/07/2025;Published 11/07/2025; Passed for Publication 10/21/2025; Published 10/24/2025]
File ID: 2025-01126
Location: Southeast of the intersection of Powerline Road and Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County, California. The project site is located south of Metro Air Parkway (and the new Metro Air Parkway/I-5 interchange), and west of the existing Westlake residential community adjacent to the current City of Sacramento boundary. Portions of Bayou Way and Metro Air Parkway are located within the project site.

Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, 1) adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; 2) adopt a Resolution for the annexation/reorganization of approximately 447.19 acres into the City of Sacramento; 3) adopt an Ordinance approving the Airport South Industrial Annexation Development Agreement between the City of Sacramento and Northpoint Development;

4) adopt an Ordinance approving the Airport South Industrial Annexation Development Agreement between the City of Sacramento and JTS Engineering Consultants; 5) adopt a Resolution amending the 2040 General Plan Land Use Diagram to include ±420.9 acres of Employment Mixed-Use, ±6.7 acres of Open Space, amending the General Plan circulation element in accordance with the proposed Airport South Industrial Annexation project, and include within the North Natomas Community Plan; 6) adopt a Resolution approving the Airport South Industrial Annexation Planned Unit Development Guidelines and Schematic Plan; 7) adopt a Resolution approving the Airport South Industrial Public Facilities Finance Plan; 8) adopt a Resolution approving a Master Parcel Map to subdivide ±352 acres into 25 master parcels; 9) adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to incorporate bikeway facilities in the Airport South Industrial Planned Unit Development; and 10) adopt a Resolution approving the Water Supply Assessment Report for the Airport South Industrial Annexation project.

Contact: Cheryle Hodge, Principal Planner, (916) 808-5971, [email protected]; Matthew Aijala, Assistant Planner, (916) 808-7176, [email protected]; Community Development Department Executive
Director’s
Report

October 4, 2023
Board of
Directors
Meeting

COUNTY OF SUTTER.. . established 1850
Donna M. Johnston
County Clerk-Recorder – Registrar of Voters – Clerk of the Board of Supervisors June 14, 2023
Michael Critchfield
1215 Plumas Street, Suite 1502
Yuba City, CA 95991
Dear Mr. Critchfield:

It is a pleasure to officially advise you that on June 13, 2023, the Sutter County Board of Supervisors approved your appointment to serve on the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors for a three-year term ending on December 31, 2025.

Please contact the Clerk of the Board’s office at (530) 822-7106 to schedule an appointment to take your Oath of Office. Your Oath of Office must be completed before attending your first meeting as a voting member.

Sutter County has always considered itself most fortunate in being able to obtain the services of capable persons such as yourself. We trust that your appointment will provide you with a unique opportunity to contribute to your County’s continued efforts to provide the public with local governmental services of the best quality and conduct.

On behalf of the Board of Supervisors and myself, may we take this opportunity to express our genuine appreciation for your willingness to serve on this Board.

Sincerely,
Donna M. Johnston, County Clerk
& Ex-Officio Clerk of the Board
cc: Natomas Basin Conservancy
Clerk-Recorder
433 Second Street
Yuba City, CA 95991
Tel: (530) 822-7134
Fax: (530) 822-7214
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
1160 Civic Center Blvd. Suite A
Yuba City, CA 95993
Tel: (530) 822-7106
Fax: (530) 822-7103
Registrar of Voters
1435 Veteran Memorial Circle
Yuba City, CA 95993
Tel: (530) 822-7122
Fax: (530) 822-7587
Visit us online at www.co.sutter.ca.us
August 23, 2023
Melinda Dorin Bradbury
2367 Marina Glen Way
Sacramnto, CA 95833
RE: Appointment to the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors, Seat D Dear Melinda Dorin Bradbury,
Congratulations on your appointment to the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors. You have been appointed for a full term, effective August 22, 2023, and ending on January 1, 2026.

You have been appointed to Seat D, which requires the following: a member who is not a current employee of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the United States Department of Interior, California Department of Fish and Game, or the State of California's Resources Agency and appointed by the City of Sacramento.

At the conclusion of this term, you will not be eligible to serve this seat because you have served the maximum of 2 terms allowed for the Natomas Basin Conservancy Board of Directors.

Thank you for your service to the City of Sacramento. You have our best wishes for success in this important position.

Sincerely,
Mindy Cuppy, MMC
City Clerk
Office of the City Clerk
City of Sacramento
915 I Street, New City Hall 5th Floor Sacramento, California 95814 916-808-7200 – [email protected]
December 10, 2021
MEMO
TO: Parties to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP); representatives to the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) FROM: John Roberts, Executive Director
The Natomas Basin Conservancy
RE: Request for Revision pursuant to Section VI.L.3(2) of the 2003 Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) to clarify the City of Sacramento's Permit Area boundary
Introduction. This communication requests the "Parties"1 to the NBHCP authorize a "Revision"2 to the 2003 NBHCP as proposed by the City of Sacramento. It is the Conservancy's role3 to circulate proposed Revisions to the Parties to the NBHCP for acceptance. Further, if all Parties to the NBHCP approve the Revision in writing, the Revision is incorporated into the NBHCP and made an official part of it.4
Discussion. The Revision the City is seeking hopes to clarify an NBHCP Permit Area boundary matter in the City's northwest. The property ("Subject Property") is further identified as including Sacramento County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 225-0030-023 and 225-0300-045. It is contiguous to the existing corporate limits of the City, being immediately adjacent to the City's Westlake neighborhood. It includes 121.68 acres. Importantly, the property resides within the City's approved North Natomas Community Plan. Maps are provided by the City in its request package, attached to this memo, for more specific identifying information.
1 Parties include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, City of Sacramento, County of Sutter and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designated representatives of all Parties to the NBHCP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) are included in this communication.
2 "Revisions to the NBHCP are changes to the Plan provided for under the Operation Conservation Program, including Adaptive Management Changes and Mitigation Fee adjustments. These revisions would not result in operations under the NBHCP that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved, result in adverse impacts on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the NBHCP as approved." NBHCP, Section VI.L3.a. 3 "TNBC shall process all amendments and revisions to the NBHCP, circulating proposed changes to all parties and, if appropriate, approving the amendment or revision by action of the TNBC Board." NBHCP, Section VI.L.3. 4 "If TNBC, and the USFWS and CDFG representatives to the TAC agree to the proposed revision, and no other Permittee objects within the period prescribed by TNBC, TNBC shall process the revisions to the NBHCP, including, if appropriate, approving the revision by action of the TNBC Board." NBHCP Section VI.L.3.a. \Ne make specific reference to Section VI.L.3(2)5 of the 2003 NBHCP. It states that Revisions can include those as follows:
(2) Correction of any maps or exhibits to correct errors in mapping or to reflect previously approved changes in ITP or NBHCP.

To the Conservancy, it seems the key is that the City's Incidental Take Permit, issued when the 2003 NBHCP was finalized and approved, as well as the information included in the NWF et al v. Norton litigation in federal court, noted the City enjoyed incidental take coverage on 8,050 acres. The City believes that without the inclusion of the subject property, the City would be deprived of the right to use all of its 8,050 Permit Area acres.

Just as the Parties to the NBHCP previously gave approval when Sutter County further defined its Permit Area boundaries in 2014/15,6 the City requests the Parties to the NBHCP approve the City's clarification of its Permit Area boundary so that all NBHCP documents of record agree.

Action requested: In this communication, we request the Parties to the NBHCP evidence their agreement of the City's Permit Area boundary clarification as a Revision to the NBHCP. The Parties to the NBHCP must evidence their support in writing to all other parties. The Conservancy has in the past and will in this instance accept emailed replies.

Please let us know if further information is needed.

Enclosures:

City of Sacramento Revision request letter and attachments 5 See also the Implementation Agreement, specifically Section 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 and Definitions. 6 Action covering Sutter County's ITP boundaries were part of multiple issues determined in 2015.

Exhibit B

1986 North Natomas Community Plan Boundary Map
HCP Area
Summary of HCP Fees Paid
Through 2020
*Total Acres Remaining for
Full HCP Fee Payment................ 952.264 (+/-) Acres Total Acres with Partial
HCP Fee Payment........................69.5 (+/-) Acres * 40 acres (Natomas 2nd High School) is outside of the NBHCP Permit Area polygon, but counted as part of the 8,050 permitted acreage calculator. The 40-acres is included in the total amount remaining per this exhibit.

HCP PERMIT ACREAGE REMAINING
Graded
Developed
Acres
City of Sacramento ITP - Permitted Acres 8,050.00
Acres for which permits have been issued 1 (6,669.39)
ITP Acres Remaining, per City Map 2 (981.76)
Floating Site for 2nd High School 3 (40.00)
Difference in Acreage 358.85
Remaining Ungraded Lands in Natomas as of December 31, 2019 Attachment E (Exhibit of Remaining Acres)
Acres Listed
On Map 2
Assessors Parcel Numbers Comments

NORTH NATOMAS
Quad 1: S of Del Paso & E of I-5
Arena Corporate Center 9.94 225-0070-120 (225-2950-001 thru 007)

9.94 remaining after 2.243 acres
graded/paid in 2018
225-0150-032; 225-0150-055; 225-0180-035;
Measurement adjusted in 2014 per
Exhibit C-6. In 2019, 0.478 acres
were graded (Firestar Way, Natomas
Field Ph 3).W of Airport Rd 9.442 225-0180-057
Natomas Place (SWC Del Paso / Blackrock Dr) 23.01 225-0060-079, 080 Subtotal Quad 1 42.392
Quad 2: N of Del Paso & E of I-5
Town Center - (City Portion of NUSD parecl S of 0.572 225-0040-089 North Natomas Regional Park 53.60 225-0040-090 (portions) Panhandle (Krumenacher) 93.06 201-0320-025
Penhandle (BD Properties) 58.18 201-0540-073
Panhandle (Richter / Rappaport) 36.71 225-0050-020, 021 Panhandle (Cononelos) 36.64 225-0050-003
Panhandle (Brothers Trust) 36.69 225-0050-016
Panhandle (Richter Farms) 167.84 225-0050-022; 225-0060-021 less WAPA Corridor already graded (6.86)
Avdis / north of Valley View Acres 38.88 214-0010-001, 002, 011 Subtotal Quad 2 515.31
Quad 3: N of Del Paso & W of I-5
Scalora/Cay oc ca/JTS Engineering 121.68 225-0030-023, 045 Outside of NBHCP Urban
Development Area as shown in
Attachment E. Property would need
to first be annexed into City limits
NN Fwy Buffer (I-5) SE end of Greenbriar 3.82 201-0300-080

GIS MEASUREMENTS
Acres Area Pad Area Left

77.70 19.45 58.25
118.40 25.34 93.06

64.22 6.04 58.18

39.74 3.03 36.71

39.68 3.04 36.64

39.73 3.04 36.69
182.88 15.04 167.84
429.12

AIRPORT SOUTH INDUSTRIAL

CONCEPT SITE PLAN

California Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
North Central Region
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-4599
916-358-2900
www.wildlife.ca.gov

July 27, 2023

John Roberts
The Natomas Basin Conservancy
2150 River Plaza Drive # 460
Sacramento, CA 95833
[email protected]

Response to Request for Revision pursuant to Section VI.L.3(2) of the 2003 Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) to clarify the City of Sacramento’s Permit Area Boundary
Dear John Roberts:

On November 18, 2021, pursuant to Section VI.3.a.2 of the NBHCP, the City of Sacramento (City) requested that The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) coordinate the City’s proposed Minor Revision to the 2003 NBHCP to correct a mapping error.

Under Section VI.3.a.2, TNBC is responsible for circulating the proposed NBHCP Minor Revision to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). On December 10, 2021, USFWS and CDFW received your request to correct the City of Sacramento’s NBHCP Permit Area.

The City’s proposed Minor Revision would clarify the NBHCP Permit Area boundary in the City’s northwest to include Sacramento County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 225-0030-023 and 225-0030-045 (Subject Area). The Subject Area consists of 121.68 acres and is contiguous to the existing corporate limits of the City and is within the City’s North Natomas Community Plan.

As described in the text of the NBHCP, the 9038-acre North Natomas Community Plan is to be included within the NBHCP’s Permit Area boundary; however, Exhibit B, Figure 2 of the 2003 NBHCP does not depict the Subject Area within the Permit Area boundary. CDFW has reviewed your request, along with the supporting documentation, and has determined that the existing Exhibit B, Figure 2 of the 2003 NBHCP should be revised to be consistent with the text description in the NBHCP.

CDFW hereby accepts your request to revise Exhibit B, Figure 2 with the revised Exhibit provided by the City and attached to this letter. All other conditions in the NBHCP remain in effect. CDFW has carefully reviewed the supporting documentation for this Minor Revision request to correct a discrepancy between the 2003 Permit Area boundary map and the text of the 2003 NBHCP. Future mapping updates will need to follow the amendment process described in the NBHCP.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 32C892F5-F5BB-4C67-97E2-F83C4CD063DE Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

John Roberts

Page 2 of 3 ends

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Dylan Wood, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), at (916) 358-2384 or by email at dylan.a.wood@wildlife
.ca.gov.

Sincerely,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 32C892F5-F5BB-4C67-97E2-F83C4CD063DE

Morgan Kilgour
Acting Regional Manager

cc: Tanya Sheya, Environmental Program Manager
Dylan Wood, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) California Department of Fish and Wildlife

John Roberts

Page 3 of 3 ends

Revised Exhibit B, Figure 2

DocuSign Envelope ID: 32C892F5-F5BB-4C67-97E2-F83C4CD063DE

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
[email protected]
In Reply Refer to:
2022-0039456-HCP-001
September 26, 2023
Sent Electronically
John Roberts s
The Natomas Basin Conservancy o Cas Bat e Nh T omas in nservancy 22150 River Plaza Drive #460 150 River Plaza Drive #460 Sacramento, California 95833 5833
jrojrobebertrts@[email protected]
Subject: u Sbject: RRequeequestst f foror M Minorinor RRevisevisionion pur pursuantsuant ttoo S Sectionection V VI.L.3(2I.L.3(2)) ofof t thehe 2003 N2003 Natomas atomas BBasinasin H Habitabitaatt C Conservationonservation P Planlan to to cclarilariffyy th thee CCityity o off S Sacraacrammentoento’’ss PPermermit Ait Arearea boundaboundaryry
Dear John Roberts: t
TThishis lelettetterr is is inin r responseesponse toto TThehe N Natomaatomass BBasinasin C Conservancyonservancy’’ss ((ConsConserervavanncy)cy) DDecemecembberer 10, 2021, 10, 2021, rrequestequest f foror a a M Minorinor R Revisionevision ofof t thehe NNatomaatomass BBasinasin H Habitatabitat C Conservationonservation PPlanlan ( (Plan)Plan) ttoo c clarilariffyy t thehe CCityity of of S Sacrameacramentntoo’’ss PPermermiitt A Arearea bounda boundary.ry. TThehe r requestequest w wasas ooriginallyriginally rreceivedeceived b byy thethe UU.S..S. F Fishish a andnd W Wildliildlifefe SServerviicece ((SerServivice)ce) ffroromm t thehe CCityity of of S Sacramentoacramento ( (CiCitty)y) on on NovemberNovember 18, 2021, 18, 2021, aandnd llaterater f fororwwardardeded t too t thehe S Serverviicece by tby thehe CConservancyonservancy on on DDecemecembberer 10, 2021. T 10, 2021. Thehe CCityity’’ss prproposedoposed M Minorinor R Revisevisiionon w wouldould c clarilariffyy t thathat t thehe CCityity’’ss 8,050-8,050- aacrecre PPermermit Ait Arearea wwithinithin th thee PPlanlan i includesncludes aa 121.6 121.68-ac8-acrree prpropertyoperty ( (SubjeSubjecctt PProperoperty)rty) tthathat i iss ccurrentlyurrently out outsideside of of t thehe CCityity l limimitsits iinn uni unincncororpoporratateded S Sacramentoacramento C Countyounty butbut is is wwithinithin th thee CCityity’’ss NorthNorth N Natomasatomas CCommunityommunity P Plan.lan. T Thehe ssubjectubject propertyproperty i iss aadjacedjacentnt t too t thehe CCitity’y’ss ccurrenturrent nortnorthwesthwesternern l limiimit,t, s southouth of of B Bayouayou W Way/Interstate-5ay/Interstate-5 anandd w westest o off t thehe C Cityity’’ss WesWestlaketlake neneighborhood.ighborhood. T Thishis rresesponseponse iiss prprovidedovided unde underr t thehe a authoruthoriityty of of t thehe EEndangendangerreded S Speciespecies AActct of of 1973, a1973, ass aamendmendeedd ((1616 U U.S.C..S.C. 1531 1531 etet s seqeq..)) (A (Act)ct),, aandnd i inn a accordanceccordance wwithith t thehe iimplementingmplementing rregulationsegulations pepertairtainingning t too iinteragencynteragency ccooperationooperation ( (5050 C CFRFR 402) 402)..

AAss dedescribedscribed i inn t thehe PPlan,lan, tthehe 9,038- 9,038-acracree NNorthorth N Natomasatomas CCommunityommunity P Planlan i iss t too be be i includedncluded withinwithin th thee PPlanlan’’ss PPermermiitt AArearea bound boundaryary;; howhowever,ever, EExhibxhibiitt B B,, F Figuriguree 2 of2 of t thehe PPlanlan doe doess notnot de depictpict tthehe S Subjectubject A Arearea wwithinithin t thehe P Permermiitt A Arearea bound boundaary.ry. TThehe S Serviceervice hhasas rreviewedeviewed your your r requesequest,t, a alonglong wwithith t thehe ssupporupporttinging doc documentaumentation,tion, a andnd ha hass dedetertermminedined t thathat t thehe eexistingxisting E Exhibxhibiitt B B,, F Figuriguree 2 of2 of tthehe P Planlan (F(Figureigure 11)) sshouldhould be be rrevisedevised t too be be cconsistentonsistent w withith t thehe t textext de descriptiscription ion inn t thehe PPlan.lan.

The Service approves your request to revise Exhibit B, Figure 2 with the revised Exhibit provided by the City and attached to this letter (Figure 2). All other conditions in the Plan remain in effect. Future mapping updates will need to follow the amendment process described in the Plan. In addition, any potential future projects proposed on the Subject Property will need to follow the review and approval process outlined in the Plan. 26, 2023 ber Septem
ElectronicallySent
John Robert
9 ornia f Calinto, Sacrame
s: ober ohn R J rDea
2 Figure 1: Current Exhibit B, Figure 2 of the 2003 Plan not depicting the Subject Property (circled) in the Plan’s Permit Area Boundary.
3 Figure 2
: Revised Exhibit B, Figure 2 of the 2003 Plan provided by the City in their November 18, 2021, letter to the Service depicting the Subject Property in the Plan’s Permit Area Boundary. 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Adam Stewart ([email protected]), or me (m [email protected]), Sacramento Valley Division Supervisor
, at the letterhead address, or by email.

Sincerely,
Megan Cook
Sacramento Valley Division Supervisor
cc:

Dylan Wood, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Rancho Cordova, California Cheryle Hodge, City of Sacramento, Sacramento, California

September 11, 2023

ECOS launches campaign to save wildlife habitat and farmland in Natomas

“We think the annual Farm to Fork month, with so many people celebrating the locally grown food in the region, is a perfect time to highlight how important farms are to people and wildlife.” stated Heather Fargo, former Mayor of Sacramento and lead of the Natomas Campaign for the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS).

ECOS is calling on the public to protect Na tomas open space and embarking on a major campaign to educate the community about how important the Natomas farmlands and open space are to wildlife in our region and beyond.

Natomas is a special place; it is a vital part of the Pacific Flyway and home to 22 protected species, in addition to providing food for our region and the world.

The Natomas Basin Habita t Conservation Plan was established in 1997 to ensure the basin’s natural resources are not lost with the growth of the Natomas community. Unfortunately, loss of these resources is likely to happen because of proposed residential and industrial development projects covering more than 8,200 acres of land intended to remain in agriculture.

The first of those projects is the Airport South Industrial Project, a 450-acre warehouse district proposed for land south of I-5 and adjacent to the West Lake neighborhood in North Natomas. If approved, it would put over 6 million square feet of warehouses on foraging habitat for the endangered Swainson’s Hawk. “ECOS wants Sacramento to remember the value of open space and farmland as a way to support wildlife and combat climate change. We Sacramentans have a role in protecting one of the Earth’s biodiversity hotspots,” said Fargo.

A new message is on display on a digital billboard along I-5 in downtown Sacramento. It has a simple message - save Sacramento’s wildlife habitat and farmland.

Targeted to those who enjoy the local dining experience offered in the city, it simply says, “There’s no Farm to Fork without farms” and “Natomas farmlands feed people and wildlife”.

The billboard is timed to co incide with the annual Farm to Fork Festival that includes the Tower Bridge dinner on Sept 10 and the street festival on Capital Mall on Sept 22-23.

The billboard kicks of f a major new campaign by ECOS, continuing its 50 years of efforts to protect the environment. “The establishment of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan was important for regional sustainability thirty years ago. Now with climate change, it is essential that we stop sprawl and protect biodiversity in this area. The NBHCP provided for development on 17, 500 acres, and the proposed projects are outside of that,” said Susan Herre AIA AICP, President of the ECOS Board of Directors.

ECOS is partnering with Sierra Club, Habitat 2020, Audubon Society, Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk and California Native Plant Society.

Map of the Natomas Basin The proposed projects are in red and are labelled.

More information is available on the ECOS website – https://www.ecosacramento.net/

Contacts: Heather Fargo, former Mayor of Sacramento, ECOS Natomas Team Lead: [email protected], (916) 600- 6615; and Susan Her
re, President of ECOS Board, [email protected]

The ECOS Mission:

Our mission is to achieve regional sustainability, livable communities, environmental justice, and a healthy environment and economy for existing and future residents. ECOS strives to bring positive change to the Sacramento region by proactively working with the individual and organizational members of ECOS, neighborhood groups, and local and regional governments.

Todd Smith, Planning Director
Planning and Environmental Review
Troy Givans, Director
Department of Community
Development
County of Sacramento
Planning and Environmental Review

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
August 17, 2023
To: All Interested Parties
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Sacramento County WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) Project (PLER2023-00069) Sacramento County will be the CEQA Lead Agency for preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to the 2021 Sacramento International Airport Master Plan Update SEIR for the WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) project. This Notice of Preparation has been sent to responsible and trustee agencies and involved federal agencies pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines. Agencies should comment on the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to the agencies' statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after issuance of this notice.

The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials and may also be viewed online at:
https://planningdocuments.saccounty.net/ViewProjectDetails.aspx?ControlNum=PLER2 023-00069
Please send your Agency's response to this Notice to:

Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
Planning and Environmental Review
827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814
or via e-mail at: [email protected].

Your response should include the name of a contact person in your agency.

Agencies with specific questions about the project should contact Alison Little, Associate Planner, at (916) 874-8620 for further information.
827 7th Street, Room 225 • Sacramento, California 95814 • phone (916) 874-6141 • fax (916) 874-7499 www per.saccounty.gov
Comment Period
August 17, 2023 to September 15, 2023
SCOPING MEETINGS:

One scoping meeting has been scheduled for the proposed project. Interested parties and agency representatives are invited to learn more about the proposed project and submit comments and suggestions concerning the analysis in the SEIR.

The scoping meeting will be conducted virtually via Zoom. The date, time, and login information for the meeting is as follows:

August 30, 2023, 2:00 PM
Location: Online via Zoom at https://saccounty-net.zoomgov.com/j/1607123468?pwd= TWdxZXZLRldCTjdiRHIKcW5jR0hXUT09
Meeting ID: 160 712 3468
Passcode: 189720
Project Title:

Sacramento County WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) Project Control Number:

PLER2023-00069
Project Proponent(s):

Owner: Sacramento County Department of Airports
Attn: Glen Rickelton
Applicant: WattEV, Inc
Attn: Emil Youssefzadeh
Engineer: Kimley Horn and Associates. Inc.

Attn: Zach Tait
Project Description and Location:

The Sacramento County Department of Airports has formed a public/private partnership with WattEV to construct, own, operate, and cost share the Sacramento County WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) project, located within the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan area in the northwest portion of Sacramento County, approximately

7.5 miles from downtown Sacramento (see Plate NOP-1). Specifically, the project is located south of Interstate 5 (I-5) and immediately south of Sacramento International Airport (see Plate NOP-2). The project would provide a publicly accessible Electric Vehicle (EV) charging facility that would be built on a 118-acre parcel of land along a major freight corridor. Facility development would include the installation of Direct Current Fast Chargers (DCFC) and Megawatt Chargers powered by a new solar array that would support charging for shippers and transporters as well as public transportation and passenger vehicles. In addition, the project would include accessory structures which are discussed further below. The project site generally covers APNs 225-0010-003, 225-0010-035, 225-0010-036, and 225-0010-006.

Project Facilities
The proposed project includes deployment of advanced high-powered public charging stations and associated facilities powered by a 12.5 megawatt alternating current (MWac) solar generation field, with nameplate power of 31 2 megawatts of direct current (MWdc), to support zero-electric freight movement in Sacramento. The charging areas and associated support facilities would occupy approximately 24 acres of land on the northern portion of the project site while the remaining 94 acres of the site would be occupied by solar fields (See Plate NOP-3).

The project site would be configured with two truck charging areas separated by a publicly accessible central plaza. The truck charging areas would include six 3,600-kilowatt (kW) charger configurations. Each configuration would consist of three Megawatt Charging Standard (MCS) 1,200 kW chargers and fifteen 240 kW Combined Charging Standard (CCS) chargers, for a total of 18 MCS chargers and 90 CCS chargers designed for heavy and medium duty (MHD) trucks. The truck charging pads are expected to cover 7.8 acres. In addition to the charging pads, a parking lot for trailers would be provided with an average of 53 parking stalls spread over 2.8 acres of land. The proposed project would also include the installation of 30 CCS chargers dedicated for passenger vehicles, which would be located at the central plaza.

Three buildings would be included within the public plaza. The first building would include offices housing operations staff, a trucker refreshment area, trucker restrooms, and a resting lounge. It would consist of a single story and have a footprint of approximately 2,700 square feet. The second building would include a convenience store, food outlets, restrooms, and a resting lounge for the public. It would also consist of a single story and have a footprint of approximately 7,000 square feet. The third building would contain two stories and be designated as a public visitor center, providing information about California's progress and milestones towards clean air initiatives and emission reduction. The footprint of the public plaza would be approximately 5.25 acres.

Site Access
Access to the project site would be provided along Bayou Way, which borders the site to the north and is parallel to I-5, via Airport Boulevard and its nearby interchange with I-5. Direct access to the project site would be provided by three sets of ingress and egress points (six total access points) along Bayou Way. Two sets of ingress and egress points would serve the truck charging areas while the third set of ingress and egress points would serve the public plaza
Offsite Improvements
Development of the project would include improvements to portions of Bayou Way to facilitate increased volumes of truck and passenger car traffic. This could include widening of the roadbed and shoulders in some locations. Furthermore, improvements to the interchange of Airport Boulevard and I-5 may be required. The extent of these improvements is still under development.

Construction
The proposed project would be constructed in two phases Phase 1 would consist of installation of the truck charging areas and public plaza as described above, as well as a

12.5 MWac solar photovoltaic (PV) system with nameplate power of 15.6 MW (50 percent of the final solar array power). Phase 2 would consist of the installation of the remaining

15.6 MW of solar power for a total nameplate of 31.2 MW.

The proposed project would include construction of a customer-owned substation in coordination with SMUD. The provision of the substation would allow the proposed project to export excess generation during peak generation and import power during peak charging sessions. The substation would include medium voltage transformers, switchgears, surge protection, metering equipment, communication equipment, equipment pads, grounding equipment, steel structures, all enclosed by fencing. Outside the substation, sub-transmission poles would provide support for wire entrances, distribution voltage would leave the substation in either overhead or underground configurations and connect to an existing SMUD 69kV overhead transmission line that runs parallel to Power Line Road, about 600 feet east of the project site. Phase 1 of the substation would be sized for 21.6 MW of charging and 12.5 MWac. The substation and switchgear would provide physical space for additional transformer and breakers respectively for Phase 2.

Project Objectives:

The primary objectives of the proposed project include

1. Provide a charging facility for electric mobility and freight in the Sacramento area.

2. Provide green energy onsite to support a large part of the need for EV charging.

3. Reduce the freight emissions in the Sacramento region.

4. Contribute to the economic development of the region.

5. Create equitable access to zero emission technology for small carriers and independent owner operators.

Environmental/Land Use Setting:

The site is characterized by vacant land zoned as agricultural by the County. The site is surrounded by other agricultural uses as well as the Metro Air Park Special Planning Area to the northeast. The project site is owned by the Sacramento Country Department of Airports and is designated for commercial development under the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan, which was last updated in 2021.

Probable Environmental Effects/SEIR Focus:

The long-range development of the Sacramento International Airport was considered in a Master Plan and EIR that was adopted in 2007 and was most recently updated in 2021 with a Master Plan Update and SEIR. The project site was included in the program-level analysis of both EIRs. As such, the analysis in the current SEIR effort will tier from those previous efforts and will focus on those issues that could result in impacts that would be greater than previously determined. The SEIR will also consider project-specific impacts that were not evaluated in detail in the previous program EIRs. Those issues that were adequately assessed in the 2021 SEIR or for which resources are not present will be scoped out of the current SEIR, and a rationale for their exclusion will be provided in the SEIR. Those issues have been preliminarily identified for exclusion include geology and soils, mineral resources, and wildfire. Other topics that do not require detailed analysis may be similarly dismissed or scaled back as the analysis progresses. In all cases, a rationale will be provided in the SEIR as to why they were not subjected to a more detailed analysis.

Issues that are expected to be analyzed in the SEIR are listed below. These descriptions are not exhaustive, and other sections and discussions may be included if further research or public comment indicates that their inclusion is warranted. As the analyses progress and the extent of impacts to the categories is determined, appropriate CEQA alternatives will be included for analysis.

Agricultural Resources
The project site is in an area that has been identified as containing Farmland of Local Importance. As a result, impacts to farmland will be identified and analyzed.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The SEIR will consider the project’s air quality and greenhouse gas emissions effects arising during construction and operation.

Biological Resources
The proposed project has the potential to affect key species in the Natomas Basin, as well as wetlands and jurisdictional waters. Therefore, impacts to these resources will be identified and analyzed.

Cultural and Tribal Resources
The project site will be evaluated for presence of cultural resources, and area tribes will be consulted in accordance with State law and County policy. Impacts to identified resources, if any, will be assessed.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is currently used for agricultural operations, and the presence of hazardous materials associated with those or other activities will be evaluated. Impacts related to airport hazards and other potentially hazardous conditions will also be assessed.

Hydrology and Drainage
The drainage patterns in the Natomas Basin have been engineered over decades, and include levees, ditches, canals, and large areas of flooded irrigation. Maintaining and/or reconstructing these features and providing flood protection will be a key environmental consideration for the project. For this reason, impacts with respect to hydrology and drainage will be identified and analyzed.

Land Use and Planning
The County’s General Plan contains several critically important policies that have a direct bearing on development in the Natomas Basin. Among these are policies related to agricultural resources, water supply, biological resources, public facilities, and land use.

Many of these policies influence the way environmental impacts are identified and mitigated.

Collectively, these policies establish a complex framework of required findings to be met prior to the County’s action to approve the project. As a result, an evaluation of the proposed project's compliance with the requirements of these policies will be performed.

Transportation
The project’s effects on vehicle miles traveled will be assessed, as well as impacts related to emergency access and hazardous traffic conditions will also be evaluated.

Utilities and Water Supply
Determining the project’s requirements for both wet and dry utilities will be a significant factor in how the project can be developed. Water supply has been a notable consideration for area projects, including both the potential effects of groundwater withdrawals and/or surface water diversions. Therefore, impacts with respect to utilities and water supply will be identified and analyzed.

Intended Uses of the SEIR:

The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors will use the information contained in the SEIR in evaluating the proposed project and rendering a decision to approve or deny the requested entitlements. The SEIR will serve as an informational document for the general public as well. Responsible agencies may also use the SEIR as needed for subsequent discretionary actions. Responsible agencies may include but not be limited to the following:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• California Department of Fish and Game
• California Transportation Commission
• Regional Water Quality Control Board - Central Valley Region • Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA)
• Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA)
• Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD)
SOURCE: ESA. 2023: ESRI Imagery WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) Project Plate NOP-1
Regional Location
SOURCE: ESA, 2023: ESRI Imagery WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) Project Plate NOP-2
Project Vicinity
SOURCE: WattEV, 2023 WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) Project Plate NOP-3
Project Site Plan

PO Box 1526 Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 444-0022
8867 Bluff Lane, Fair Oaks CA
95628 916 769 2857
909 12th St., Sacramento CA
95814
P.O. Box 160694
Sacramento, CA 95816-0694
September 12, 2023
Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
Planning and Environme
ntal Review
Via email at [email protected]
Re: Response to County N
OP for Sacramento County SWIFT (PLER.2023-00069)
Dear Ms Newton:

We represent the environmental community of Sacramento. We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to the 2021 Sacramento International Airport Master Plan Update to include the SWIFT project. Our contact person will be Alexandra Reagan, [email protected]. Please keep us informed of any public documents and hearings
for this project by noticing the following email chain:
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected].

Consideration of
Alternative Locations
The SEIR should consider alternative locations for this facility. Both Metro AirPark and Sutter County's planned development in the Natomas Basin provide alternative locations in close proximity that already are permitted by US Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Game for development. The environmental impacts at these alternative locations would be dramatically less.

Urban Services Boundary
Please explain in the DSEIR when and how the Urban Services Boundary was established on airport property south of I-5 on agricultural land. If made after Plan adoption in 1993, please provide the findings and vote by the Board of Supervisors approving the change. 2 Conflict with Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan We have also reviewed the FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT FOR SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE (CONTROL NUMBER: PLER2020-00037) which the current SEIR would modify. In the Executive Summary, this claim is made:
"Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.

The project area is located within the boundary of the Natomas Basin and adjacent to the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plans, but the County is not a participating partner. The project will not impede the ability of the HCP’s to be implemented." The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan is a basin-wide HCP and the project impacts on the Plan's conservation strategy and the Natomas Basin Conservancy, as well as other conserved mitigation lands in the Basin, must be analyzed consistent with CEQA guidelines. The following NBHCP map shows the HCP covers the airport agricultural lands outside the airport operations area. While the County has not agreed to be a participant in the Plan, the Plan nonetheless exists as an approved habitat conservation plan and CEQA requires analysis of project impacts on the Plan.

To be consistent with the NBHCP, the SEIR must include the following requirement.

Regarding further development in the Natomas Basin outside the NBHCP permit areas, the plan says: "Any additional urban development within the Natomas Basin that occurs outside of the City’s and Sutter’s Permit Areas, with the exception of the MAP development, including any development with Sacramento County or within the jurisdiction of another Potential Permittee, also would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s OCP and would trigger a new effects analysis, a new conservation strategy, and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the Potential Permittee for that additional urban development." (NBHCP p. I-3)

3 4
The map below was created by Habitat 2020 to show all of the current mitigation lands in the Basin and major proposed projects as of March, 2023.

5 The NBHCP includes the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. This zone is defined as the "lands which are not currently developed (excluding the 252 acres of land designated “Urban” on the City of Sacramento General Plan and the North Natomas Community Plan located within the City of Sacramento) and which are located within the Natomas Basin and within one mile east of the Sacramento River and extending from the Natomas Cross Canal on the north and Interstate 80 on the south." See also Figure 13 of the NBHCP, located at the end of the NBHCP. It appears that the project area is at least in part located in the Swainson's Hawk Zone. All NBHCP documents can be found at www.natomasbasin.org.

6 Also at page 41, the Airport Master Plan FSEIR identifies loss of farmland north of Elverta, and requires 1 to 1 mitigation, but does not identify loss of farmland south of I-5. The NOP (p. NOP- 4) identifies the project site as zoned as agricultural and surrounded by other agricultural uses.

The present SEIR should include this impact since it was not included in the prior SEIR.

The Master Plan FSEIR at 4-47 identi fies 495 acres of mitigation land conserved on airport property south of I-5 and adjacent to the Sacramento River which has been set aside to mitigate for various airport projects. It is shown in green in our map of mitigation land shown above. It appears the County intends to dedicate from this pool to cover the mitigation requirements of the SWIFT project. If so, please disclose in the SEIR exactly how the 495 acres of mitigation land are allocated.

The Master Plan FSEIR relies on the County Swainson's Hawk ordinance to define mitigation requirement
s for the loss of foraging and nesting habitat for Swainson's Hawks. It does not evaluate whether that ordinance mitigation requirements conflict with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan or the Metro AirPark HCP. At least one section of the ordinance does seem to be in conflict: it allows mitigation land to be located outside the Natomas Basin. Please include the restriction on mitigation land that it be located in the Natomas Basin, to mitigate for loss of habitat used by Natomas populations of species as required by the NBHCP. We are also concerned that a greater than 1:1 mitigation ratio is necessary to ensure mitigation is sufficient to reduce impacts to less than significant given the development pressures in Natomas and growth inducing and cumulative impacts.

The SEIR should clearly require take permits from the state and federal wildlife agencies since the project is within the Natomas Basin which previously has been found by these agencies to be habitat for 22 listed species. The NBHCP is a regional HCP covering the entire Natomas Basin.

Also shown in the map above are various other proposed projects which combined with the SWIFT project will have cumulative and growth inducing impacts on the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and the Natomas Basin Conservancy. We are concerned that the project would be growth inducing for agricultural lands in the Swainson's Hawk zone in proximity to the project area. Please assess that impact and how to mitigate to less than significant.
30X30
30X30 goals are to conserve 30% of terrestrial lands and marine areas by 2030 to elevate the role of nature in fighting climate change and preserve biodiversity. See https://www.californianature.ca.gov/

Our organizations' goals align with the statewide, national and international 30X30 goal for preservation. The project area is farmland within the SACOG region. The SACOG region falls completely within the California Floristic Province, one of 33 biodiversity hotspots on the planet.

To be classified as a biodiversity hotspot, a region must have at least 1,500 species of endemic vascular plants, irreplaceable species found nowhere else. The region must also be considered threatened, having lost 70% or more of its original vegetation to anthropogenic activities. 7 Worldwide, biodiversity hotspots account for less than 2.5% of earth's terrestrial surface area, but they are home to almost half of the world's plant and animal species, which are endemic to these hotspot regions. The SWIFT project, which is outside the permit area of the NBHCP, conflicts with achieving targeted land conservation through the 30X30 program, particularly the priorities of the Sierra Club, Mother Lode Chapter for land conservation in this region. Instead of developing this parcel the County should consider applying for state funding to permanently preserve agriculture on the property consistent with the overflight restrictions.

We endorse all comments made by the Natomas Basin Conservancy.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the SWIFT NOP.

Susan He
rre, President of ECOS, The Environmental Council of Sacramento Rob Burne
ss, Co-Chair Habitat 2020 and Sierra Club MLC Acting Conservation Chair Barbar
a Leary Chair, Sacramento Group, Sierra Club
Paul M
iller, President, Sacramento Audubon Society

8 James P
. Pachl, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk
Judith L.

Lamare, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk
C: John Roberts, Execut ive Director Natomas Basin Conservancy Dylan Wood, and Tan ya Sheya, CDFW
Kevin Thomas, CDFW
Kelley Barker, CDFDW
Michelle Haven USFWS
9 10

Baseline Map - Exhibit B
City of Sacramento

County Transportation Funding Experiences Boost
7/13/2023
Transportation ＆ Airports

Article Date: Thursday, July 13, 2023
So far 2023 has been an excellent year for Sacramento County transportation efforts as many area projects have found needed funding to keep moving forward. This year, nearly $100 million is earmarked to improve roads, provide neighborhoods access for those who walk and bike, and build electric vehicle charging stations at Sacramento International Airport.

The 2023 funding from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) will help pay for parts of ten different projects within the County. The awards were given to a mixture of individual projects and joint efforts between agencies.

California Transportation Commission Awards - $70,038,000

1. Local Partnership Program – US 50 Gold Line Corridor Enhancement Project - $25M – SacDOT joint grant with SacRT
. Project Summary - SacDOT will receive $15 million to go toward making improvements at the Hazel Avenue and Aerojet Road interchanges with Highway 50. Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) will receive $10 million for improvements along the Light Rail’s Gold Line.

2. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program – Sacramento County WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal Project - $33.6M – Airport.

Project Summary – The largest award in the area will allow the Sacramento County WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) to build a publicly accessible electric vehicle (EV) charging facility on a 118-acre parcel of land in south of Interstate 5 and immediately south of Sacramento International Airport.

3. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program – Grant Line Road Safety and Freight Mobility Project - $3M - Capital SouthEast Connector JPA.

Project Summary - The Grant Line Road Safety and Freight Mobility Project (Project) is a rural freight improvement project in eastern Sacramento County. The funds will go toward the ultimate transformation of 2.6-miles of Grant Line Road from a narrow, two-lane rural road into to a divided four- lane roadway with a separated multi-use path from Douglas Road to White Rock Road. The Project modiﬁes the lane roadway with a separated multi-use path from Douglas Road to White Rock Road. The Project modiﬁes the existing signals at the Grant Line Road intersections with White Rock Road and Douglas Road and adds a new signalized intersection at Raymer Way.

4. Active Transportation Program – Stockton Boulevard Bicycle and Pedestrian Project -$363,000 – SacDOT.

Project Summary - The County requested funding for Project Approval and Environmental Document to evaluate the feasibility of a Class IV separated bikeway, sidewalk inﬁll, and signalization of one intersection along Stockton Boulevard between Florin Road and Mack Road/Elsie A
venue in South Sacramento County.

5. Active Transportation Program – Elkhorn Boulevard Complete Streets – $8.075M – SacDOT. Project Summary - Construct a Class IV
separated bikeway on Elkhorn Boulevard from Watt Avenue to Don Julio Boulevard, sidewalk inﬁll, ADA improvements, and implement Safe Routes to Schools and community education and encouragement programs in the North Highlands neighborhood.

SACOG Awards -_$24,876,000

1. Revolving Match – US 50 Gold Line Corridor Enhancement Project - $4M contingent on receiving CTC award above – SacDOT joint grant with SacRT
.

2. Community Design – Arden Way Phase 1 and 2 - $1M plus a $458,000 SGIP match – SacDOT. Project Summary -In Sacramento County, on Alta Arden Expressway from Howe Avenue to Fulton Avenue. The project will include sidewalk gap closures, buf
fered bike lanes, and pavement resurfacing.

3. Maintenance and Modernization – Alta Arden Expressway Phase 1 - $4M – SacDOT. Project Summary - In Sacramento County
, on Alta Arden Expressway from Howe Avenue to Fulton Avenue. The project will include sidewalk gap closures, buffered bike lanes, and pavement resurfacing.

4. Transformative – Jackson and Bradshaw Safe and Rural Connections - $3M – SacDOT – Project Summary - The Project is intended to provide operational and safety improvements at the intersection of Jackson Road and Bradshaw Road in Sacramento County. The project would add a travel lane and turn lanes at the intersection.

5. Transformative – Stockton Boulevard Multimodal Partnership and BRT Corridor - $5.2M – Joint grant with City
of Sacramento, SacDOT, and SacRT.

Project Summary - In Sacramento (City and County), on Stockton Boulevard, from Florin Road to Alhambra Boulevard: Multi-modal and safety improvements, including bus lanes and/or other transit enhancements, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian upgrades. The project will also include an alternatives analysis phase for the bus rapid transit (BRT) and BRT-lite treatments along the longer Sacramento Regional Transit District's Route 51 alignment between South Sacramento and the Sacramento Valley Station, which includes Stockton Boulevard (between Florin Road and Broadway), Broadway (between Stockton Boulevard and 8th Street), and segments of 7th, 8th and 9th Streets.

6. Regional Active Transportation Program – Bell Street Safe Routes to School - $8.676M – SacDOT. Project Summary - Construction of approximately 12,500 linear feet of sidewalk inﬁll along various segments of Bell Street between Edison A
venue and Hurley Way in the West Arden community, including a segment on 2419 Wyda Way. Construction and reconstruction of new curb ramps and extensions, trafﬁc signal modiﬁcations, a new pedestrian signal, a new Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, striping and re-striping bicycle lanes, and new bicycle detectors will also be implemented at four intersections along Bell Street where they do not currently exist. The non-infrastructure element includes education and outreach to students and parents of the nearby schools on pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist safety.

The funding windfall will not only boost local transportation projects but help pave the way for future housing and building projects, which rely on roads being built before that construction can begin. The Building Industry Association and construction community are expected to beneﬁt from these projects with more job opportunities in the future.

Construction of these projects will start to come to life over the next few years. Each grant will not pay for the entire project, as many funding sources are sought to offset the construction, but these dollars are expected to push the projects forward to allow a much-needed boost to improving the County’s transportation infrastructure.

Contact Info:

Matt Robinson, Public Information Manager, 916-874-4517

THE SACRAMENTO BEE

Largest electric vehicle charging facility
in US planned near Sacramento
International Airport

BY RANDY DIAMOND
UPDATED AUGUST 04, 2023 8:58 AM

Please click here to view the above article by The Sacramento Bee.

Please note, you wil
l be directed to The Sacramento Bee website
when clicking on the above hyperlink.

DOJ to Propose New ADA Web
Accessibility Rule
By Matt Gonzales
July 31, 2023

Please click here to view the above article by the Society for Human Resource Management.

Please note, you wil l be directed to the Society for Human Resource Management website when clicking on the above hyperlink.

AIR QUALITY MITIGATION AREAS FOR
PANHANDLE 105

SORRENTO ROAD SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
(APN 225-0050-020 & 021 AND 201-0540-072,073 AND A PORTION OF 201-0540-071)

RD1000 Drainage Channel
(If needed)
B1
N8
N4
N3
B3
B2
N9
D1
N6
B4
N5
N7
N1
O1
N2
SWM

16.71 ac.

SWM
101.75
ac.

SWM

8.83 ac.

SWM

7.03 ac.

SWM
114.74
ac.

1.59 ac.

SWM

5.43 ac.

LDR

16.37 ac.

NBHD SQ
1 ac.

LDR

7.15 ac.

LDR

6.91 ac.

LDR

6.91 ac.

LDR

7.15 ac.

MDR

6.24 ac.

LDR

8.51 ac.

LDR

8.33 ac.

MDR

9.78 ac.

SWM

3.3 ac.

15.94 ac.

31.1 ac.

AAR

29.89 ac.

AAR

33.01 ac.

LDR

29.41 ac.

LDR

29.49 ac.

AAR
105.89
ac.

PQP

12.58 ac.

NBHD PARK

8.45 ac.

LDR

6.87 ac.

LDR

6.87 ac.

HDR

4.98 ac.

LDR

9.57 ac.

DWQ

7.4 ac.

DWQ

15.72 ac.

LDR

20.87 ac.

LDR

23.44 ac.

LDR

11.21 ac.

HDR
5 ac.

HDR

4.98 ac.

LDR

11.81 ac.

LDR

10.78 ac.

LDR

6.93 ac.

LDR

6.74 ac.

LDR

8.27 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

HDR

4.95 ac.

NBHD PARK

7.31 ac.

HDR

4.22 ac.

LDR

10.1 ac.

HDR

4.87 ac.

LDR

23.12 ac.

0.48 ac.

NBHD PARK

11.24 ac.

DWQ

2.47 ac.

DWQ

44.65 ac.

HDR

5.37 ac.

LDR

47.56 ac.

MDR

15.54 ac.

HDR

5.81 ac.

HHMU
132.78 ac.

MDR

9.58 ac.

0.83 ac.

22.47 ac.

1.78 ac.

0.62 ac.

PQP

12.7 ac.

COM PARK

25.82 ac.

LDR

45.87 ac.

1.71 ac.

LDR

7.54 ac.

MDR

12.76 ac.

LDR

23.01 ac.

HDR

5.13 ac.

LDR

26.44 ac.

DWQ

19.48 ac.

LDR

15.49 ac.

NBHD GRN

3.98 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

LDR

35.86 ac.

DWQ

14.42 ac.

1.44 ac.

2.4 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

SWM

54.95 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

HDR

4.99 ac.

LDR

13.06 ac.

LDR

29.15 ac.

HDR

5.01 ac.

HDR

4.2 ac.

1.39 ac.

0.42 ac.

DWQ

24.44 ac.

NBHD PARK

8.38 ac.

LDR

36.67 ac.

LDR

38.13 ac.

NMU

25.96 ac.

DWQ

11.14 ac.

HDR
5 ac.

MDR

15.77 ac.

MDR

14.43 ac.

OMU

99.55 ac.

LDR

12.91 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

LDR

13.87 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

NBHD GRN

4.05 ac.

NBHD SQ

1.06 ac.

MDR

12.54 ac.

NBHD GRN

3.84 ac.

HDR

10.9 ac.

LDR

12.28 ac.

NBHD PARK

8.27 ac.

LDR

17.54 ac.NBHD GRN

2.27 ac.

MDR

16.86 ac. MDR

20.23 ac.

NBHD PARK

6.88 ac.

HDR

8.85 ac.

2.52 ac.

0.53 ac.

LDR

15.12 ac.

MDR

11.38 ac.

LDR

69.99 ac. NBHD PARK

11.52 ac.

DWQ

12.78 ac.

MDR

15.17 ac.

NBHD PARK

2.6 ac.

LDR

75.02 ac.

MDR

12.33 ac.

13.4 ac.

NBHD PARK

5.12 ac.

LDR

20.14 ac.

DWQ

12.36 ac.

0.73 ac.

2.34 ac.

NBHD PARK

7.8 ac.

LDR

26.95 ac.

14.62 ac.

2.7 ac.

NBHD PARK
8 ac.PQP
12 ac.

DWQ

3.67 ac.

4.75 ac.

LDR

42.68 ac.

LDR

24.56 ac.

HDR

6.41 ac.

3.96 ac.

LDR

27.54 ac.

MDR

16.37 ac.

HDR

5.19 ac.

LDR

18.99 ac.

HDR

7.72 ac.

LDR

24.65 ac.

MDR

16.71 ac.

NBHD PARK

8.23 ac.

NBHD PARK
7 ac.

HDR

6.81 ac.

LDR

18.8 ac.

LDR

41.08 ac.

MDR

19.93 ac.

2.34 ac.

LDR

43.96 ac.

COM PARK

17.2 ac.

HDR

9.39 ac.

NMU

29.66 ac.

MDR
10 ac.

SWM

17.97 ac.

13.16 ac.

20.1 ac.

12.8 ac.

5.48 ac.

LDR

32.49 ac.

LDR

47.41 ac.

9.03 ac.

MDR

15.68 ac.

LDR

18.18 ac.

2.07 ac.

20.15 ac.

NBHD
GRN

2.77 ac.

2.5 ac.

1.08 ac.

CMU

30.34 ac. MDR

17.87 ac.

LDR

14.1 ac.

LDR

20.99 ac.

NBHD PARK
8 ac.

DWQ

10.46 ac.

DWQ

0.61 ac.

LDR

26.84 ac.

LDR

27.69 ac.

9.21 ac.

2.15 ac.

LDR

0.05 ac.

LDR

9.72 ac.

MDR

10.71 ac.

SWM

29.55 ac.

SWM

2.86 ac.

NBHD
GRN

3.42 ac.

DWQ

3.81 ac.

PQP
12 ac.

4.4 ac.

HDR

3.5 ac.

HDR
6 ac.

MDR

12.57 ac.

HDR

6.5 ac.

LDR

17.77 ac.

NBHD GRN

4.93 ac.

NBHD
GRN

2.07 ac.

DWQ

0.08 ac.

MDR

10.06 ac.

HDR
6 ac.

OS-TNBC
284.71 ac.

26.25 ac.

LDR

25.21 ac.

3.08 ac.

2.6 ac.

2.44 ac.

DWQ

11.24 ac.

NBHD PARK

7.85 ac.

MDR

10.5 ac.HDR
6 ac.

LDR

15.91 ac.

3.57 ac.

HDR

6.63 ac.

SWM

0.53 ac.

LDR

28.24 ac.

HDR

9.11 ac.

DWQ

18.21 ac.

1.54 ac.

0.06 ac.

LDR

43.23 ac.

DWQ

8.61 ac.

HDR

6.1 ac.

MDR

17.63 ac.

LDR

8.44 ac.

NBHD PARK

8.42 ac.

DWQ

11.64 ac. DWQ

7.27 ac.

DWQ

4.92 ac.

DWQ

17.1 ac.

NBHD
GRN

2.51 ac.

NBHD
GRN

3.26 ac.

10.48 ac.

HDR

5.8 ac.

LDR

9.5 ac.

LDR

11.81 ac.

LDR

19.79 ac.

LDR

10.75 ac.

COM PARK

16.23 ac.

NBHD PARK

6.13 ac.

LDR

28.14 ac.

MDR

15.52 ac.

DWQ

31.34 ac.

LDR

23.45 ac.

NBHD PARK

10.01 ac.

MDR

10.9 ac.

LDR

66.09 ac.

NBHD PARK

5.01 ac.

DWQ

7.12 ac.

NBHD PARK

6.69 ac.

NBHD GRN

2.28 ac.

DWQ

7.52 ac.

LDR

19.62 ac.

DWQ

7.08 ac.

HDR

5.9 ac.

MDR

15.89 ac.

NBHD PARK

12.43 ac.

1.77 ac.

HDR

9.96 ac.

LDR

20.02 ac.

LDR

39.94 ac.

NBHD PARK

6.18 ac.

LDR

68.76 ac.

SWM
361.3 ac.

SWM
256.39
ac.

PQP

0.74 ac.

NBHD PARK

6.33 ac.

PQP

0.75 ac.

LDR

33.75 ac.

MDR

8.67 ac.

NBHD PARK

9.25 ac.

PQP

11.98 ac.

PQP

1.53 ac.

MDR

14.75 ac.

DWQ

18.42 ac.

1.72 ac.

MDR

19.93 ac.

1.69 ac.

PQP

0.49 ac.

CMU

24.97 ac.

HDR

9.43 ac.

1.64 ac.LC

0.24 ac.

HDR

9.51 ac.

LDR

43.38 ac.

DWQ

30.97 ac.

MDR

15.31 ac.

LDR

91.48 ac.

NBHD PARK

8.65 ac.

0.1 ac.

0.79 ac.

0.19 ac.
5 0 600 1,200300
Feet
Date: 6/20/2023
GRANDPARK SPECIFIC PLAN 08H
Legend
Land Use
Project Boundary
Block Area
ER
LDR
AAR
MDR
HDR
CMU
HHMU
NMU
OMU
NC
PQP

COM PARK

NBHD PARK

NBHD GRN

NBHD SQ
LC

OS-TNBC
DWQ
SWM

ROADWAY

PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN - MISSING MIDDLE DENSITY BONUS

UPPER WESTSIDE

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
JULY 20, 2023

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TI
3301 C St, Bldg. 100-BTel 916.341.7760
Fax 916.341.7767 Sacramento, CA 95816
0 NORTH600
1200
2400

SACRAMENTO RIVER
INTERSTATE - 80
INTERSTATE - 5

FISHERMAN'S
LAKE/
SLOUGH
ARENA
BOUL

WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE
EVARD

NATOMAS
CROS
SING
DRIVE
(FUTURE)

GARDEN HIGHWAY

HIGHWAY
GARDEN

DUCKHORN

BOULEVARD

SAN JUAN ROAD

SACRAMENTO COUNTYYOLO COUNTY

NATOMAS WESTSIDE PATH
WIT
TER
CANAL

RADIO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD
STREET 7

FARM ROAD
STREET 1

STREET F
STREET 8 STREET 10
CMU
VLDR
VLDR

33.6 ± AC

62.7 ± AC

6.4 ± AC
VLDR

70.4 ± AC
OS-AG

24.5 ± AC
AG
117.2 ± AC
LDR

10.9 ± AC
LMDR

7.8 ± AC
MDR

4.6 ± AC
HS

81.0 ± AC
LDR

41.7 ± AC
UF

10.0 ± AC
K-8

16.0 ± AC
P

4.5 ± AC
LDR

25.7 ± AC
LDR

11.5 ± AC
K-8

16.0 ± AC
LDR

13.8 ± AC
EHC

41.8 ± AC
EHC

11.1 ± AC
LDR

31.2 ± AC
LMDR

21.5 ± AC
P

18.4 ± AC
LDR

17.0 ± AC
LMDR

22.2 ± AC
P

4.8 ± AC
LDR

6.7 ± AC
LDR

14.4 ± AC
LDR

11.1 ± AC
P

4.4 ± AC
LMDR

10.8 ± AC
LMDR

11.2 ± AC
LDR

12.8 ± AC
LDR

11.8 ± AC
LMDR

12.8 ± AC
LMDR

11.5 ± AC
MDR

4.2 ± AC
HDR

4.1 ± AC
MDR

4.1 ± AC
HDR

4.3 ± AC
VHDR

3.9 ± AC
VHDR

3.8 ± AC
CMU

4.2 ± AC
CMU

4.4 ± AC
VHDR

3.8 ± AC
CMU

4.1 ± AC
CMU

4.2 ± AC
VHDR

3.7 ± AC
VHDR

3.7 ± AC
MDR

3.9 ± AC
HDR

3.8 ± AC
LDR

24.3 ± AC
LDR

32.8 ± AC
CMU

4.1 ± AC
VHDR

3.7 ± AC
HDR

3.9 ± AC
MDR

4.0 ± AC
HDR

3.3 ± AC
CMU

3.7 ± AC
CMU

4.2 ± AC
CMU

3.8 ± AC
HDR

3.4 ± AC
MDR

4.8 ± AC
MDR

6.1 ± AC
HDR

6.9 ± AC
HDR

6.7 ± AC
K-8

17.0 ± AC
P

17.4 ± AC
P

7.4 ± AC
LDR

10.1 ± AC
LDR

29.9 ± AC
LDR

26.8 ± AC
LDR

32.8 ± AC
OS

21.2 ± AC
OS

21.4 ± AC

EL CENTRO ROAD

1.3 ± AC
GG 3.0 ± AC

4.2± AC
OS-AG

11.5 ± AC
OS

4.5 ± ACG

1.3± ACG1.3± ACG1.7 ± ACG

2.9 ± ACG 2.3 ± ACOS

4.1 ± ACG

EL CENTRO ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD

0.5 ± ACP 0.6 ± ACP0.5 ± ACP0.5 ± ACP

3.5 ± ACW 4.1 ± ACW 3.7 ± ACW 3.7 ± ACW

STREET I

ORCHARD LANE
LDR

7.7 ± AC
CC

11.0 ± AC

0.4 ± ACP
STREET 2
AG
130.1 ± AC

4.0 ± AC
MDR

2.0 ± AC
MDR

4.4 ± AC

0.9 ± AC
G

4.3 ± AC 4.3 ± AC
CMU

STREET G

1.4 ± AC
G

6.0 ± ACG

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C
STREET 3
STREET 4
STREET 5
STREET 6
1890' ±
1500' ±
950' ±
700' ±
CMU

25.5 ± AC

1.6 ± AC
CMU
AG
113.2 ± AC
2800' ±
250' ±
250' ±
250' ±
LDR

18.3 ± AC
STREET 7

0.2 ± AC
G
LDR

12.5 ± AC

1.2 ± AC
G

0.2 ± AC
G

2.0 ± AC

1.4 ± AC
G5.0 MILES
GOLDEN1
CENTER
TO
AR

63.9 ± AC
OS

20.0 ± AC
LMDR

19.4 ± AC
LMDR

9.0 ± AC
1 2
3 LMDR

7.7 ± AC
LDR

10.8 ± AC
P

7.5 ± AC
OS

20.0 ± AC

2.2 ± AC
OS

4.4 ± AC
OS

2.2 ± AC
OS

3.1 ± AC
OS-AG
MDR

4.6 ± AC
STREET 12

STREET H

WEST EL CAMINOAVENUE
LDR
OS
OS

STREET D

STREET E

ELECTRICAL
ELECTRIC SUBSTATION #2

STATION SITE

SEWER PUMP
* PROPOSED
SUBSTATION #1

1.7 ± AC

1.3 ± AC
P

4.0 ± AC

7.4 ± ACOS

3.2 ± AC
LDR

7.4 ± AC0.6 ± ACG
AR

22.2 ± AC
P

5.1 ± AC
G
MDR

9.6 ± AC
CMU

STREET F

FARM ROAD
*

POTENTIAL SHERIFF

SUBSTATION
CMU
CMU

FIRE STATION

2.9 ± AC
P

WATER TANK STORAGE

2.0 ± AC
OS

0.2 ± AC
P

4.8± AC
OS-AG
AG

53.8 ± AC
STREET 9
STREET
12 VLDR
LDR
LMDR
MDR
HDR
VHDR
EHC
S
AR
G/UF
P
W
LC
CMU
OS-AG
AG
OS

PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN - UPPER WESTSIDE INFILL
ME

LAND USE DESIGNATION
NET ACREAGE BASED ON PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN GENERATED IN GIS/AUTOCAD BY WOOD RODGERS APRIL 2020. THIS PLAN IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. ARTERIALS, COLLECTORS AND PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL STREETS, AND LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS AS SHOWN ON MAP ARE NETTED OUT.

ESTIMATED POPULATION CALCULATION UTILIZING 3.0 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD (pph) FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND 2.5 pph FOR MULTI-FAMILY (HDR AND HIGHER), RESULTING IN 25,578± PEOPLE [(4,981 DU x 2.5 pph)+(4,375 DU x 3.0 pph)]=25,578 POPULATION]. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

THE ALLOCATED SQUARE FOOTAGE (SF) IS IN ADDITION TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (AR), AGRICULTURAL CROPLAND (AG), OPEN SPACE (OS) BUFFER TO THE NORTH AND WEST, AND MAJOR ROADS B AREAS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSED 1,532-ACRE DEVELOPMENT AREA OR THE UPA/USB EXPANSION REQUEST. IT IS ASSUMED THE "AG-BUFFER" AREA WILL REMAIN AS IS AND NO UNITS ARE ALLOCATED.

THE 1.6-ACRE CMU SITE LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE TOWN CENTER IS DESIGNATED FOR A FIRE STATION AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ALLOCATED RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR COMMERCIAL SF.

THIS VERSION OF THE PRELIMINARY LAND USE PLAN ACCOUNTS FOR THE MISSING MIDDLE DENSITY BONUS WHICH REDUCES THE OVERALL DENSITY OF VLDR, LDR, LMDR AND CMU TO HAVE 300 LESS UNITS IN THE OVERALL UNIT COUNT UNTIL THE DENSITY BONUS TO USED TO BRING THE TOTAL BACK TO 9,356 UNITS. (1)
(2)
NOTES

VICINITY MAP

3.4 MILES

TO DOWNTOWN

5.0-MILE

BIKE RIDE

TO DOWNTOWN

TO SMF AIRPORT

DOWNTOWN
I-5
I-5
I-80
NORTH
N.T.S.

UPPER WESTSIDE TO DOWNTOWN TRAIL
SOURCE: AFAR
I-5

5.0 MILES TO DOWNTOWN
(3)
(4)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(4)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)

EXHIBIT 3

José C. Henríquez, Executive Officer; Diane Thorpe, Clerk of the Commission www.saclafco.org
October 20, 2021
Rod Stinson, Vice President
Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
SUBJECT: Scope of Work – Proposal to P repare an E nvironmental Impact Report (Coordinated Environmental Review Process for the Airport South Industrial Project)
Dear Mr. Stinson,
LAFCo, as joint lead agency with the City of Sacramento, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the CEQA consultant’s draft scope of work on the E nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Airport South Industrial Project. Our comments pertain to two major topics regarding the scope and content of the EIR. The first set of comments address es the submitted proposal itself; the second set pertains to standards that Sacramento LAFCo expects to be addressed in all environmental documents prepared on the Commission’s behalf , whether as a lead or a responsible agency. This second set of concerns is guided by LAFCo’s statutory authority and guiding regulations, and Sacramento LAFCo’s adopted Policies, Standards and Procedures.

Comments on the Proposal Submitted by Raney Planning & Management, Inc. dated September 21, 2021

Page 1 ends

have final oversight, review, and approval authority of the content of the EIR as they each relate to the Sphere of Influence Amendment. Raney will ensure the EIR adequately and accurately addresses all environmental issues associated with LAFCo proceedings. The EIR will include a separate discussion of the Sphere of Influence Amendment, as appropriate, within each chapter of the EIR.

This paragraph should also state that LAFCo intends to rely upon the environmental conclusions and findings of the EIR as it was certified by LAFCo, at the time of SOIA consideration by the Commission, in its consideration of the annexation and any detachments at the culmination of the LAFCo/City approval process es. Thus, the EIR’s evaluation should include the potential effects of both the SOIA and the annexation.

LAFCo recognizes that if the SOIA and annexation areas are cot erminous, any impacts likely would be the same.

Page 2 ends

nd full paragraph, last sentence: The expectation of Raney is that we will serve as environmental consultants to the City and will make ourselves available to assist the City to facilitate the process.

Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

Page 2 of 5 ends

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

Please change to: The expectation of Raney is that we will serve as environmental consultants to the City and LAFCo, and will make ourselves available to assist the City and LAFCo to facilitate the process.

Page 5 ends

Administrative Draft EIR will include all statutory sections required by CEQA Sections 15120-15132 and provide the public and decision- makers with a thorough, legally defensible environmental analysis of the proposed project.

Please change to: The Administrative Draft EIR will include all statutory sections required by CEQA Sections 15120- 15132, and California Government Code Section 56000 et. seq, to and provide the public and decision- makers with a thorough, legally defensible environmental analysis of the proposed project.

Page 9 ends

Neither the scope presented here nor the Bargas scope in Proposal Appendix B include any evaluation of the project’s potential conflict with the Natomas Basin HCP or other similar plans pursuant to Appendix G, Question IV (f). See additional information below.

Pages 9- 10 , Task 4.2( e), Tribal Consultation: Raney understands the City of Sacramento has received letters from tribes requesting notice pursuant to AB 52/PRC 21080.3.1. Raney understands the City will handle all requi rements and formal consultation pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, and will notify the tribes in writing of the proposed project within 14 days from the start of the CEQA process.

The notification should be made on behalf of both the City of Sacramento and Sacramento LAFCo since they are joint lead agencies.

Page 12 ends

nd
Sentence: Raney will review the City of Sacramento General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as LAFCo policies and standards and any other appropriate documents to address any policy or consistency issues due to the proposed project entitlements.

Please change to: Raney will review the City of Sacramento General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as well as LAFCo statutes, policies and standards and any other appropriate documents to address any policy or consistency issues due to the proposed project entitlements.

Pages 13-14, Task 4.2(k), Public Service and Service Systems:

Prior to considering the proposed SOIA, LAFCo will require the preparation of Plans for Service of all major utilities outside of the CEQA process. Ofttimes, these Plans are prepared early in the LAFCo/City review processes, and are then used to inform the CEQA document.

Pages 15- 16 Task 6, Prepare Public Review D raft EIR, 1 st paragraph: Raney
understands Sacrament o LAFCo will hold a public hearing during this time to receive public comments. Raney assumes that the revisions from additional comments on the Screencheck Draft EIR will only require editorial or other non-substantive changes.

Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

Page 3 of 5 ends

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

LAFCo’s public hearing will be held during circulation of the DEIR to receive comments on the analyses and environmental conclusions set forth in the DEIR pursuant to Section 15202 of the State CEQA Guidelines. LAFCo anticipates that any comments received regarding the EIR would be properly addressed in the FEIR. LAFCo does not intend to solicit public comments on the Screencheck or previous iterations of the DEIR.

Standard LAFCo Concerns Regarding Environmental Review
for Projects that Require LAFCo Entitlements
The EIR should address the following issues of statutory concern to LAFCo to permit LAFCo to use the environmental documentation in the Commission’s consideration of the proposed SOIA and annexation. LAFCo acknowledges that some of these issues are of minor relevance to the project and its setting, but nonetheless LAFCo is required to make specific findings on these topics prior to taking action on the project.

Population, Employment and Housing – The EIR’s evaluation should discuss the presence and potential loss of affordable housing within the project area and, if there would be any loss, what affect the loss would have on a countywide basis. As part of the Commission’s review of City boundary requests, LAFCo is required to ensure that there be no net loss of targeted housing resources on a countywide basis. If targeted housing resources are located within, or planned for the project area, the EIR should evaluate whether implementation of the proposed project would maintain such resources or continue to allow their potential development. If not, the EIR should explain how this loss of affordable housing would affect the City’s and County’s provision of targeted housing types, and propose mitigation to ensure that both the City and County meet their state allocation for affordable housing. An explicit discussion in the EIR documenting that there are no existing or planned affordable housing resources on the project site would suffice for this topic.

Public Services and Utilities – From LAFCo’s perspective, in addition to meeting CEQA requirements, the EIR’s evaluation of public services and utilities should focus on the following issues, including whether any physical facilities would need to be constructed to serve the proposed project, including those outside of the project site, whose construction potentially could have environmental effects. If so, the secondary effects of constructing and operating such facilities should be evaluated. Secondly, the evaluation should assess whether the City and any other service providers have (1) the service capability and capacity to serve the project site, and (2) whether they can provide services to the project without adversely affecting existing service levels elsewhere in their service areas.

The evaluation should assess whether the City would perform any services now being provided by another service provider in the planning area, and whether substitution of the City for that provider would have any adverse effects on the previous provider’s ability to maintain services elsewhere in its service area.

Natural Resources - Agricultural Lands – In evaluating and considering future boundary requests, LAFCo is required to make findings regarding agricultural resources within the context of LAFCo enabling legislation, and local policies and standards. To Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

Page 4 of 5 ends

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

permit LAFCo to complete this evaluation, the EIR’s analysis should include a discussion of any current agr icultural uses and activities within and adjacent to the planning area, including the presence of any lands protected by Williamson Act contracts or within a Farmland Security Zone. The evaluation should also discuss the characteristics of soils found within the area (NRCS land use capability classification and storie index rating [from soil survey], and FMMP classification [from DOC Important Farmlands Map]) to determine the presence or absence of “prime agricultural land” as pursuant to the five tests defined by Government Code §56064. Areas of prime agricultural land should be displayed on a map. In addition to soils information, if agricultural uses are present, for each use or operation the EIR should determine if the use supports, at a minimum, one Animal Unit (AU)/acre or has returned, or would return if planted with crops, or fruit or nut bearing trees, an agricultural value of at least $400/acre for 3 of the last 5 years. Describe the location and determine the acreage of such areas. (See GC §56064) If there are lands protected by Williamson Act contracts or within a Farmland Security Zone, determine the status, location, and acreage of such lands (renewal, non- renewal), and if non-renewal, the expiration date of the contract(s). In the event that the project would result in the loss of prime agricultural land or protected agricultural lands, evaluate the trend of agricultural land loss countywide, and what portion of the overall inventory and loss that this project represents. As necessary, the EIR should propose mitigation to reduce any potential impacts to important agricultural resources to a less-than-significant level.

Natural Resources - Open Space - The analysis should include an evaluation of any open space resources as defined by GC §65560 that are located within or adjacent to the project area. Such resources should be depicted on a map. If implementation of the project would result in the loss of open space resources, the EIR needs to evaluate the trend of open space loss countywide, and what portion of the overall inventory and loss that this project represents. The EIR should propose mitigation to reduce any potential impacts to open space resources to a less-than-significant level.

Environmental Justice - State law requires LAFC o to consider the extent to which a project will promote environmental justice. “ Environmental justice” means the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the location of public facilities and the provision of public ser vices. The EIR should provide sufficient evidence to permit LAFCo to make a determination regarding this issue.

Habitat Preservation – Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan – LAFCo notes that the biological resource evaluation should include an evaluation of impacts to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and other resource planning documents, and provide mitigation for any identified adverse effects consistent with the requirements of State and Federal regulatory authorities for impacts t o special status species and sensitive habitats. Future development of the project could conflict with the assumptions regarding species, habitats, and preserves underlying the NBHCP’s conservation strategy.

Floodplain Areas – The scope of the analysis of hydrology and water quality/stormwater quality should include an evaluation of the project’s compliance with the requirements of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, including protection of the project site from the Scope of Works Comments to
Raney Planning & Management
October 20, 2021

Page 5 of 5 ends

W:\APPLICATION and PROJECTS\Active Projects\2021 file 0721 Airport South Ind. SOIA Land Owner & City of Sac\Scope of Work Comments.docx

0.5 percent (200- year) flood, and with the regulations of all other applicable Federal, State, and regional flood control agencies.

Land Use and Planning – The EIR’s topics to be evaluated within Land Use should include a consistency evaluation with not only the SACOG Blueprint, but also the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the NBHCP.

Growth Inducement – The EIR should include an evaluation of the project’s prospect to induce growth in the project vicinity, including both direct and indirect inducement.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Regards,
José C. Henríquez
Executive Officer

March 6, 2023

SENT VIA EMAIL
([email protected]; [email protected])

Chair Iva Walton and Members of the Commission
and Jose C. Henriquez, Executive Officer
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
1112 I Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, California 95814

RE: Memorandum of Understanding between the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission and the City of Sacramento Relating to the Preparation of a Coordinated Environmental Review Process for the Airport South Industrial Project and Establishment of Co-Lead Agencies for the purpose thereto (MOU)

Dear Chair Walton, Members of the Commission, and Mr. Henriquez:

We represent Habitat 2020 and the Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club regarding the Airport South Industrial Project (“Project”). We write with respect to the memorandum of understanding between the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) and the City of Sacramento (“City”) dated July 30, 2021 purporting to address lead agency designation under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) for the Project (“MOU”).

We have reviewed the MOU in detail along with various application materials and staff reports regarding the Project. We write to advise you that the MOU violates CEQA.

The underlying purpose of the MOU is to establish “co-lead agencies” for the Project.

However, CEQA allows only one lead agency for a project. (City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1174; (Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 903-907 (“PCL”) [“Neither the language of the statute nor the facts of this case support a so-called shared principal responsibility. Public Resources Code section 21067 plainly requires the public agency with principal responsibility to assume the role as lead agency”]; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2022) § 3.2, p. 3-3 [“[t]here can be only one CEQA lead agency for a particular project”].) Courts have invalidated EIRs because they were prepared by the incorrect CEQA lead agency. (PCL, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 907; City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960.) Chair Iva Walton and Members of the Commission
and Jose C. Henriquez, Executive Officer
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
March 6, 2023

Page 2 of 4 ends

While we can understand why one could interpret CEQA Guidelines section 15051, subdivision (d) as authorizing co-lead agencies by agreement, this is an incorrect interpretation as the above-cited authorities demonstrate. Section 15051, subdivision (b), provides in relevant part, “An agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by two or more agencies by contract, joint exercise of powers, or similar device.” However, “cooperative efforts” is not the same as co-lead agencies. Indeed, the Kostka and Zischke treatise provides a template for an agreement pursuant to section 15051, subdivision (d), which explains that the agreement is to designate a single lead agency but also may provide for cooperation and consultation between the different agencies. (See Exhibit 1.) In short, there is no authority supporting designation of two CEQA lead agencies for the same project as the MOU purports to do.

Since there can be only one CEQA lead agency for a single project, the obvious next question is which agency should be that lead agency. Guidance on this issue is found in both the CEQA Guidelines and Sacramento LAFCo Policy, Standards and Procedures Manual (“LAFCO Manual”). CEQA Guidelines section 15051, subdivision (b)(2), provides:

Where a city prezones an area, the city will be the appropriate Lead agency for any subsequent annexation of the area and should prepare the appropriate environmental document at the time of the prezoning. The Local Agency Formation Commission shall act as a Responsible Agency.

(Emphasis added.)

Here, however, the City has not prezoned the Project area. Indeed, the area is not even within the City’s sphere of influence. Accordingly, this provision does not apply.

Rather, as acknowledged in the “Airport South Industrial Project Preliminary Schedule,” the first discretionary action associated with the Project would be LAFCO’s decision on a sphere of influence amendment. LAFCO would also exercise discretionary authority over the Project through a later annexation — if the sphere of influence amendment is approved. The LAFCO Manual provides guidance under these facts, providing in relevant part:

In general, LAFCO will function as a Lead Agency in situations where:
a. LAFCO is the first agency in time to act;
b. The primary decision relates to a change of organization or reorganization or sphere of influence;
. . .

Chair Iva Walton and Members of the Commission
and Jose C. Henriquez, Executive Officer
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
March 6, 2023

Page 3 of 4 ends

Typically, LAFCO will act as Lead Agency in reviewing Spheres of Influence Plans, city incorporations or city annexations where no pre-zoning has been undertaken by the city prior to LAFCo approval.

(LAFCO Manual, Policy IV(F)(1).)

Thus, the LAFCO Manual squarely provides that LAFCO, and not the City, is the proper CEQA lead agency for the Project since the Project area is not within the City’s sphere of influence, and has not been prezoned by the City. 1

Having established that LAFCO is the proper CEQA lead agency for the Project, we also address the MOU’s framework that would allow concurrent processing of the sphere of influence amendment and annexation. The LAFCO Manual addresses this issue: “The LAFCO generally will not allow Spheres of Influence to be amended concurrently with annexation proposals.” (LAFCO Manual, Policy V(A)(1)(b).) The MOU appears to violate this LAFCO rule.

That said, the LAFCO Manual allows limited exceptions to the general prohibition on concurrent processing:

The LAFCo may make exceptions to these specific standards if it determines that such exceptions: are necessary due to unique circumstances; are necessary due to conflicts between general and specific standards; result in improved quality or lower cost of service available; or there exists no feasible or logical alternatives.

(LAFCO Manual, Policy V.)

We reviewed the LAFCO staff report dated May 5, 2021 for the MOU. The staff report does not mention, much less address, the above-quoted LAFCO policy generally prohibiting concurrent processing of sphere of influence amendment and annexation applications. Further, our review of the LAFCO staff report, as well as the project

1 Since LAFCO is the proper CEQA lead agency for the Project, the MOU’s designation of City staff as “the primary contact point for the applicant’s CEQA consultant for purposes of directing the work of preparing the necessary CEQA analysis, findings, and mitigation measures . . . responding to questions, comments, requests for clarification or additional information” violates CEQA. (MOU, ¶ B.2.1; CEQA Guidelines, § 15084.)
Chair Iva Walton and Members of the Commission
and Jose C. Henriquez, Executive Officer
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
March 6, 2023

Page 4 of 4 ends

application materials and the City’s staff report, does not reveal information supporting the applicability of any of these exceptions.

In conclusion, the MOU is void because its purpose violates CEQA’s prohibition on multiple lead agencies for a single project. LAFCO is the appropriate CEQA lead agency for the Project. Further, the concurrent processing framework proposed in the MOU violates LAFCO policies. In compliance with the LAFCO Manual, LAFCO should first consider whether to amend the City’s sphere of influence, and inform that decision based on an EIR that it certifies in the exercise of its independent judgment. If LAFCO denies the amendment, then nothing further is required. If LAFCO approves the sphere of influence amendment, then it could later consider the annexation proposal based on that same EIR updated as necessary through supplemental CEQA review.

Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Please feel free to contact the undersigned with any questions.

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation

By:

Patrick M. Soluri

PMS/mre

Attachment:

Exhibit 1 Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2022) § 3.2, p. 3-3

EXHIBIT 1

Commissioners
Sue Frost, Rich Desmond, County Members Patrick Hume, Alternate Iva Walton, Sean Loloee, City Members Jay Vandenburg, Katie Valenzuela, Alternates Chris Little, Public Member Timothy Murphy, Alternate
Lindsey Liebig, Gay Jones, Special District Members Charlea Moore, Alternate Staff
José C. Henríquez, Executive Officer Desirae Fox, Policy Analyst Nancy Miller, DeeAnne Gillick, Commission Counsel

July 15, 2023

DELIVERED BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
Patrick M. Soluri
Soluri Meserve
510 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Airport South Industrial Project, Letter Sent to LAFCo on March 6, 2023 Dear Mr. Soluri:

On behalf of t he Commission, I am sending this response to your letter dated March 6, 2023, speaking for Habitat 2020 and the Motherlode Chapter of the Sierra Club regarding the Airport South Industrial Project (Project). Please accept my apologies for the taking a while to respond.

Your letter expressed concern related to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) and the City of Sacramento (City) dated July 30, 2021, related to the Preparation of a Coordinated Environmental Review Process (MOU).

LAFCo and City staff carefully considered the concerns and information set forth in your March 6, 2023 letter related to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Commission Policies, staff respectfully continues to support the CEQA process set forth in the MOU related to the Project. LAFCo and the City will continue to prepare a coordinated EIR for the Project. As set forth in the MOU and consistent with LAFCo Policy and CEQA Guidelines,
• The Commission acts as the lead agency for the EIR to support the Commission’s consideration of a Sphere of Influence Amendment for the Project. • Should the Commission approve the SOI Amendment, t he City acts as lead agency when considering prezoning the property and all related City entitlements for the Project. These actions are to be taken some time after the SOI Amendment.

Presumably, the City may also apply for annexation on or a bout the time it takes this action.

Response to Soluri Meserve March 2023 Letter
July 15, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission

• Should the City take the actions above, LAFCo will act as a responsible agency when considering any subsequent annexation or related reorganization.

Consistent with CEQA, including CEQA Guideline section 15051, the MOU sets forth the City and LAFCo’s cooperative efforts to comply with the requirements of CEQA related to this Project.

Due to your interest in the Project and the EIR , which is being prepared related to the proposed sphere of influence amendment application to LAFCo, LAFCo staff will provide you notice when the Draft EIR becomes available to the public. At this time we are not aware when that will be, but we anticipate the Draft EIR it will be distributed before the end of the year.

Regards,

José C. Henríquez
Executive Officer

cc: Chair Walton and Members of the Commission
DeeAnne Gillick, Commission Counsel
Cheryle Hodge, Principal Planner, City of Sacramento
Leslie Z. Walker, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Nick Avdis, Avdis & Cucchi, LLP

Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
PATRICK M. SOLURI (SBN 210036)
OSHA R. MESERVE (SBN 204240)

SOLURI MESERVE, A LAW CORPORATION
510 8th Street, Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 455-7300
Facsimile: (916) 244-7300
Emails: [email protected];
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SIERRA CLUB

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SIERRA CLUB,

Plaintiff,

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, and

SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY
FORMATION COMMISSION, and
DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Case No. 23CV013263
CEQA Case

Plaintiff’s Opposition to
City of Sacramento’s and Sacramento
Local Agency Formation Commission’s
Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

Reservation No.: A13263-002
Date: July 9, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m.

Dept.: 53
Judge: Richard K. Sueyoshi
Location: 813 6th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Date Action Filed: December 12, 2023
Trial Date: Not Set

2 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 6 II. BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................................... 6 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................................. 8 IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9 A. Plaintiff Has Sufficient Interest in the MOU That Purports to Designate Two CEQA Lead Agencies for a Single Project in Violation of CEQA........................ 10

1. Defendants misconstrue the Complaint’s allegations. ................................ 10

2. Defendants’ argument fails to address applicable law. ............................... 12 B. There Is an Actual Controversy ............................................................................. 15 C. The Dispute Is Ripe and Plaintiff Exhausted Administrative Remedies ............... 16 D. Plaintiff, Its Members, and the Environment Will Suffer Hardship If Relief Is Not Granted ................................................................................................................... 17 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18 PROOF OF SERVICE.................................................................................................................. 20

3 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Air Quality Products, Inc. v. State of California (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 340 ................................. 9 Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918 ............................ 11 Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311 ..................................................................................... 8, 12 California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16 .......... 16 Californians for Native Salmon Etc. Association v. Department of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419 ................................................................................. 12, 13, 15 Cameron v. Wernick (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 890 .......................................................................... 8 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 .................................... 18 City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169 ............................................................................................. 18 City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960 ..... 11, 17 Dry Creek Valley Assn., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 839 ...................... 10 Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 8 ............................................................................................ 15, 18 Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1011 ........................................................................................ 14, 15 Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97 ........................... 9 Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277 .............. 18 J. L. Thomas, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 916 ................................... 10 Kilgore v. Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770 ...................................................................................... 9 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 504 U.S. 555 .................................................................... 14 Martin v. City of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 392 ..................................................... 16 Meye v. Graphic Arts International Union (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 176 ......................................... 9 Monterey Coastkeeper v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1 ....................................................................................... 17

4 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892 ................................................................................ 6, 11, 17, 18 Richtek USA, Inc. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651 ............................... 9 Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074 .............................................................. 8 Stocks v. City of Irvine (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 520 ..................................................................... 14 Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madres (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531 ................... 12, 15 Subriar v. City of Bakersfield (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 175 ............................................................ 10 Vedanta Society of Southern California v. California Quartet (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517 ......................................................................6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17 Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 ...................... 17 Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209 ................................................................................ 8 Zeitlin v. Arnebergh (1963) 59 Cal.2d 901................................................................................... 13 Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 .................................. 12, 13

Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, § 452 ...................................................................................................... 8 Code of Civil Procedure, § 1060 ............................................................................................ 11, 15 Government Code, § 11350 .......................................................................................................... 14 Government Code, § 65010 .......................................................................................................... 15 Government Code, § 65090 .......................................................................................................... 16 Government Code, § 65094 .......................................................................................................... 16 Government Code, § 65856 .......................................................................................................... 16 Public Resources Code, § 21067 .................................................................................................. 18 Public Resources Code, § 21165 .................................................................................................. 18

5 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Treatises
Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2024) ...... 6

California Code of Regulations
Title 14, § 15050 ........................................................................................................................... 18 Title 14, § 15378 ............................................................................................................................. 7

6 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
I. INTRODUCTION
“[D]eclaratory relief is tailor-made for a case such as this one, centered as it is on a pure question of law . . . not a question of whether an administrative record contained substantial evidence to support a decision.” (Vedanta Society of So. Cal. v. Cal. Quartet (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 534 [Vedanta Society].)
As in Vedanta Society, this case presents a very narrow legal issue that is “tailor-made” for declaratory relief: Whether the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) allows two different public agencies to both act as a “lead agency” for a single project. Statutory, regulatory and caselaw authority overwhelmingly establish the answer is “no.” (Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 906 [PCL] [“Neither the language of the statute nor the facts of this case support a so-called shared principal responsibility”]; Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2024), § 3.2, p. 3-3 [“There can be only one CEQA lead agency for a particular project”].) On May 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a concise summary judgment motion addressing this narrow issue that is based upon merely six undisputed material facts, five documents, and an eight-page brief.

Defendants’ attempt to sidestep resolution on the merits of their unlawful “co-lead agency” CEQA strategy by filing this meritless demurrer. The demurrer is based upon Defendants’ mischaracterization of the Complaint’s allegations and applicable law. Defendants repeatedly rely on irrelevant cases involving private rights flowing from private contracts and not, as here, an agreement purporting to delegate very public duties pursuant to CEQA. Plaintiff unquestionably has standing to bring its narrowly-drawn declaratory relief action that is “not a question of whether an administrative record contained substantial evidence to support a decision.” (Vedanta Society, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 534, emphasis added.) II. BACKGROUND FACTS
This case arises in the context of an approximately 475-acre parcel of agricultural land in unincorporated Sacramento County (“Property”). (Complaint for Declaratory Relief filed on December 12, 2023 [“Complaint”], ¶ 10; Declaration of Patrick M. Soluri in Support of

7 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 21, 2024 (“Soluri MSJ Decl.”), Exhibit 1, City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission Review Staff Report dated April 11, 2024 [“City Staff Report”], p. 2.) Because the Property’s “agricultural” zoning and land use designations prevent urban development, the applicant is seeking annexation to the City of Sacramento. (Soluri MSJ Decl., Exhibit 5 [project application], p. 6.) This, in turn, requires at least two approvals by LAFCO. (Complaint, ¶ 10.) First, the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) must approve a Sphere of Influence Amendment (“SOI Amendment”). (Complaint, ¶ 10; Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed on May 21, 2024 [“UMF”], ¶ 4.) If the SOI Amendment is denied, then the Project may not move forward. (UMF, ¶ 4.) However, if LAFCO approves the SOI Amendment, then LAFCO would also need to later approve annexation of the Property to the City of Sacramento. (Complaint, ¶ 10; UMF, ¶ 4.) LAFCO and the City acknowledge that the various actions and entitlements by LAFCO and the City comprise a “single project” for purposes of CEQA. (Complaint, ¶ 11 and Exhibit A; UMF, ¶ 2.) This is consistent with the concept of the “whole of the action” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subds. (a), (c), (d).) Rather than comply with CEQA’s mandate to designate a single lead agency for this admittedly single “project,” however, LAFCO and the City agreed in an MOU to designate both as “Co-Lead Agencies” for the Project. (Complaint, ¶ 11 and Exhibit A; UMF, ¶ 3.) The MOU contemplated that CEQA analysis would be prepared in 2022. (Complaint, Exhibit A; Soluri MSJ Decl., Exhibit 2, p. 7.) The agencies did not comply with that timeline; however, and the Project instead languished. On or about March 6, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a letter to LAFCO explaining the MOU’s procedural violations of CEQA, including the improper designation of two CEQA lead agencies. (Complaint, ¶ 18 and Exhibit B; Soluri MSJ Decl., Exhibit 3; UMF, ¶ 1.) LAFCO inexplicably waited five months to respond. (Complaint, ¶ 19 and Exhibit C.) By letter dated July 15, 2023, LAFCO and the City rejected Plaintiff’s concerns; they did not designate a single CEQA agency or refer the dispute to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (Complaint, Exhibit C; Soluri MSJ Decl., Exhibit 4; UMF,

8 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
¶ 1.) Further, LAFCO and the City made no attempt to explain how designating two lead agencies is lawful under CEQA, asserting only that “staff respectfully continues to support the CEQA process set forth in the MOU related to the Project.” (Complaint, Exhibit C; Soluri MSJ Decl., Exhibit 4.) Plaintiff’s informal follow up efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful, and Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 12, 2023.

Following service of the Complaint, Plaintiff granted the statutory-maximum 15-day extension to file a demurrer. (Declaration of Liselie Z. Walker in Support of City of Sacramento and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 20, 2024 [“Walker Decl.”], Exhibit B.) Defendants thereafter conferred with Plaintiff regarding contemplated demurrers. Plaintiff explained that the most efficient resolution for this straightforward case would be cross-motions for summary judgment, and that Plaintiff would not allow Defendants’ unnecessary demurrer to delay resolution of the merits of Plaintiff’s action. (Walker Decl., Exhibit E; Soluri MSJ Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendants rejected Plaintiff’s suggestion and filed their demurrer. Plaintiff promptly reserved the same hearing date for its motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”), and thereafter timely filed and served the MSJ on May 21, 2024. On May 31, 2024, the parties thereafter stipulated to request the Court advance the hearing date on the demurrer, which was granted on June 4, 2024. (Order on Ex Parte Application for Order Advancing Hearing Date on the City of Sacramento’s and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.) III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In ruling on a demurrer, the trial court is required to construe the pleading liberally “. . . with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452; Cameron v.

Wernick (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 890, 892.) In evaluating and determining if the complaint states facts to constitute a cause of action, the court may consider “all material facts pleaded in the complaint and those arising by reasonable implication there from . . . .” (Young v. Gannon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 220.) The court must assume the truth of the Petition’s factual allegations. (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081 (citing Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

9 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Since, at the demurrer stage, all facts alleged in a complaint are deemed true, “it is not the function of a trial court [. . .] to speculate on the ability of a plaintiff to support, at trial, allegations well pleaded.” (Meye v. Graphic Arts International Union (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 176, 179.) Despite potentially imprecise or unclearly stated fact or request for relief, if it appears that plaintiff is entitled to any judicial relief, the pleading will withstand demurrer. (Air Quality Products, Inc. v. State of California (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 340, 347.) Given the liberal lens through which the court views a complaint, a court should not sustain a demurrer if the pleading can state a cause of action under any theory or should not sustain the demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. In order for a demurrer to be sustained without leave to amend, there must be a finding that there is no reasonable possibility that the pleading can be cured by amendment. (Kilgore v. Younger (1982) 30 Cal.3d 770, 781.)
Further, a court’s function on demurrer is limited to testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. “The hearing on demurrer may not be turned into a contested evidentiary hearing through the guise of having the court take judicial notice of documents whose truthfulness or proper interpretation are disputable” and the opposing party is thereby bound by what that evidence appears to show. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 114.) Judicial notice of matters upon demurrer will be dispositive only where there is not or cannot be a factual dispute concerning that which is sought to be judicially noticed. (Ibid.) In fact, it is error for a trial court to use such documents to resolve factual disputes for purposes of resolving a demurrer. (See Richtek USA, Inc. v. UPI Semiconductor Corp. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 651, 660.)
IV. ARGUMENT
Many of Defendants’ arguments are directly refuted by a single paragraph from Vedanta Society, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 534, which provides in relevant part:

Declaratory Relief Was Available
California Quartet asserts that the trial court could not have granted Vedanta declaratory relief because administrative mandamus was its exclusive remedy. Not so. There is nothing incompatible between administrative mandamus and

10 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
declaratory relief. (E.g., J. L. Thomas, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 916, 924 [person has standing to challenge facial validity of statute in declaratory relief without exhausting administrative remedies]; Subriar v. City of Bakersfield (1976) 59 Cal.App.3d 175, 195 [constitutional questions could be reached by action for declaratory relief independent of administrative mandamus].) More to the point, though, Vedanta’s declaratory relief claims did not challenge any specific adjudicatory or “quasi-judicial” act of the board. It simply sought resolution of the controversy over the legal effect of the tie vote.

Declaratory relief has been used without comment to ascertain the effect of tie votes in non-CEQA contexts (Dry Creek Valley Assn., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 839), and declaratory relief is tailor-made for a case such as this one, centered as it is on a pure question of law--whether the board even made a decision--not a question of whether an administrative record contained substantial evidence to support a decision that the agency unquestionably did make.
(Emphasis added.)
The leading CEQA treatise explains Vedanta Society’s holding as follows: “Declaratory relief may also be available when raising a question of law relating to the agency’s compliance with procedural requirements.” (Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2024), § 23.45, p. 23-60.) This is precisely the nature of Plaintiff’s challenge in this case. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration whether CEQA allows two lead agencies to be designated for a single project. (Complaint, ¶ 2 [“This procedure violates CEQA, which allows only one lead agency to be designated for a project”].) With this background we turn to Defendants’ specific arguments.

A. Plaintiff Has Sufficient Interest in the MOU That Purports to Designate Two CEQA Lead Agencies for a Single Project in Violation of CEQA Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory relief because it is not a party to the MOU between the City and LAFCO. (City of Sacramento and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Joint Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on February 20, 2024 [“MPA”], 6:1 – 6.) This misconstrues the Complaint’s allegations and applicable law.

1. Defendants misconstrue the Complaint’s allegations.

First, the Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff is a party to the MOU. Rather, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has an interest in the MOU because it purports to designate two CEQA lead agencies for a single project:

11 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

Plaintiff and its members have standing to assert the complaint for declaratory relief regarding the MOU. CEQA’s policies of informed decision-making and public participation require an EIR to be prepared by the proper CEQA lead agency. (City of Sacramento, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at 960; PCL, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 903-907.) Plaintiff and its members also have an interest in the underlying development project and ensuring that CEQA review is carried out in conformance with CEQA’s procedural mandates. Plaintiff and its members will therefore be harmed if the City and LAFCO conducts its environmental review in violation of CEQA’s procedures.
(Complaint, ¶ 23; see also ¶ 2 [“This procedure violates CEQA, which allows only one lead agency to be designated for a project”].)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 does not require that a plaintiff be a party to a written instrument. Instead, it allows an action by “[a]ny person interested under a written instrument.” (Ibid.) Plaintiff is “interested” in the MOU because it memorializes defendants’ violation of CEQA. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 11, 26, 27.)
Defendants next argue that the Complaint fails to allege that Plaintiff’s interest in the MOU “arises out of the MOU itself.” (MPA, 6: 10.) Untrue. The Complaint alleges:

Although LAFCO would be the first agency to take action on the project and therefore properly be designated the CEQA lead agency, LAFCO and the City instead agreed to an MOU that purports to designate both agencies as “co-lead agencies” for purposes of CEQA review. A true and correct copy of the MOU is attached as Exhibit A.
(Complaint, ¶ 11.)
The courts must scrupulously enforce CEQA’s procedural mandates. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 935.) An actual controversy has risen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning Defendants’ compliance with CEQA’s procedural mandates. (Vedanta Society, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 534.) Plaintiff contends that the MOU violates CEQA’s mandate that only one lead agency may be designated for a project.

Defendants contend that a single project may have two different CEQA lead agencies.
(Complaint, ¶ 26.)
Plaintiff requires a judicial determination that the MOU’s designation of “co-lead agencies” violates CEQA’s procedural requirements. (Vedanta Society, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 534.)
(Complaint, ¶ 27.)

12 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Contrary to Defendants’ false claims, the Complaint repeatedly alleges that Plaintiff’s interest in ensuring compliance with CEQA’s procedural mandates arises directly from the MOU.

2. Defendants’ argument fails to address applicable law.

Defendants also misconstrue applicable law. Defendants primarily rely on declaratory relief cases addressing purely private duties flowing from private agreements that have no application, which involves public rights and duties. (MPA, 5:12 – 6:17.) For example, Defendants’ reliance on Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331, is irrelevant because it addresses purely private rights: “Plaintiff is not legally interested in the contracts as to which he seeks a declaration of validity -- the lease option, the lease, and the purchase option between Trammell Crow Co. and Kirwan.”
Similarly, Defendants’ reliance on Stonehouse Homes LLC v. City of Sierra Madres (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 540-542 (Stonehouse Homes) is erroneous since that case in no way supports Defendants’ position. Rather than hold that the plaintiff lacked sufficient interest in an instrument, the court instead found that the action did not present a justiciable controversy because “The moratorium resolution thus merely gave notice to the public of potential legislation that might be adopted in the future with respect to HMZ provisions.” (Stonehouse Homes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th 531, 541.) This is a different issue. In any event, there is nothing preliminary about Defendants’ challenged conduct here, which includes a final agreement by Defendants to designate two lead agencies for a single project pursuant to CEQA. (Complaint, ¶ 11 and Exhibit A.)
Highlighting their misguided attempt to rely on irrelevant case law, Defendants repeatedly cite to Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657 (Zetterberg). Zetterberg was distinguished in a later case addressing the specific issue of standing for a declaratory relief action involving, as here, a violation of CEQA. (Californians for Native Salmon Etc. Ass'n v. Dep't of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419, 1430 [Native Salmon].) Native Salmon explains:

13 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

Unlike the taxpayers in Zetterberg, appellants are not seeking to challenge a discretionary allocation of power by the Legislature among executive agencies.

Appellants are not trying to “alter the course of government merely because [they perceive] it differently from [sic] the agency entrusted with the particular set of tasks embraced in a statute.” (Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 664.) Rather, appellants allege policies impermissibly made in violation of statutory mandates by an administrative agency and concomitant conduct consistent with the policies, but in violation of law. (Native Salmon, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at 1428.)
As in Native Salmon, Plaintiff is not through its action attempting to direct an agency’s discretion, which has not yet occurred. Rather, Plaintiff is merely seeking judicial declaration regarding Defendants’ compliance with mandatory CEQA procedures.

Further, with respect to standing, Native Salmon also noted that Zetterberg was not binding guidance:

Appellants also contend declaratory relief is proper because the issues at stake are matters of great public interest. There seems some disagreement, however, whether general public interest is sufficient, standing alone, to enable declaratory relief. Zetterberg suggests it is not. (Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 662.) The California Supreme Court, however, has noted that “considerations beyond the precedents,” such as vindication of First Amendment rights, may justify declaratory relief. (Zeitlin v. Arnebergh, supra, 59 Cal.2d at p. 906.) Given that appellants are entitled to declaratory relief apart from this issue, the public-interest question need not be considered. (Ibid.)
Thus, Native Salmon suggests that public interest standing alone could be adequate to support standing for a declaratory relief action alleging violations of CEQA. Here, however, the Complaint goes well beyond a general allegation of public interest. It alleges that Plaintiff “is a national non-profit organization with approximately 832,739 members. The Sierra Club Mother Lode Chapter is a regional chapter of the Sierra Club that has over 19,500 members. The Sierra Club is dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth; to practicing and promoting the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to educating and encouraging humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to using all lawful means to carry out these objectives.” (Complaint, ¶ 6.) The Complaint further alleges that “Plaintiff and its members also have an interest in the

14 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
underlying development project and ensuring that CEQA review is carried out in conformance with CEQA’s procedural mandates.” (Complaint, ¶ 23.) Thus, the Complaint squarely alleges that Plaintiff and its members have a direct interest in environmental compliance that would be directly harmed by Defendants’ failure to comply with CEQA’s mandates requiring a single lead agency. (Complaint, ¶¶ 6, 23.)
Further guidance on this issue is found in Environmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1020 (EPIC), which notes, “[A] bona fide environmental organization with several hundred members in three major timber producing counties has standing to contest both its and their denial of the right to see, inspect and comment on THP’s for what has increasingly become a significant quantity of ‘timber operations.’”1 EPIC expressly rejected an attempt to import more strict federal standing requirements as Defendants here now seek:

Appellants urge us to digress from established California law regarding standing and import into our law principles derived from such United States Supreme Court cases as Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) 504 U.S. 555. That case held that an organization challenging governmental action affecting the environment lacked standing to sue. It did so, however, with particular reference to the “case and controversy” language of article III of the federal Constitution and the long line of cases respecting that language, cases which, among other things, have required that the plaintiff show not only “injury in fact” but also injury which is both “concrete and particularized,” “actual or imminent,” causally connected with the conduct complained of, and “likely” as opposed to “speculative.” (See 504 U.S. at pp. 560-561.) Whether this should be the law in California, it clearly is not, even in the few cases--shortly to be discussed--arising under Government Code section 11350 and its predecessor. (See contrasting federal and California law in this area, Myers, Standing in Public Interest Litigation: Removing the Procedural Barriers (1981) 15 Loy. L.A. L.Rev. 1, 20-22; and Stocks v. City of Irvine (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 520, 528-537.) We perceive neither justification nor authorization for us to import this federal law principle into our jurisprudence, and we accordingly decline the Attorney General’s invitation to do so.

1 Sierra Club is unquestionably a “bona fide environmental organization.” (See, e.g., Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502; Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1152; Sierra Club v. State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215.) To the extent the Court agrees with Defendants that the Complaint includes “meager” allegations regarding environmental harms to Plaintiff and its members regarding Defendants’ failure to comply with CEQA’s mandatory duties associated with this underlying project, amendment is readily available to include additional allegations consistent with Plaintiff’s extensively documented environmental concerns. (Declaration of Patrick M. Soluri in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint [“Soluri Decl.”], filed concurrently herewith, Exhibits 1, 2, 3 — letters dated June 28, 2021, July 15, 2021, Oct. 8, 2021, respectively.)

15 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
The Complaint’s standing allegations therefore fall squarely within Native Salmon and EPIC. Defendants’ failure to address these cases is telling; the Complaint adequately alleges standing to bring this declaratory relief action challenging defendants’ flagrant violation of CEQA procedural mandates.

B. There Is an Actual Controversy
Defendants rely on Stonehouse Homes to argue that the action does not present an actual controversy. (MPA, 7:4 – 12.) Defendants misconstrue both Stonehouse Homes and the allegations here. As explained above, the court in Stonehouse Homes found that the action did not present a justiciable controversy because “The moratorium resolution thus merely gave notice to the public of potential legislation that might be adopted in the future with respect to HMZ provisions.” (Stonehouse Homes, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at 541.) There is nothing preliminary about the specific alleged unlawful action here, which is a final agreement to designate two lead agencies for a single project. (Complaint, ¶ 11 and Exhibit A.) That the City and LAFCO have not yet taken final action on the underlying project and associated CEQA document is of no consequence because this lawsuit does not challenge those later actions that have not yet occurred and are not relevant to disposition of the narrow legal issue in this action. (Vedanta Society, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 534. [“[D]eclaratory relief is tailor-made for a case such as this one, centered as it is on a pure question of law . . . not a question of whether an administrative record contained substantial evidence to support a decision.”].) Guidance is also found from the Third Appellate District in Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877 [Environmental Defense Project].) In that case, the respondent argued for very rigorous requirement to establish an “actual controversy,” which was rejected:
[T]he county persists that the “actual controversy” language in Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 “takes on a narrower meaning” in cases such as this one because of Government Code section 65010, subdivision (b), which requires prejudice, substantial injury to the complaining party, and probability of a different result before a court can overturn the decision of an administrative agency based on procedural errors in zoning and planning matters.

The problem with the county’s attempt to graft the requirements of section 65010 onto the alleged notice error in this case is that section 65010 does not apply to

16 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

actions seeking declaratory relief. By its terms, section 65010 applies only when a party is seeking to have a court set aside or declare invalid an “action, inaction, or recommendation.” Here, plaintiff was not seeking to set aside or invalidate the zoning ordinance amendment for the LaRocque project recommended by the planning commission or approved by the board of supervisors. Rather, it was seeking a declaration on the proper interpretation of sections 65856, 65090, and 65094.
(Id. at 887.)
There is no question that an actual controversy exists regarding whether a single project may have two CEQA lead agencies specifically because the City and LAFCO rejected Plaintiff’s request to abandon this unlawful procedure and are in fact presently taking action pursuant to the allegedly unlawful “co-lead agency” designation. (Complaint, ¶ 24 [alleging that the City and LAFCO are “preparing an EIR based on this unlawful procedure”].) C. The Dispute Is Ripe and Plaintiff Exhausted Administrative Remedies Incredibly, Defendants argue that the dispute is not ripe. This argument is wholly without merit since Defendants know full well that, consistent with the Complaint’s allegations (Complaint, ¶ 24), Defendants are presently preparing CEQA review based on their unlawful co-lead agency designation. (Soluri MSJ Decl., Exhibit 1, and Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint filed concurrently herewith.)
Defendants expend much effort explaining that cases concerning improper lead agency all involve actions that were commenced after the lead agency made its decision on the underlying project and associated CEQA document. (MPA, 8:1 – 9:10.) This is irrelevant because cases are not authority for propositions not considered. (Martin v. City of San Francisco (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 392, 400 fn. 4.) Defendants tellingly cite no holding or analysis from these cases asserting that a challenge to improper lead agency delegation cannot be brought prior to project approval where, as here, the facts are sufficiently congealed. (California Water & Telephone Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 16, 22 [“A controversy is ‘ripe’ when it has reached, but has not passed, the point that the facts have sufficiently congealed to permit an intelligent and useful decision to be made”].)

17 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Finally, Defendants claim that Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies. That is false. Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies on the specific issue presented in this action. (Complaint, ¶¶ 18, 19, Exhibits B, C.) As Vedanta Society explains, the narrow legal issue presented in this action is “not a question of whether an administrative record contained substantial evidence to support a decision.” (Vedanta Society, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at 534.) Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies on the narrow legal issue presented in this action, which is distinct from any later decision on the merits of the underlying project or its associated CEQA document. (Complaint, ¶¶ 18, 19, Exhibits B, C.)
D. Plaintiff, Its Members, and the Environment Will Suffer Hardship If Relief Is Not Granted
Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing because they contend the Complaint has failed to adequately allege sufficient injury or harm. As a threshold matter, Defendants’ simplistic reliance on quotation snippets from distinguishable cases is unavailing. (MPA, 9:13 –

27.)
Defendants cite to Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1581 to support their misguided characterization of the Complaint as alleging a completely speculative future injury. What Defendants refuse to acknowledge that preparing CEQA review pursuant to an unlawful lead agency delegation in not a speculative future violation of CEQA. (City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960; PCL, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 892.)
Defendants rely on Monterey Coastkeeper v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1, 13, to support their meritless claim that the Complaint fails to allege hardship or injury without judicial intervention. However, Monterey Coastkeeper in no way supports Defendants’ position. The portion of Monterey Coastkeeper cited by Defendants addresses whether the trial court erred by “sustaining the demurrer as to declaratory relief by requiring more than allegations of respondents’ ongoing failure to comply with the NPS Policy.” The appellate court found that the trial court did not err, explaining:

18 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

Appellants’ complaint asserted that one means by which the State Board systematically fails to abide by the NPS Policy is through its decisions on whether to review regional water board actions. The State Board’s decision to review a regional water board action is entirely within the State Board’s discretion and not subject to judicial review. [Citation] Using declaratory relief to force the State Board to exercise its discretion in a particular manner cannot be squared with this principle.

In contract with Monterey Coastkeeper, CEQA does not grant public agencies discretion to designate two lead agencies for a single project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15050, subd. (a) [“Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, one public agency shall be responsible for preparing an EIR or Negative Declaration for the project.”]; see also Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21165, 21067.) Moreover, the case law is settled that courts are well within their authority to set aside an improper CEQA lead agency designation. (PCL, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 906; City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1174; Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1297–1298.) Indeed, these cases fall within the broader rule that courts “can and must, however, scrupulously enforce all legislatively mandated CEQA requirements.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.)
The Complaint properly alleges that Defendants’ agreement to disregard “legislatively mandated CEQA requirements” injures Plaintiff, its members and the environment. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 6, 23, 24, 26, 27.) No heighted level of alleged injury is required. (Environmental Defense Project, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 877 [rejecting requirements for “prejudice, substantial injury to the complaining party, and probability of a different result” to support a declaratory relief action].)
V. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court overrule Defendants’ demurer so that the Court may rule on the merits of the narrow legal issue whether CEQA allows the designation of two lead agencies for a single project.

19 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 25, 2024 SOLURI MESERVE, A LAW CORPORATION

By:

Patrick M. Soluri
Attorneys for Plaintiff

20 Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SOLURI

MESERVE
A LAW

CORPORATION

PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby declare that I am employed in the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the action. My business address is 510 8th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

On June 25, 2024, I served the following document:

Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint
on the following parties or attorneys for parties, as shown below:

SUSANA ALCALA WOOD
City Attorney
LESLIE Z. WALKER
Senior Deputy City Attorney

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
915 I Street, Room 4010
Sacramento, CA 95814-2608
Telephone: (916) 808-5346
Facsimile: (916) 808-7455
Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
DANIEL P. DOPORTO

LAW OFFICE OF
DANIEL P. DOPORTO
3478 Buskirk Avenue
Suite 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Telephone: (510) 368-3413
Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for

SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION

Service was caused as follows:
✓ BY ELECTRONIC MAIL: Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service. I caused the document to be sent by electronic mail to the recipients at the email addresses listed above. The document was served electronically from my place of business at 510 8th Street, Sacramento, California 95814 and from my electronic service address at [email protected].

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Sacramento, California on June 25, 2024.

Mae Ryan Empleo
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SUSANA ALCALA WOOD, City Attorney (SBN 156366)
LESLIE Z. WALKER, Senior Deputy City Attorney (SBN 249310) [email protected]

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
915 I Street, Room 4010
Sacramento, CA 95814-2608
Telephone: (916) 808-5346
Facsimile: (916) 808-7455
Attorneys for the CITY OF SACRAMENTO
DANIEL P. DOPORTO (SBN 176192)
[email protected]
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL P. DOPORTO
3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Telephone: (510) 368-6413
Attorney for SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

SIERRA CLUB,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants.

Case No.: 23CV013263

CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND

SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION JOINT

REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S

COMPLAINT
Date: July 9, 2024
Time: 1:30 p.m.

Dept: 53
Location: 813 6th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Judge: Richard K. Sueyoshi
Action Filed: December 12, 2023
Trial Date: Not yet set.

Reservation No.: A-13263-001
In their Opening Brief, the City of Sacramento (“City”) and Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCo”) (together, the “Defendants”) demonstrated that plaintiff Sierra Club (“Plaintiff”) is not entitled to declaratory relief under Section 1060 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) because the Complaint does not present a justiciable controversy

2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
sufficient to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. Defendants demonstrated that (a) the matter is not ripe because Plaintiff will not suffer any harm if the Court declines to intervene in the Defendants’ on- going CEQA process and (b) Plaintiff does not have standing because its interest in the challenged action that is not greater than the general public’s interest. Plaintiff’s Opposition (“Opp.”) failed to rebut these facts. Therefore, the Court should decline Plaintiff’s request to intervene in Defendants’ CEQA process.

A. The Matter is Not Ripe Because Plaintiff Cannot Show It Will Sustain an Imminent and Direct Injury.

A party seeking to invoke a court’s declaratory relief powers “must be able to show not only that the statute is invalid but that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in common with people generally.” ( Zetterberg v. State Dept. of Public Health (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 657, 664.) This requirement to show direct injury in the absence of judicial intervention reflects the well-established principles of separation of power and judicial restraint. TheZetterberg court explained:
“The functions of government under our system are apportioned. To the legislative department has been committed the duty of making laws; to the executive the duty of executing them; and to the judiciary the duty of interpreting and applying them in cases properly before the courts. . . . The general rule is that neither department may invade the province of the other and neither may control, direct or restrain the action of the other.” (Zetterberg, 43 Cal.App.3d at 663 [quoting Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (2007) 262 U.S. 447, 488.]) Based on this separation of powers principle, courts have established clear standards that must be met before they will intervene in an agency’s implementation of statutory processes. In the absence of imminent injury to the plaintiff, “a difference of opinion as to the interpretation of a statute between a citizen and a governmental agency does not give rise to a justiciable controversy (citations omitted) and provides no compelling reason for a court to attempt to direct the manner by which the agency shall administer the law.” ( Id.)

1. Plaintiff Has Not and Cannot Show Likelihood of Harm.

Plaintiff’s complaint shows nothing more than a difference of opinion in the interpretation of 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CEQA statutes and regulations. The allegations of harm in the Complaint are entirely speculative and are not supported by any relevant facts. All of those allegations are set forth in paragraphs 23 and 24 alleging “RIPENESS AND STANDING”.

Paragraph 23 alleges:

23. Plaintiff and its members have standing to assert the complaint for declaratory relief regarding the MOU. CEQA’s policies of informed decision- making and public participation require an EIR to be prepared by the proper CEQA lead agency. (citations omitted) Plaintiff and its members of also have an interest in the underlying development project and ensuring that CEQA review is carried out in conformance with CEQA’s procedural mandates. Plaintiff and its members will therefore be harmed if the City and LAFCO conducts its environmental review in violation of CEQA’s procedures.

These allegations show that Plaintiff has not alleged any harm that could support an exercise of this Court’s declaratory relief authority. The first sentence is a bare legal conclusion. The second sentence is statement about CEQA, and the third sentence is an assertion about Plaintiff’s alleged “interest” 1 in the Project and in CEQA compliance. None of these three sentences relates to any harm Plaintiff may suffer if the Court does not grant declaratory relief. Nonetheless, Plaintiff suggests (with “therefore”) that these sentences somehow show Plaintiff will be harmed if the Court fails to act. Plaintiff’s attempt to establish a causal connection between the first three sentences and the fourth sentence fails, however, because the first three sentences do not explain how Plaintiff will suffer any harm or what this alleged harm is.

Paragraph 24 is similarly devoid of any showing of harm or hardship.

24. The matter is now ripe for review. An actual controversy exists because the City and LAFCO in the MOU to designate two CEQA lead agencies for a single project in violation of CEQA, have refused to either select a single lead agency or refer the dispute to OPR as required by CEQA, and are preparing an EIR based on this unlawful procedure. (citations omitted) Thus, this dispute is sufficiently concrete and does not require the development of any further facts for this issue to be further crystallized. Additionally, withholding judicial consideration of this issue [sic] prejudice Plaintiff as well as Defendants by potentially forcing the parties to duplicate their efforts in a new EIR prepared by the proper lead agency as required by CEQA. (citation omitted)
(Cmplt. ¶¶ 23-24 (pg. 6, lines 7 through 25).)
Again, the first sentence is a bare legal conclusion. The second and third sentences consist of Plaintiff’s characterization of the parties’ difference of opinion regarding Defendants’ agreement 1 Defendants more fully address this alleged “interest” in Section B below. 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
to share lead agency responsibilities,2 and a factual statement that Defendants are now preparing an EIR. None of the first three sentences attempts to explain how Plaintiff will suffer if the Court does not grant declaratory relief.

The fourth sentence of Paragraph 24 is the only sentence in the entire Complaint that arguably addresses how any harm may result if the Court does not act. And here, the only harm Plaintiff can muster is the ‘potential’ prejudice to Plaintiff and Defendantsif the Defendants’ shared lead agency arrangement is later determined to violate CEQA, and if the resulting EIR is determined to be flawed, and if a court therefore requires the Defendants to prepare a new EIR. This speculative injury is too far removed from the relevant act—the Court’s failure to grant Plaintiff’s declaratory relief request—for it to justify the Court’s exercise of declaratory relief authority. 3 ( Zetterberg, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at 663.)
Plaintiff devotes six full paragraphs in its Opposition Brief to the claim that “Plaintiffs, Its Members, and the Environment Will Suffer Hardship If Relief Is Not Granted.” (Opp. at pp. 17:9 - 18:22.) None of these paragraphs explains how any harm will result if the Court declines to act.

Instead, Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to attack the authorities in Defendants Opening Brief. (Opp. at pp. 17:11 - 18:9.) And then, in a striking non-sequitur, Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to declaratory relief because “case law is settled that courts are well within their authority to set aside an improper CEQA lead agency designation,” and cites to three cases to support this claim. (Opp. at p. 18:9 - 13.) While this does not explain how Plaintiffs will be harmed without interlocutory relief, Defendants agree with this general proposition—in appropriate circumstances, courts have jurisdiction to find that agencies have selected the wrong lead agency and direct the agencies to remedy any CEQA violations. Defendants contend only that the circumstances of Plaintiff’s claim are not appropriate circumstances.
2 The second sentence is also sprinkled with Plaintiff’s opinion that Defendants’ CEQA process violates CEQA. This is the very question that is the subject of the parties’ dispute, and the question will not be answered until a court with proper jurisdiction rules on it. Further, the term “actual controversy” is simply another bare legal conclusion unsupported by the allegations in the Complaint.3 Given Plaintiff’s stated opposition to the Project (see section D), it is hard to see how Plaintiff could claim any harm or prejudice if a later court set aside the EIR and required Defendants to prepare a new one. Any such ‘harm’ from this outcome would rest on Defendants and the Project proponents—Plaintiff would likely celebrate such an outcome. 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Moreover, none of the three cases Plaintiff cites actually supports its claim, because none of them set aside a lead agency designationprior to certification of the EIR. (California Water Impact Network v. Newhall County Water District (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1488 (“ CWIN”) [“A judicial proceeding challenging compliance with CEQA … is properly commenced after the lead agency certifies the EIR and approves the project”].) The Planning and Conservation League v.

Department of Water Resources case (“ PCL”) was brought after EIR certification and after project approval. And notably, the PCL court rejected that plaintiff’s claim that the selection of the wrong lead agency alone taints the entire EIR process, illustrating the speculative nature of Plaintiff’s claimed prejudice. ( PCL (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 907.) Similarly, City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, was also broughtafter the lead agency ratified the CEQA document (in this case, a negative declaration) and after it approved the project. Here, however, the court did not set aside the lead agency determination because it dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on other grounds. And while Plaintiff also cites toHabitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Sacramento (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1297-1298, for the proposition that courts may set aside an improper lead agency designation, this court did not set aside a lead agency designation, so this case does not support the proposition that Plaintiff cites it for. (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. v. Newsom (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 158, 169.) Finally, Plaintiff claims that it need not demonstrate harm to secure declaratory relief, citing selectively from Env’t. Def. Project of Sierra Cnty. v. Cnty. of Sierra (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 877 (“ EDP”). (Opp. at p. 18:17-22.) This case does not support Plaintiff’s claim for several reasons.

First, the EDP court recognized multiple harms that would result if it did not grant declaratory relief. Specifically, the court recognized that the county’s challenged interpretation of the Government Code notice requirements left plaintiff with only one day to respond to the planning commission’s recommendation of approval before the board of supervisors approved the project, while the statute appeared to require at least 10 days. (Id. at 883.) And the board had unequivocally advised the court that it would continue to interpret the statute in the same manner, thereby depriving interested parties of sufficient time to respond to future planning commission actions. (Id. at 886.) And of course, given the board’s approval, the applicant was free to start development 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
of its project unless the court acted. So, the record in the EDP case demonstrated both past harm and a high likelihood of future harm if the court did not act.

Second, while Plaintiff selectively quotes that “plaintiff did not have to prove prejudice, substantial injury, and probability of a different result” before the trial court could grant its request for declaratory relief, Plaintiff conveniently ignores the preceding two paragraphs. There, the court explained that the quoted language is from Government Code section 65010, and the court’s conclusion reflected only its rejection of “the county’s attempt to graft the requirements of section 65010 on to the alleged notice error in this case[.]” ( EDP, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at 887.) Third, the EDP case was brought after EIR certification and after project approval.

The facts of the EDP case stand in stark contrast to the facts in this case. Here, Plaintiff has not identified any harm it will suffer if the Court does not intervene in Defendants’ CEQA process.

And because nearly the entire CEQA process in this case remains to be completed, Plaintiff will have ample opportunity to comment on the Project. (Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Exhibit 1, p. 8.) Moreover, if and when Defendants certify the EIR and approve the Project, Plaintiff will then be able to challenge Defendants’ lead agency arrangement and bring any other claims Plaintiff wishes to raise against the CEQA process and the Project. ( CWIN, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at 1488.) Finally, given the absence of harm that will result if the Court declines to intervene, it would promote judicial efficiency and conserve the Court’s and the parties’ resources to have Plaintiff litigate all of its CEQA claims in one action, commenced after EIR certification and Project approval (if such certification and approval are forthcoming).

2. Plaintiff Has Admitted There Is Another Remedy for Its Alleged Harm.

Plaintiff’s acknowledgement in the final sentence of Paragraph 24 that a future court could later set aside the EIR on the ground that it was prepared by the wrong lead agency is a clear admission by Plaintiff that there is an adequate remedy for the Defendants’ alleged CEQA violation – a writ of mandate challenging the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21168, 21168.5.) The availability of an alternative remedy, together with the absence of any harm to Plaintiff if the Court does not act, 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
together should be sufficient to persuade the Court not to intervene in Defendants’ CEQA process.

B. Plaintiff Does Not Have a Sufficient Interest in the Challenged Action.

In their Opening Brief, Defendants showed that the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint do not establish that Plaintiff has a sufficient interest in the requested relief. (Opening Br. at 5:21-6:24.) In its Opposition, Plaintiff entirely failed to rebut this showing and instead largely regurgitated the allegations in the Complaint without even attempting to explain how Plaintiff’s alleged “interest” is any different from the interest of the general public. (Opp. at pp. 10:18-12:3.) “[T]he fact that an issue raised in an action for declaratory relief is of broad general interest is not enough for the courts to grant such relief in the absence of a true justiciable controversy [citations].” ( People ex rel.

Becerra v. Superior Ct. (2018) 29 Cal App.5th 486, 496.) Apparently conceding that its “interest” may not be any greater than the general public interest in seeing the laws enforced, Plaintiff attempts to seek refuge in the ‘general public interest’ exception to the applicable standing requirements, citing to the cases of Californians for Native Salmon Etc. Assn v. Dep’t. of Forestry(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419, andEnvironmental Protection Information Center v. Department of Forestry (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1019 (“ EPIC”).

However, it is well-settled that “there is no general “public interest” exception to the requirement of standing” in Section 1060 cases. 4 ( People ex rel. Becerra, 29 Cal.App.5th at 497; see also California Dept. of Consumer Affairs v. Superior Ct. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 256, 263-264 [distinguishing the EPIC case because EPIC plaintiffs adequately alleged harm from regulations depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to comment on timber harvest plans].) C. The Cases Cited In Plaintiff’s Opposition Brief Do Not Support Its Request For Declaratory Relief.

Plaintiff argues vigorously in its Opposition that declaratory relief under CCP section 1060 has been granted in some CEQA cases. In support of its argument, Plaintiff relies on several cases in which the courts held that the circumstances of those cases justified granting declaratory relief. 4 As explained further in Section D, Plaintiff appears to have made a strategic decision to bring its action under CCP 1060 instead of CCP 1085, to avoid the less favorable standard of review and exhaustion of administrative remedy requirements of CCP 1085’s writ of mandate procedures. Having made its choice, Plaintiff cannot now have it both ways. 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Those cases are not helpful to Plaintiff, however, because the question here is whether this Court may consider granting this Plaintiff declaratory relief under these circumstances. Because all of those cases involved imminent harm to the plaintiffs if the courts declined to act, the courts’ consideration of declaratory relief was appropriate. Because the circumstances of this Plaintiff’s claim do not present the same urgency, and because Plaintiff has not shown it will suffer any harm if this Court declines to act, those cases are unpersuasive.

For example, Plaintiff trumpets the following quote from the Vedanta Society case:
“[D]eclaratory relief is tailor-made for a case such as this one, centered as it is on a pure question of law . . . and not a question of whether the administrative record contained substantial evidence to support a decision.” ( Vedanta Society (2000) 84 Cal.App 4th 517, 534.) Defendants agree the Vedanta court appropriately considered that plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief. But that case has no bearing on whether this Court should consider this Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief.

In Vedanta, the plaintiff brought its action after the Board of Supervisors had certified the EIR and approved the project. As a result, the harm from withholding declaratory relief was obvious and immediate—the defendants could immediately begin construction on their project, irretrievably changing the status quo. Therefore, that case was ripe for declaratory relief. Here, Plaintiff has not identified any harm that will result if the Court declines to grant its request for declaratory relief.

Similarly, and in a strained effort to distinguish theZetterberg case, Plaintiff quotes extensively from the Californians for Native Salmon etc. Assn. v. Department of Forestry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1419 (“ Native Salmon”) case for the proposition that declaratory relief is appropriate when an agency has adopted policies and undertaken conduct in violation of CEQA requirements. (Opp. at p.12:27-14:6.) Again, this is not a remarkable proposition, and Defendants do not disagree.

Again, however, the circumstances in this case are nothing like the circumstances ofNative Salmon.

There, the plaintiff alleged that the agency had repeatedly approved, and was continuing to approve, timber harvest plans (“THPs”) without complying with the CEQA requirement to first review and respond in writing to all comments on the plan. ( Native Salmon, 221 Cal.App.3d at 1424-1425.) Instead, plaintiff alleged, the agency’s historical and on-going practice was to simply close the public comment period and approve the plans, thereby depriving the reviewing public of any 9 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
meaningful opportunity to comment on THPs. (Id.)
Then, as if bluster and hyperbole were sufficient to make its case, Plaintiff announces, “Incredibly, Defendants argue that the dispute is not ripe,” because “Defendants are presently preparing CEQA review based on their unlawful co-lead agency designation.” (Opp. at 16:12-15.) However, Plaintiff never explains how the Defendants’ mere act of preparing the EIR could constitute imminent or direct injury to Plaintiff, or to anyone. It is only by speculating that the final EIR certified by the Defendantsmight be legally flawed, and that such flawmight be a result of the Defendants’ shared lead agency arrangement, that Plaintiff can find any potential injury. And by the time the EIR is certified, Plaintiff and the public will have had ample opportunity to review and comment on the EIR and its CEQA compliance. (Plaintiff’s RJN, Exh. 1, p. 8.) This speculative injury is too far removed from the act about which Plaintiff complains—this is why Plaintiff’s claim is not yet ripe. Again, Plaintiff has completely failed to identify any direct or imminent harm that will result if the Court declines to grant declaratory relief in these circumstances.

D. Plaintiff Can Challenge Defendants’ Lead Agency Arrangement by Means of a Petition for Writ of Mandate Filed After Certification of the EIR.

The sole substantive allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint is that the cooperative effort described in the MOU between the City and LAFCo for preparation of the Airport South Industrial Project EIR violates the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines. (Cmplt. ¶ 2, lines 9-12.) However, neither the statute nor the Guidelines expressly prohibit shared lead agency responsibilities as described in t h e M O U (see Pub. Res. Code §§ 21067, 21165 and 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15050, 15051 and 15053), and Section 15051(d) of the Guidelines arguably allows it. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15050(d) [An agreement between two public agencies regarding the designation of a lead agency “may also provide for cooperative efforts by two or more agencies by contract, joint exercise of powers, or similar devices.”].) Thus, there is a legitimate difference of opinion on this issue. 5 5 While not relevant to the issue of Plaintiff’s standing, Defendants believe the lead agency approach in their MOU is more likely to achieve an effective and comprehensive environmental review because it assigns the lead agency responsibility for each discretionary approval to the agency that is responsible for that approval. (Complaint, Exhibit A, pp. 1-2.) Aside from claiming that it violates CEQA, Plaintiff has never offered any substantive reason as to why the 10 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiff admits that: (a) it is opposed to the project in question; (b) it wishes to delay the project; and (c) it does not want the City to be the lead agency for the project. (Decl. of Patrick M.

Soluri in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to City of Sacramento’s and Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Soluri Decl”), Exh. 1 & Exh. 3, page 3; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“MPA”), page 12, lines 13-15.) The City admits a legitimate difference of opinion regarding whether the City and LAFCo may share lead agency responsibilities for a single project requiring multiple approvals from multiple agencies. Rather than filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate in compliance with CEQA procedure however, Plaintiff, seeks to leverage this difference of opinion to convert its CEQA claim into a declaratory relief action, introducing an early obstacle to delay the Project and allow Plaintiff to choose the Project’s lead agency. (Soluri Decl., Exhs. 1 and 3; MPA at 12:13-15.) Defendants request the Court decline this invitation to prematurely intervene in the dispute. (Osseous Technologies of America, Inc. v. DiscoveryOrtho Partners, LLC (2010) 119 Cal. App. 4th 357, 376 [courts should consider “whether the timing of the declaratory relief action suggests litigation strategy motivated the filing rather than a concern that judicial guidance was needed and would not be forthcoming absent the filing of a declaratory relief action.”]) If interlocutory declaratory relief challenges such as this one are permitted, a party could bring declaratory relief actions to challenge each intermediate step in the CEQA process before the agency certifies an EIR and before it can be established that any harm may flow from the alleged violations. (CWIN, supra, 161 Cal.App.4th at 1488.) While Defendants agree that “courts are well within their authority to set aside an improper CEQA lead agency determination,” Plaintiff has not cited a single case, and Defendants are not aware of any cases, in which a court has set aside a lead agency designation prior to EIR certification or project approval.

E. Conclusion
Based on all of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.

MOU arrangement is problematic or how it could adversely affect the adequacy of the environmental review for the Project.
11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER1370268 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DATED: July 1, 2024 SUSANA ALCALA WOOD,
City Attorney
By:

LESLIE Z. WALKER
Senior Deputy City Attorney
Attorneys for the

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
DATED: July 1, 2024 Law Office of Daniel P. Doporto
By:

DANIEL P. DOPORTO
Attorney for

SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY

FORMATION COMMISSION
Leslie Walker (Jul 1, 2024 14:27 PDT)
Daniel Doporto (Jul 1, 2024 14:31 PDT)

1 PROOF OF SERVICE
1377304
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE
CASE NAME: Sierra Club v. City of Sacramento, et al. (CEQA) COURT: Sacramento Superior Court
CASE NUMBER: 23CV013263
I declare that:

I am employed in the County of Sacramento, California. I am over the age of eighteen y e a r s a n d n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n ; m y b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s i s 9 1 5 I S t r e e t , R o o m 4 0 1 0 , Sacramento, CA 95814-2604. On the date executed below, I served the following document(s):

CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND SACRAMENTO

LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION JOINT REPLY BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
[XX] By Electronic Service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic service. I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed below.

Patrick M. Soluri
Soluri Meserve
510 8th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
Daniel P. Doporto
Law Office of Daniel P. Doporto
3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
[email protected]
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that the declaration was executed on July 1, 2024, at Sacramento, California.

SUZANNE M. MACDONALD

July 17, 2024

SENT VIA EMAIL ([email protected])

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Sacramento
300 Richards Blvd, Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811

RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Airport South Industrial Project

Dear Mr. Johnson:

On behalf of Sierra Club, Environmental Council of Sacramento (“ECOS”) and Friends of Swainson’s Hawk, this letter provides comments regarding the Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the Airport South Industrial Project (“Project”).

After an extensive review1, we conclude that the DEIR is woefully inadequate as an informational document. We request that the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) address these shortcomings in a new DEIR that is prepared by LAFCO as the sole CEQA lead agency for the Project prior to considering a Sphere of Influence amendment (“SOIA”) to accommodate the Project.

This letter also transmits expert comments on transportation issues prepared by Daniel Smith (Exhibit 1) and expert comments on biological resource issues prepared by Shawn Smallwood, PhD (Exhibit 2), which are also incorporated by reference.

1 While we have expended extraordinary efforts reviewing the DEIR within the allotted 45 days, the DEIR’s pervasive informational deficiencies in a variety of resource areas prevent us from confidently representing that all such defects have been identified.

We therefore reserve the right to supplement these comments. (Galante Vineyards v.

Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (2007) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121.) Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 2 of 30 ends

I. THE EIR WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO AN UNLAWFUL LEAD

AGENCY DESIGNATION THAT WILL REQUIRE A NEW EIR

A. CEQA Does Not Allow More Than One Lead Agency for a Project

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) allows only one “lead agency” for a project, which is responsible for preparing the environmental impacts report (“EIR”) and for making the determination whether the project will have a significant impact on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21165, subd. (a).) As the Third Appellate District plainly advises, “Neither the language of the statute nor the facts of this case support a so-called shared principal responsibility.” (Planning & Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 892, 906 [PCL].) Here, however, LAFCO and the City have disregarded that clear mandate and instead unlawfully agreed to “co-lead agency” status for a single proposed project in violation of CEQA.

Because the Project site’s “agricultural” zoning and land use designations prevent urban development, the applicant is seeking annexation to the City of Sacramento. This, in turn, requires at least two approvals by LAFCO. First, LAFCO must approve a SOIA.

If the SOIA is denied, then the Project may not move forward. However, if LAFCO approves the SOIA, then LAFCO would also need to later approve annexation of the Property to the City of Sacramento. If the SOIA is approved but the prezoning and/or annexation are denied, the Project site would remain within unincorporated Sacramento County and therefore subject to Sacramento County development policies and standards.

The plain language of the CEQA statute, the CEQA Guidelines, interpretive case law, and the leading CEQA treatise could not be more clear that CEQA prohibits designating “co-lead agencies” for a single project. Public Resources Code section 21165 provides, “When a project is to be carried out or approved by two or more public agencies, the determination of whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment shall be made by the lead agency.” Further, “In the event that a dispute arises as to which is the lead agency, any of the disputing public agencies . . . may submit the question to the Office of Planning and Research, and the Office of Planning and Research shall designate, within 21 days of receiving the request, the lead agency.” (Ibid.) Finally, Public Resources Code section 21067 provides, “‘Lead Agency’ means the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.”

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 3 of 30 ends

If the text of the CEQA statue itself were somehow insufficiently clear (it is not), the Third Appellate District in PCL plainly states, “Neither the language of the statute nor the facts of this case support a so-called shared principal responsibility.” (PCL, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 906.) Additional cases hold that CEQA requires a single lead agency. (City of Redding v. Shasta County Local Agency Formation Commission (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1169, 1174 [City of Redding] [apply CEQA Guidelines section 15150, subdivision (a) to conclude that “[City of ] Anderson, not LAFCO, was initially the lead agency with the obligation of preparing an EIR.”]; Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v.

City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1297-1298; City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 960, 973 [City of Sacramento] [“Where the identity of the lead agency cannot be determined by the foregoing criteria, the possible candidates may simply agree among themselves which will be the lead agency”].) The City should be well aware of this rule since it was the petitioner in City of Sacramento, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at page 973, where the Third Appellate District ruled on whether the Regional Water Quality Control Board or Department of Food and Agriculture was the proper lead agency under CEQA.

The CEQA Guidelines are also in accord and provide additional practical guidance that applies here. CEQA Guidelines section 15050, subdivision (a) provides, “Where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one public agency, one public agency shall be responsible for preparing an EIR or Negative Declaration for the project. This agency shall be called the Lead Agency.” (Emphasis added.) Further, “Where more than one public agency equally meet the criteria [for acting as a lead agency], the agency which will act first on the project in question will normally be the Lead Agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15051, subd. (c), emphasis added.)

The CEQA Guidelines encourage public agencies to agree on the CEQA lead agency for a project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15051.) If the agencies are unable to agree, the Guidelines allow the agencies to refer the question to the California Office of Planning and Research (“OPR”). (CEQA Guidelines, § 15053.) Defendants will likely argue that CEQA Guidelines section 15051, subdivision (c), authorizes two public agencies to agree to “cooperative efforts.” However, no authority supports City of Sacramento’s and LAFCO’s implicit position that “cooperative efforts” means designating two lead agencies for a single project.

Finally, the simple and straightforward guidance from the leading treatise is unmistakable: “There can be only one CEQA lead agency for a particular project.” (Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2022), § 3.2, p. 3-3 [“Kostka Treatise”].) The Kostka Treatise addresses City of Sacramento’s and LAFCO’s argument regarding so-called “cooperative efforts” among Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 4 of 30 ends

two public agencies by including a “sample form” for such an agreement. (Kostka Treatise, § 3.5.) That sample form provides for the involved public agencies to designate a single CEQA lead agency. (Ibid. [“NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that __[name of entity]__will act as the CEQA lead agency for the environmental review of the project and will have all discretion to fulfill obligations of a CEQA lead agency with respect to the project”].)

In summary, the plain language of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, interpretive case law and guidance from the leading CEQA treatise all provide that a single project must have only one lead agency. No authority supports the City and LAFCO’s position that “cooperative efforts” means designating two lead agencies for a single project.

B. LAFCO Is the Proper CEQA Lead Agency

An agreement between two agencies to designate one of them a CEQA lead agency is only appropriate when the two agencies each have “a substantial claim to be Lead Agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15051, subd. (d).) Here, however, the only agency with a “substantial claim” to lead agency status is LAFCO. This is true for several reasons.

First, CEQA Guidelines section 15051, subdivision (c) provides, “When more than one public agency equally meet the criteria in subdivision (b), the agency which will act first on the project in question will normally be the Lead Agency.” The MOU acknowledges that LAFCO takes the first action on the Project, which is to approve the necessary sphere of influence amendment.

Second, “LAFCOs act as lead agencies for boundary changes and reorganizations when such changes are initiated by landowner petition rather than public agency application. (People ex rel Younger v. LAFCO (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 464, 481 [LAFCO as lead agency for proposed deannexation].).” (Kostka Treatise, § 3.4, p. 3-5.) It is an undisputed fact that the SOIA and annexation are initiated by the landowner.

Third, CEQA Guidelines section 15051, subdivision (b)(2) provides that a city will act as the lead agency for annexation but is limited to when “a city prezones an area.” (City of Redding, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at 1177 [“Guidelines section 15051, subdivision (b)(2) solves that problem by using the new statutory concepts of ‘lead agency’ and ‘responsible agency’ to designate a city as the appropriate preparer of an EIR where it has prezoned the area to be annexed”], emphasis added.) It is an undisputed fact that the City has not prezoned the Property; that action would occur, if at all, only after LAFCO approves a SOIA.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 5 of 30 ends

Fourth, LAFCO’s policies are consistent with the above statewide authorities. The LAFCO Manual provides guidance under these facts, providing in relevant part:

In general, LAFCO will function as a Lead Agency in situations where:

a. LAFCO is the first agency in time to act;
b. The primary decision relates to a change of organization or reorganization or sphere of influence;
. . .

Typically, LAFCO will act as Lead Agency in reviewing Spheres of Influence Plans, city incorporations or city annexations where no pre-zoning has been undertaken by the city prior to LAFCo approval.

(LAFCO Manual, Policy IV(F)(1), emphasis added.)

Thus, the LAFCO Manual is consistent with statewide guide providing that LAFCO, and not the City, is the proper CEQA lead agency for the Project since the Project area is not within the City’s sphere of influence and has not been prezoned by the City.

C. The DEIR Reveals Information Deficiencies Resulting from the Unlawful “Co-Lead Agency” Designation

The Final EIR (“FEIR”) will likely assert that “co-lead agency” status does not require preparation of a new EIR because there is no prejudice resulting directly from the improper lead agency designation. This premise is false because no such showing is required. Nevertheless, informational deficiencies and resulting prejudice to public disclosure are easily established.

As one example, the EIR conspicuously fails to apply County General Plan policies to LAFCO’s consideration of the SOIA. The Project site is located outside of the County’s Urban Services Boundary (“USB”) and Urban Policy Area (“UPA”). The County’s General Plan includes policies directly limiting growth outside of the USB and UPA. (See, e.g., LU-1, LU-53 and LU-127.) These General Plan policies are not disclosed, much less addressed, in the DEIR. This approach is inconsistent with that previously taken by LAFCO in its EIR for the Kammerer Road/Highway 99 SOIA Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 6 of 30 ends

(“Kammerer SOIA EIR”), which directly addresses these County General Plan policies. (Kammerer SOIA EIR, p. 3.11-24.)2

In response to this comment, the FEIR may assert that these County policies are irrelevant here, or that the Project is consistent with County General Plan policies, because the Project would only be developed following annexation to the City. This position is without merit for at least two reasons. First, the reliance on future contemplated development to avoid General Plan Policies is exactly opposite to LAFCO’s approach in the Kammerer SOIA EIR, which asserted:

Table 3.11-2. Sacramento County General
Plan Consistency Analysis

LU-1 The County shall not provide urban
services beyond the Urban Policy Area
(UPA), except when the County
determines the need for health and safety
purposes and the extension provisions as
provided in Policy LU-1.1.

Consistent: The SOIA Area is currently
within the jurisdiction of the County of
Sacramento and is entirely outside of the
County’s General Plan UPA. However,
no land uses changes are proposed that
would require urban services.

LU-127 The County shall not expand the
Urban Service Boundary unless:
• There is inadequate vacant land within
the USB to accommodate the projected 25
year demand for urban uses; and
• The proposal calling for such expansion
can satisfy the requirements of a master
water plan as contained in the
Conservation Element; and
• The proposal calling for such expansion
can satisfy the requirements of the
Sacramento County Air Quality
Attainment Plan; and
• The area of expansion does not
incorporate open space areas for which
previously secured open space easements
would need to be relinquished; and
Consistent: The SOIA Area is currently
within the jurisdiction of the County of
Sacramento and is entirely outside of the
County’s General Plan USB. However,
no land uses changes are proposed that
would require expanding the USB.

2 The Kammerer SOIA EIR is available at:
https://saclafco.saccounty.gov/SphereofInfluenceInformation/Pages/KammererRoad- DEIR_Recirculated.aspx
Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 7 of 30 ends

• The area of expansion does not include
the development of important natural
resource areas, aquifer recharge lands or
prime agricultural lands;
• The area of expansion does not preclude
implementation of a Sacramento County-
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; OR
The Board approves such expansion by a
4/5ths vote based upon on finding that the
expansion would provide extraordinary
environmental, social or economic
benefits and opportunities to the County

In other words, LAFCO earlier asserted that the SOIA for an area outside of the UPA and USB was “consistent” with County policy LU-1 precisely because “no land use changes are proposed that would require expanding the USB.” Here, by contrast, such land use changes are proposed — but without disclosure of the factual findings required to justify urban development outside the UPA and USB. The DEIR at issue here, prepared pursuant to the City and LAFCO’s “co-lead agency” designation, conspicuously ignores compliance with County policies regarding the UPA and USB.

Second, and importantly, County General Plan policies are applicable to LAFCO’s approval of the SOIA because later prezoning (by the City) and annexation (by LAFCO) approvals are ostensibly separate discretionary actions that could later be denied by either or both entities. Thus, if LACO approves the SOIA but later denies annexation, the Project area would remain within the unincorporated County. Again, LAFCO’s earlier Kammerer SOIA EIR described how this very scenario meant that the County’s General Plan policies remained relevant for purposes of public disclosure:

If the SOIA is approved, if annexation is proposed and approved in the future, and if development is proposed and approved in the future, this would occur under the jurisdiction of Elk Grove. However, the SOIA Area is currently in unincorporated Sacramento County, and there would continue to be property in the unincorporated adjacent to the SOIA Area, even if there is development in the future. Therefore, County policies are presented for context.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 8 of 30 ends

(Kammerer SOIA EIR, p. 3.14-10, emphasis added.)3

If the FEIR asserts that County policies are somehow irrelevant and should not even be disclosed for LAFCO’s consideration of the requested SOIA, this would reverse LAFCO’s earlier position and thereby results from the unlawful “co-lead agency” designation.

A second example of prejudice resulting from the unlawful co-lead agency designation concerns the EIR’s attempt to whitewash the Project’s conflict with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (“NBHCP”). With respect to the NBHCP, LAFCO’s comment letter to the environmental consultant’s scope of work, dated October 20, 2021, explained:

Habitat Preservation – Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan – LAFCo notes that the biological resource evaluation should include an evaluation of impacts to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and other resource planning documents, and provide mitigation for any identified adverse effects consistent with the requirements of State and Federal regulatory authorities for impacts to special status species and sensitive habitats. Future development of the project could conflict with the assumptions regarding species, habitats, and preserves underlying the NBHCP’s conservation strategy.

(Exhibit 3, LAFCO comments on scope of work dated October 21, 2021, emphasis added.)

As will be explained more fully below, the DEIR — prepared nearly three years later — now takes the opposite approach by claiming the Project may make use of the NBHCP, which results in egregious informational deficiencies regarding the DEIR’s analysis of biological impacts and analysis of project alternatives. There is little doubt that this reversal would not have occurred if the DEIR had been prepared by LAFCO as the sole CEQA lead agency.

The minimum legal standard for an EIR is that it “reflect a good faith effort at full disclosure.” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 712.) The DEIR here is primarily a document of advocacy on behalf of the developer

3 Other comment letters explain that other County policies are ignored including the policy that development near an airport must be airport-related and County agricultural preservation policies.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 9 of 30 ends

and the City as de facto joint project applicants for the SOIA. The CEQA Guidelines are clear that in this instance LAFCO, as the lead agency for the SOIA, “shall subject the draft to the agency’s own review and analysis” in order to “reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15084, subd. (e).) The co-lead agency designation prevented this from occurring, as confirmed by the numerous substantive informational deficiencies described throughout this letter. The DEIR in no way reflects the independent judgment of LAFCO with respect to its consideration of the SOIA. The City and LAFCO’s unlawful “co-lead agency” designation will require preparation of an entirely new DEIR by LAFCO as the sole lead agency.

II. INADEQUATE PROJECT DESCRIPTION

An “accurate and stable project description” is a bedrock requirement of CEQA — the sine qua non (that without which there is nothing) of an adequate CEQA document:

Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.

(Inyo v. Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 192-93 [Inyo].)

The courts have consistently held that the ability of informed citizens to participate in environmental review is a key component of CEQA. (Washoe Meadows v. Dept. of Parks and Rec. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 277, 285 [“Informed public participation is essential to environmental review under CEQA.”]; Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 192 [“The EIR process facilitates CEQA’s policy of supplying citizen input.”].)

An interrelated bedrock CEQA principle of informed public participation is that all aspects of a proposed project, i.e., the “whole of the action,” must be analyzed in an EIR. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15378, subd. (a) [a project is the “whole of an action” which may result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment].) This requires an EIR to include analysis of “all phases of a project” and all “reasonably foreseeable consequences” of a project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126 [EIR’s impact analysis must consider all phases of a project]; Laurel Height Improvement Assn. v.

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 [Laurel Heights I] [EIR must analyze “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of a project].)

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 10 of 30 ends

The EIR violates these principles with respect to the so-called “non-participating” parcels 8, 9, 10, and 11, which total 83 acres, despite proposing to zone those parcels M-1 allowing industrial uses as a matter of right. (City Code section 17.220.110 M-1 zone — Permitted uses.) The DEIR purports to prepare “programmatic” review for these parcels.

However, programmatic review is not equivalent to no review, and it is not a license to sweep troublesome issues under the rug. More specifically, programmatic review does not relieve an agency from “us[ing] its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can” about a project, its impacts and foreseeable future projects. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15144; Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection (2008) 44 Cal.4th 459, 503 [“In the present case, there is no indication that analysis of planning watershed assessments was infeasible under the principles of tiering cited above, i.e., that the lack of specific details about Pacific Lumber’s projected activities made it infeasible to do individual watershed planning analysis”]; Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376 [EIR must analyze “reasonably foreseeable consequence” of a project].)

Our Supreme Court’s decision in Laurel Heights I provides important guidance here. In Laurel Heights I, the University of California (“UC”) relied on feigned ignorance about its future plans to use a portion of a building in order to avoid adequate analysis of that future use in its EIR. The court saw through UC’s ruse, explaining:

The draft EIR acknowledged that UCSF will occupy the entire Laurel Heights facility when the remainder of the space becomes available. In response to public inquiry as to plans for the facility, UCSF explained that it intends to use the facility for the School of Pharmacy’s basic science group and UCSF’s Office of the Dean. The EIR even estimated the number of faculty, staff, and students that will occupy the facility until 1995 (a total of 460 persons) and then afterward when the entire facility becomes available (860 persons). Under the standard we have announced, it is therefore indisputable that the future expansion and general type of future use is reasonably foreseeable . . . .

The Regents’ contention is only that they have not formally decided precisely how they will use the remainder of the building. That argument is beside the point. They have admitted that they intend to use the entire facility, and, in light of the record before us, it is reasonably foreseeable that the facility will be used primarily for the School of Pharmacy, more specifically, as a biomedical research facility . . . .

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 11 of 30 ends

In short, there is telling evidence that the University, by the time it prepared the EIR, had either made decisions or formulated reasonably definite proposals as to future uses of the building. At a minimum, it is clear that the future expansion and the general types of future activity at the facility are reasonably foreseeable.

(Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at 396-397, emphasis added.)

The DEIR purports to rely on so-called “programmatic” review to avoid disclosing some of the Project’s most politically-troublesome impacts. As in Laurel Heights I, a reviewing court here will likely not be persuaded by the City and LAFCO’s manufactured uncertainty about development of the “non-participating” parcels. Indeed, the DEIR engages in an internally inconsistent approach to its “programmatic” review of these parcels by including impacts associated with the “non-participating” parcels only when doing so does not trigger a troublesome significant impact.

A. The DEIR Fails to Disclose Water Features on Parcel 8 That are Relevant to Giant Garter Snake Impacts

The DEIR does not even disclose certain baseline conditions for the “non- participating” parcels. DEIR Figure 4.4-3 purports to delineate aquatic resources for the Project site, and wholly excludes any delineation for the “non-participating” parcels, including Parcel 8, for no discernable reason. This issue of impacts to aquatic resources is particularly sensitive since the City and LAFCO are well aware that giant garter snake (“GGS”) makes use of channels and ditches in that area as habitat components. Parcel 8, in particular, is hydrologically connected to Fisherman’s Lake via such aquatic resources.

Fisherman’s Lake is important historically for GGS and important to abutting created preserves to protect GGS. The DEIR’s failure to disclose any aquatic resources associated with parcel 8 is an informational deficiency because it minimizes the Project’s significant impacts to GGS. This attempted obfuscation is misguided because the water features in the area are well documented. (See Figure 3-17, “Suitability of Habitat in the Canals of the Natomas Basin for Giant Gartersnake in 2022”)4 The canal adjacent to parcel 8 is identified in the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s 2022 annual report as “suitable habit” for GGS. The City and LAFCO’s attempt to rely on “programmatic” CEQA review to conceal aquatic features on parcel 8 that provide habitat for GGS falls well below CEQA’s standard of good faith full disclosure.

4 See Exhibit 4, Natomas Basin Conservancy 2022 Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report for the Natomas Basin HCP Area.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 12 of 30 ends

B. The DEIR Assumes Zero Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Parcel 8 with the Effect of Minimizing the Project’s Cancer Risk to Residents and Children

The EIR assumes no operational toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions from parcel 8 — the parcel closest to sensitive receptors — despite prezoning that parcel for industrial allowing “warehouse; distribution center” as a matter of right. The EIR’s failure to assign any TAC emissions for this parcel is conspicuous in light of the DEIR’s modeled health risk of 9.53 increased cancer risks resulting from TAC emissions at the nearest sensitive receptor. (DEIR, p. 3.14-10.)5 The City and LAFCO assigned no TAC emissions from this parcel because including such emissions would result in a significant human health risk to adjacent residents and school children. This attempt to conceal significant human health risks to school children is inexcusable.

Rather than include parcel 8’s TAC emissions for purposes of assessing the Project’s human health risks, the DEIR feigns ignorance in order to justify adopting a mitigation measure requiring a future stand-alone health risk applying a significance standard of 10 increased cancer risks. (DEIR, p. 4.3-56; mitigation measure 4.3 – 3.) Thus, if parcel 8’ “individual” health risk to residents is also 9.53, that would also be considered significant — and thus requiring no mitigation — even though the total cancer risk to residents would be 9.53 (parcel 8) + 9.53 (Project) = 19.06 increased cancer risks.

By feigning ignorance and thereby piecemealing the Project’s TAC emissions, the resulting total human health risks to residents and school children is swept under the rug.

This is inexcusable.

C. The DEIR Takes the Opposite Approach by incorporating Parcel 8 Impacts When Doing So Does Not Result in a Significant Impact

The FEIR will likely assert that the City and LAFCO lack sufficient information to quantitively disclose the TAC emissions from parcel 8. Not so. The DEIR is able to incorporate emissions from the “non-participating” parcels when doing so would keep the resulting impact less than significant. There are a few examples of this.

First, the DEIR incorporated criteria air emissions form “non-participating” parcels for purposes of assessing health risk — because the resulting impacts was less than significant:

5 One type of human health impact resulting from TAC emissions is increased cancer risk, and the significance threshold is 10 increased cancer risks.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 13 of 30 ends

Table 4.3-12 presents the health risks associated with operational criteria pollutant emissions resulting from implementation of the proposed project, including future development of the non-participating parcels. . . . Such numbers represent a minute increase over the background level of asthma- related emergency room visits (0.01 percent and 0.03 percent, respectively).

(DEIR, p. 4.3-54.)

Thus, the DEIR was somehow able to model the “non-participating” parcels’ air emissions for purposes of assessing the Project’s health impacts — when including these emissions did not result in a significant human health impact. The same strategy was followed in the DEIR’s assessment of operational noise impacts, which purported to include operational noise from the “non-participating” parcels. The DEIR states:

Saxelby predicted operational noise levels from only the industrial park portion of the project, as well as the full buildout of the project site, including the nonparticipating parcels. To predict noise levels from operational noise, Saxelby used the SoundPLAN noise prediction model to calculate noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors. Inputs to the model included loading dock noise and on-site vehicle circulation noise associated with the warehouses and the commercial uses.

(DEIR, p. 4.10-14, emphasis added; see also DEIR, p. 4.10-19 [“Saxelby also estimated operational noise levels generated by the future development of the nonparticipating parcels to assess operational noise associated with full buildout of the annexation area.”], p. 4.10-20, DEIR Appendix J.) The DEIR thus finds that the impact from operational noise, which includes noise modeling for the “non-participating parcels,” would be less significant with construction of a noise wall. (DEIR, p. 4.10-23.)

In short, the EIR incorporates impacts from “non-participating parcels” when doing so does not result in disclosing a significant and unavoidable impact. When including “non-participating parcel” emissions would likely result in a significant and unavoidable impact — particularly human health impacts to residents and school children — the DEIR conspicuously separates out such emissions. This is precisely the type of shifting and inconsistent project description that violates CEQA. (Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d at 193 [“An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR”].)

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 14 of 30 ends

III. THE DEIR FAILS AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT WITH

RESPECT TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS

Other commenters, including expert comments by Shawn Smallwood (Exhibit 2) have explained in detail the DEIR’s failure to analyze in good faith the Project’s impacts to biological resources, including species and habitat addressed by the NBHCP. Those comments do not need to be repeated here. Rather, this comment focuses on the informational deficiency resulting from the DEIR’s failure to disclose — and even affirmative misrepresentations regarding — the NBHCP’s relevance to this Project.

As part of its analysis of impacts, an EIR must disclose related environmental review and consultation requirements of other jurisdictions, and integrate these related requirements into CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15124, subd. (d)(1)(C); see Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2017) 2 Cal.5th 918, 936 [Banning Ranch].) Thus, agencies are encouraged to consult with responsible agencies before and during preparation of an EIR so that the document will meet the needs of all the agencies which will rely on it. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15006, subd. (g); Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at 936.) Such information is not only necessary for analysis of environmental impacts, but also project alternatives and mitigation measures. (Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at 937.) Failing to discuss other regulatory and permitting regimes with authority over the project violates the information disclosure requirements of CEQA and is a prejudicial error depriving the public of a full understanding of a project. (Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at 942.) The coordination between lead agencies and other permitting authorities “serves the laudable purpose of minimizing the chance the [lead agency] will approve the Project, only to have later permits for the project denied . . . .” (Cal. Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 642.)

Banning Ranch is instructive. There, the lead agency failed to identify potential environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) and analyze the impacts of the project on those areas, which are governed by the Coastal Commission under the Coastal Act. (Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at 935-936.) Doing so undermined the EIR as an informational document. (Id. at 941-942.) The DEIR’s analysis here is worse. Although the majority of the Project site is outside the NBHCP’s permit area, the DEIR fails to acknowledge that the Project would (or at least may) require state and federal Incidental Take Permits by falsely claiming that it could make use of the NBHCP to mitigate biological resource impacts. This is simply untrue. The NBHCP plainly states:

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 15 of 30 ends

Annexation Requests and Potential Expansion of Sphere of Influence . . .

The sphere of influence is currently co-terminus with the city limits in the Natomas Basin. If eventually requested by the City and approved by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), the City’s sphere of influence could be expanded. However, no coverage for this expanded area is provided under the NBHCP.

(Exhibit 5, NBHCP, p. III-15.)

The NBHCP implementation agreement (“NBHCP IA”) is in accord, and provides greater detail:

3.1.1 Limitation on Total Development in Natomas Basin and Individual Permit Areas. The NBHCP anticipates and analyzes a total of 17,500 acres of Planned Development in the Natomas Basin, 15,517 acres of which constitutes Authorized Development within CITY and SUTTER. (An additional 1,983 acres of development is allocated to the Metro Air Park project in Sacramento County under the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan and is analyzed within the NBHCP.) CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B to this Agreement). SUTTER agrees not to approve more than 7,467 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to SUTTER’s Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit C to this Agreement). The Parties further agree:
(a) Because the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program is based upon CITY limiting total development to 8,050 acres within the CITY’s Permit Area, and SUTTER limiting total development to 7,467 acres within SUTTER’s Permit Area, approval by either CITY or SUTTER of future urban development within the Plan Area or outside of their respective Permit Areas would constitute a significant departure from the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program. Thus, CITY and SUTTER further agree that in the event this future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development, and/or Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 16 of 30 ends

possible suspension or revocation of CITY’s or SUTTER’s Permits in the event the CITY or SUTTER violate such limitations.

(Exhibit 6, NBHCP Implementation Agreement, § 3.1.1, emphasis added.)

To the extent there is any confusion regarding the above (there is not), the Final EIR for the NBHCP further explains:

3.1.4.4 Effect on the NBHCP of Future Development Outside the Permit Areas

As stated in the NBHCP, the conservation program and ITPs provide incidental take coverage for the cumulative development of 17,500 acres of Planned Development within the City, Sutter County, and the MAP Permit Areas in the Natomas Basin. As the NBHCP and EIR/EIS explain and for the reasons described above, development activities on unincorporated lands outside of the City, Sutter County, and MAP portion of Sacramento County are not addressed in the NBHCP and do not receive incidental take authorizations based upon this NBHCP (see Draft NBHCP pages I-5 to I-7, I-11; Draft EIR/EIS page 2-2). The Operations Conservation Program proposed in the NBHCP is effective in compensating for the effects of incidental take associated with 17,500 acres of Planned Development when considered with the 7,267 acres of development which occurred in the Basin prior to 1997. Thus, 24,767 acres of urban development is contemplated in the Natomas Basin by the NBHCP. The NBHCP does not address more than 17,500 acres of Planned Development because it is unknown whether the NBHCP would remain effective in mitigating for effects beyond 17,500 acres. The analyses conducted in support of the NBHCP demonstrate that the Operating Conservation Program is effective with up to 24,767 acres of past, present, and future urban development in the Basin. Thus, the effectiveness of the NBHCP is dependent on limiting Planned Development to 17,500 acres of development. If future development proposals were to proceed, or developers were to seek annexation to the City of Sacramento for purposes of developing their projects, such proposals would be considered outside of the scope of the NBHCP. These proposals would represent a significant departure from the Operating Conservation Program, which would trigger a new analysis and a separate HCP or amendment to the NBHCP. At this time, however, such development is unable to proceed because the City and Sacramento County have not completed the Joint Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 17 of 30 ends

Vision planning effort. Moreover, Resolution 2001-518 precludes certain development proposals from proceeding until a comprehensive annexation program is developed for the Basin.

Because a comprehensive annexation program for the remainder of the Natomas Basin has not been established, over 26,000 acres currently remain available within the Natomas Basin for their potential acquisition as Mitigation Lands. If the NBHCP is approved and ITPs are issued, TNBC may consider these areas as potential Mitigation Lands, to the extent landowners are willing to sell their property. The effectiveness of the NBHCP depends on the availability of such lands, as well as the potential availability of lands in Area B outside the Basin. The NBHCP contemplates that these lands will continue to be available for Mitigation Land acquisition. As such, in the event that the Joint Vision planning process were to result in a change in the City’s SOI or other development were to proceed outside of the City’s and Sutter County’s Permit Areas, these changes would be viewed as a change in the NBHCP’s Operating Conservation Program. These changes would, therefore, require an amendment to the NBHCP or a separate HCP for the development of such areas, as described in the NBHCP and further discussed in Master Response 3 (Joint Vision).

(Exhibit 7, NBHCP FEIR, pp. 3-34 – 35, emphasis added.)

Finally, it is noted that Sacramento County submitted detailed comments raising this very issue in response to the NOP, which were simply ignored in the DEIR. Again, this misleading information about the NBHCP and dismissive treatment of the County’s comments regarding the NBHCP would not have occurred if the DEIR had been prepared by LAFCO as the sole CEQA lead agency.

In light of the above authorities, there is no legitimate question that the NBHCP cannot be used to mitigate for biological resources for the majority of the Project. The DEIR’s contrary claim is false and misleading and, at minimum, “deprived [the public] of a full understanding of the environmental issues raised” by the Project. (Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at 942.) Even if there is some possibility that the NBHCP can be modified to mitigate the Project’s biological impacts by, for example, “reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy,” the success of any such process is by no means guaranteed, as the DEIR concedes, and so must address that uncertainty by disclosing how the Project would address biological impacts without reliance on the Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 18 of 30 ends

NBHCP vis-à-vis “a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development.” (NBHCP IA, § 3.1.1.)

IV. THE DEIR FAILS AS AN INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENT REGARDING

AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS AND RESULTING HUMAN HEALTH

IMPACTS

As described above, the DEIR inexplicably assumes zero TAC emissions associated with parcel 8. This is evidence of an unstable project description as described above, and is also an informational failure with respect to air quality impacts. In addition to TAC emissions, the DEIR fails as an informational document by failing to adequately address the human health impacts associated with the Project’s contribution to ultrafine particulate (“UFP) emissions.

As explained in the expert comments by Dan Smith, the Project will increase auto and heavy-truck trips along I-5, including increased vehicle queuing and resulting vehicle braking. (Exhibit 1.) This will exacerbate UFP emissions. (Exhibit 8 [“Very fine and ultrafine iron, nickel, copper, and zinc were identified as vehicular, with the most probable sources being brake drums and pads and the lubrication oil additive zinc thiophosphate . . . The braking systems of cars and trucks must now be considered along with direct exhaust emissions in estimating the health impacts from traffic.”].) The DEIR fails as an informational document by not adequately analyzing the human health impacts of increased UFP emissions on nearby sensitive receptors including the Westlake neighborhood and Paso Verde school.

The human health impacts resulting from UFP emissions are very real, and include:

o Early heart attacks from ultra-fine metals from the upwind braking, o Increases in cancer from diesels exhaust . . .
o High rates of childhood asthma
o Rapid and permanent loss of lung function in children from ultra-fine metals, with 18 year olds having the lung function of 70 year olds.

(Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11.)

These health impacts, and others, are documented in several peer-reviewed technical studies. (Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11.) A peer-reviewed study entitled, “Prenatal Air Pollution and Newborns’ Predisposition to Accelerated Biological Aging” found that mothers “with higher residential exposure to PM2.5 . . . gave birth to newborns with Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 19 of 30 ends

significantly lower telomere length [a maker for biological aging] that could not be explained by other factors.” (Exhibit 10.) Another peer-reviewed study found that health impacts, including mortality, can be correlated to UFP exposure. (Exhibit 8.)

Notwithstanding the serious health impacts resulting from UFP emissions that would be exacerbated by the Project, the DEIR merely mentions UFP emissions and some of the potential health risks from exposure:

“Ultrafine particles (UFP),” are very, very small particles (less than 0.1 micrometers in diameter) largely resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels, meat, wood, and other hydrocarbons. While UFP mass is a small portion of PM2.5, their high surface area, deep lung penetration, and transfer into the bloodstream could result in disproportionate health impacts relative to their mass. UFP is not currently regulated separately, but is analyzed as part of PM2.5.
. . .

PM10, PM2.5, and UFP include primary pollutants, which are emitted directly to the atmosphere and secondary pollutants, which are formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions among precursors. Generally speaking, PM2.5 and UFP are emitted by combustion sources like vehicles, power generation, industrial processes, and wood burning, while PM10 sources include the same sources plus roads and farming activities.

Fugitive windblown dust and other area sources also represent a source of airborne dust. Long-term PM pollution, especially fine particles, could result in significant health problems including, but not limited to, the following: increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways, coughing or difficulty breathing; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic respiratory disease in children; development of chronic bronchitis or obstructive lung disease; irregular heartbeat; heart attacks; and increased blood pressure.

(DEIR, p. 4.3-5.) This cursory listing of health impacts, which does not even distinguish between the health risks from PM10, PM2.5 and UFP, is inadequate. The California Supreme Court has held that an EIR must correlate air emissions to human health effects if it is feasible to do so. (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502 [Sierra Club].) Sierra Club addressed a challenge to an EIR’s air quality discussion that, as here, simply listed various health conditions with no attempt to correlate those impacts to air emissions. The court explained:

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 20 of 30 ends

The EIR’s discussion of health impacts of the named pollutants provides only a general description of symptoms that are associated with exposure to the ozone, particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NOx), and the discussion of health impacts regarding each type of pollutant is at most a few sentences of general information. The disclosures of the health effects related to PM, CO, and sulfur dioxide fail to indicate the concentrations at which such pollutants would trigger the identified symptoms.

(Id. at 519, emphasis added.)

The same defect identified in Sierra Club applies with equal force here. Since the Project will exacerbate UFP emissions, the DEIR must correlate those increased UFP emissions to human health impacts if it is feasible to do so. If it is not feasible to correlate UFP emissions to health impacts, the DEIR must plainly state so and support that conclusion with substantial evidence.

V. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY DISCLOSE POTENTIALLY

SIGNIFICANT HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS RESULTING FROM

CONSTRUCTION NOISE

The EIR fails to consider, much less analyze, whether construction noise will result in health impacts to nearby residents. Although acknowledging that construction would “conservatively range from 64 to 78 dB” at the adjacent school and nearby residences, the DEIR relies on the absence of a City standard to dismiss the significance of this impact. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16.)6 CEQA prohibits agencies from relying on the absence of a relevant significance standard to minimize a potentially significant impact. (Visalia Retail, LP v. City fo Viaslia (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 1, 13 [Visalia Retail] [agency may not deploy thresholds of significance to foreclose consideration of substantial evidence supporting fair argument of significant impact]; Visalia Retail, supra, 20 Cal.App.5th at 13 [An EIR must analyze every issue for which the record contains substantial evidence supporting a “fair argument” of significant impact].)

6 Consistent with the strategy of relying on “co-lead agency” designation to conceal impacts, the DEIR generally notes more strict County noise standards, but tellingly does not apply those standards in the impacts analysis. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16.) Again, If the SOIA is approved but the annexation denied, then development within the Project area would be governed by County standards.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 21 of 30 ends

CEQA requires an EIR to “identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project . . . examin[ing] changes in the existing physical condition in the affected area,” including “health and safety problems caused by the physical changes.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (a).) This section “also suggests that a connection be drawn between . . . potential project emissions and human health impacts.

Such a connection would meet CEQA’s requirements.” (Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at 520.) The DEIR completely ignores the potential health impacts to nearby neighbors resulting from the Project’s construction noise. This omission makes it impossible to determine whether the Project’s noise levels would create these health impacts, especially the non-auditory effects. The California Supreme Court addressed the need to correlate air emissions to human health conditions in Sierra Club, supra, 6 Cal.5th at page 516:

(Id. at 519, emphasis added.)

Recent case law clarifies that the duty to correlate emissions to health impacts applies to noise. (Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86, 107-108.) Several studies describe numerous health impacts from exposure to noise. The World Health Organization notes that indirect effects include impacts to stress hormones, blood pressure, muscle spasms, annoyance, sleep disturbance, mental health, ability to read and concentrate, and trouble with memory and attention. (Exhibit 12, World Health Organization, Children and Noise: Children’s Health and the Environment (2009) [“Children and Noise”].) Exposure to noise levels greater than 70 dBA causes “increases in vasoconstriction, heart rate and blood pressure.” (Exhibit 12, Children and Noise, pdf p. 24.) A different study found that “noise levels measured in this study are of sufficient intensity to be injurious. For example, a 5-dB(A) increase in noise level between 45 and 65 dB(A) has been associated with 38 percent increased odds for hypertension even after control for several well-known risk factors.” (Exhibit 13, King et al., The New York Academy of Medicine, Noise Levels Associated with Urban Land Use (2012), p. 1028.) A recent study demonstrates that even short-term exposure to construction noise at levels as low as 55 dB can have negative cardiovascular impacts. (Exhibit 14.) Yet another study indicates that noise levels of 64 –75 dB increase the likelihood of cognitive Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 22 of 30 ends

impairment in children by 50 percent and also causes a 1.36 percent chance of myocardial infarction in people 60 – 64 years old. (Exhibit 15.)

Here, the EIR acknowledges that residents and school children will be exposed to noise in the range of 64 to 78 dB. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16.) Other comments explain how the DEIR fails to define “short term.” Setting that aside, the above-referenced studies indicate reveal that human health impacts may occur as a result of “short term” exposure.

The DEIR’s attempt to dismiss the impact by claiming noise will only occur during “daytime hours” is cold comfort to the approximately 900 students at the Paso Verde school trying to concentrate on their studies.

The DEIR’s reliance on the absence of a City standard for construction noise fails to address whether construction noise may result in human health impacts at noise levels predicted to result from the Project’s construction. The DEIR therefore fails as an informational document regarding the impact of construction noise on human health.

VI. THE EIR FAILED TO ANALYZE A REASONABLE RANGE OF

ALTERNATIVES

A. The EIR’s Project Objectives are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence and Manipulated to Avoid Otherwise Feasible Project Alternatives

A CEQA lead agency’s project objectives must be supported by substantial evidence. (Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1299-1300.) Further, agencies may not manipulate project objectives in order to exclude otherwise feasible alternatives. (North Coast Rivers Alliance v.

Kawamura (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 669.) The DEIR here includes several project objectives that are not supported by substantial evidence and are otherwise manipulated in order to exclude from consideration otherwise feasible project alternatives. To wit:

1. Utilize a targeted municipal service review to amend the City’s Sphere of Influence, 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. • This is a manipulated objective because it arbitrarily excludes any site that does not require a SOIA and/or annexation. Indeed, this objective is inconsistent with LAFCO policies disallowing a SOIAor Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 23 of 30 ends

annexation where adequate land is available within the existing sphere of influence urban service boundary and/or city limits.

2. Utilize a targeted municipal service review to amend the Sphere of Influence of the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) to provide wastewater services to the project site.
• This is a manipulated objective because arbitrarily excludes any site that does not require a SOIA and/or annexation. Indeed, this objective is inconsistent with LAFCO policies disallowing a SOIA or annexation where adequate land is available within the existing sphere of influence urban service boundary and/or city limits.

3. 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.
• Many other locations can address this objective, particularly since it does not define “surrounding areas.”

4. Provide light industrial and warehousing opportunities closer to the City of Sacramento developed areas, thereby lowering local and regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic congestion.
• This objective is not supported by substantial evidence since there is presently a surplus of vacant warehouses in the City. Further, this objective is manipulated in order to exclude otherwise feasible alternatives. As explained in this letter, the Project site is located too close to “existing developed areas.” Indeed, the California Air Resources Board transmitted a comment letter regarding a similar proposed warehousing project expressing concern about the project’s proximity to a residential neighborhood, stating, “The proposed warehouse building will be located approximately a half a mile from the Stockton community. . . . CARB is concerned about localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the Project’s regional air quality impacts.” 7 Here, by contrast, the Project is approximately 200 feet from a residential neighborhood and elementary school. Locating a warehouse project “as near as possible” is not a legitimate project objective.

7 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/CEQA%20Comments%20- %20TC%20NO.%20CAL%20Development%20Warehousing%20and%20Distribution% 20Facility%20Project%20-%203.1.2022.pdf
Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 24 of 30 ends

5. Provide retail, commercial, and hotel uses along the I-5 corridor in close proximity to Sacramento International Airport.
• This objective is not supported by substantial evidence since the DEIR does not establish there is a need for these uses at this location and, if there is, vacant land for these uses exists in the North Natomas Community Plan.

6. Attract new businesses and jobs to the City, thereby improving the jobs/housing balance both in the City and the region.
• This objective is supported by an off-site location located elsewhere in “the region.”

7. Construct an industrial park that incorporates energy efficiency and low water use.
• This objective can be satisfied by off-site alternatives that do not require a SOIA and annexation. Further, the City has many environmental goals and the Project is not consistent with many of them.

8. Utilize alternative energy sources, including solar panels, where feasible.
• This objective can be satisfied by a project of any type in any location.

9. Locate the project as near as possible to existing developed areas and utility infrastructure with anticipated capacity.
• This objective is manipulated in order to exclude otherwise feasible alternatives and not supported by substantial evidence. As explained in this letter, the Project site is located too close to “existing developed areas.” Indeed, the California Air Resources Board transmitted a comment letter regarding a similar proposed warehousing project expressing concern about the project’s proximity to a residential neighborhood, stating, “The proposed warehouse building will be located approximately a half a mile from the Stockton community . . . CARB is concerned about localized air pollutant exposure at the neighborhood level, as well as the Project’s regional air quality impacts.” Here, by contrast, the Project is approximately 200 feet from a residential neighborhood and Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 25 of 30 ends

elementary school. Locating a warehouse project “as near as possible” is not a legitimate project objective.

10. 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.
• This objective is manipulated to avoid consideration of a no- development or off-site alternative. An internal roadway network is not required if the project is not developed.

11. Phase project construction to be responsive to market demands. • This is a manipulated project objective that is not supported by substantial evidence. Further, this objective can be satisfied at any location.

12. Minimize environmental impacts to surrounding areas, including residential communities and other sensitive land uses.
• The DEIR fails to explain how this is a project objective. Rather, this describes a lead agency’s duty under CEQA.

In sum, the DEIR’s project objectives are clearly manipulated in order to justify finding that any alternative other than the Project is infeasible.

B. The DEIR Cannot Dismiss Project Alternatives That Satisfy Most Project Objectives

An EIR must provide “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) To explore ways for a project to meet as many goals as possible while protecting the environment, EIRs thus must evaluate alternatives that accomplish “most” basic objectives. (Id.; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1353.) Alternatives warrant study in the EIR process if they can reduce or avoid impacts and are “potentially feasible.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.6 (a), (c), (f); Watsonville Pilots Association v City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1087 [Watsonville Pilots].) As to whether an EIR has analyzed an adequate range of reasonable alternatives, “[e]ach case must be evaluated on its facts . . . in light of the statutory purpose.” (Watsonville Pilots, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at 1086.)

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 26 of 30 ends

Feasible alternatives are allowed to “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or . . . be more costly.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6 (b).) An “alternative that is potentially feasible should not be excluded from an EIR simply because it may not further all of the agency’s policy objectives.” (Watsonville Pilots, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at 1087.) Watsonville Pilots found legal error when a draft EIR failed to evaluate a reduced development because it failed to meet two of twelve objectives: “The City’s argument on this issue is premised on its claim that no discussion of an alternative is required if that alternative would not meet a project objective. This premise is mistaken.” (Ibid.)

Here, the DEIR claims that it analyzed potentially feasible off-site alternatives.

That is clearly false since at least two feasible offsite locations are wholly ignored, which include the Sutter Pointe Specific Plan8 and McClellan Park9. Both of these sites would satisfy most of the Project’s objectives (at least those that were not manipulated in order to exclude any offsite alternative) and do not require SOIA, annexation or any amendments to the NBHCP. CEQA requires consideration of these alternatives based upon newly-formulated project objectives.

C. The DEIR’s Failure to Accurately Address the NBHCP Taints the Alternatives Analysis

As explained above, the DEIR fails to adequately address in good faith the relevance of the NBHCP and how the Project will comply with significant impacts to special-status species. The Banning Ranch decision explains that this deficiency is not limited to the DEIR’s biological impacts analysis. Rather, it also means that the analysis of project alternatives is defective:

The Guidelines specifically call for consideration of related regulatory regimes, like the Coastal Act, when discussing project alternatives. An EIR must “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,” or to its location, that would “feasibly attain” most of its basic objectives but “avoid or substantially lessen” its significant effects. (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) Among the factors relevant to the feasibility analysis are “other plans or regulatory limitations, [and] jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context).” (Id., subd. (f)(1).) . . . Thus, the regulatory limitations imposed by the Coastal

8 https://www.suttercounty.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3020/ 637746501977470000
9 https://www.mcclellanpark.com/about/mcclellan-park
Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 27 of 30 ends

Act’s ESHA provisions should have been central to the Banning Ranch EIR’s analysis of feasible alternatives.

(Banning Ranch, supra, 2 Cal.5th at 936-937, emphasis added.)

The same analysis applies here with respect to the regulatory limitations imposed by the NBHCP. Indeed, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) comments on the NOP expressly requested this analysis, stating in relevant part:

The Project is within the boundaries of the NBHCP and adjacent to the boundary of the MAP HCP. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(d) states that EIRs must discuss any inconsistencies between projects and applicable plans (including habitat conservation plans/natural community conservation plans). Because the NBHCP and MAP HCP are currently in
implementation, CDFW recommends that the EIR include a discussion of each Project alternative’s consistency with the NBHCP and MAP HCP and how the City will ensure that implementation of the Project alternatives do not impede the City’s ability to meet the NBHCP’s or MAP HCP’s permit conditions and biological goals and measurable objectives. Particular focus in the EIR’s analysis should be directed to:

• Analysis of all NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species.
• Assessment of habitat types identified in the NBHCP and MAP HCP.
• Analysis of aquatic migratory corridors for giant garter snake. • Identification of applicable NBHCP and MAP HCP avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures.
• Analysis of any impacts to land commitments of the NBHCP and MAP HCP.
• Discussion of any inconsistencies between the Project and the NBHCP and MAP HCP.

To identify any potential inconsistencies with the NBHCP and MAP HCP and provide special emphasis on rare or unique resources in compliance with CEQA, CDFW recommends that the EIR also address the following:

• Project related impacts from developing up to 408 acres of non- habitat related development (or otherwise potentially incompatible land use) on the available ecosystem resources available for NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 28 of 30 ends

• Persistence of the NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species, critical for the success of both plans, includes sustaining the appropriate levels of habitat (foraging, nesting, dispersal, cover, etc.) to support all Covered Species within the NBHCP and MAP HCP boundaries. • Project related impacts from developing up to 408 acres of non- habitat related development (or otherwise potentially incompatible land use) adjacent to established or future reserve land managed under the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC).
• Reduction of available reserve land if the Project develops up to 408 acres for non-habitat uses. Note, reserve land described in the NBHCP and MAP HCP must meet both habitat value criteria and be sited with appropriate buffers and setbacks.
• The potential for the Project to cause financial impacts to The Natomas Basin Conservancy and feepayers under the NBHCP and MAP HCP.

(DEIR, Appendix B, CDFW letter dated April 4, 2022, pp. 9 – 10, emphasis added.)

As explained above, the DEIR provides demonstrably false and misleading information about the NBHCP. This is carried forward to the analysis of project alternatives, which assumes that the Project will be able to comply with the NBHCP through payment of a mitigation fee. The DEIR doubles down on its misleading discussion of the NBHCP by asserting that no project alternative would have a greater impact on NBHCP inconsistency than the Project. The DEIR engages in wholly unsubstantiated speculation either the no project alternative or a reduced-density alternative “would hinder the HCP’s ability to operate as compared to operations with the funds generated by the proposed project.” The DEIR provides no support whatsoever for its irresponsible suggestion that the Project is necessary to continue funding the conservation program.

* * *

The DEIR is fundamentally flawed as an informational document. An entirely new DEIR will need to be prepared for the Project with LAFCO as the sole lead agency.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 29 of 30 ends

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Very truly yours,

SOLURI MESERVE
A Law Corporation

By:

Patrick M. Soluri

Attachments:

Exhibit 1 Comments from Smith Engineering & Management
Exhibit 2 Comments from Shawn Smallwood, PhD
Exhibit 3 LAFCO Comments on Scope of Work dated October 21, 2021 Exhibit 4 Figure 3-17 from the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report 2022 Annual Survey Results prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy
Exhibit 5 Chapter 3 from the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Exhibit 6 Implementation Agreement for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan
Exhibit 7 Pages 3-34 and 3-35 from the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Exhibit 8 Cahill, T. A., Barnes, D. E., Spada, N. J., Lawton, J. A., and Cahill, T. M. (2010). Very Fine and Ultra-Fine Metals and Ischemic Heart Disease in the California Central Valley 1: 2003-2007. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 45:1123- 1134.

Exhibit 9 Cahill, T. A., Barnes, D. E., Withycombe, E., and Watnik, M. (2010).

Very Fine and Ultra-Fine Metals and Ischemic Heart Disease in the California Central Valley 2: 1-74-1991. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 45:1135- 1142.

Exhibit 10 Martens D.S., Cox B, Janssen, B.G., Clemente, D., Gasparrini, A., Vanpoucke, C, Lefebvre, W., Roles, H.A., Plusquin, M., Nawrot, T. S. (2017). Prenatal Air Pollution and Newborns’ Predisposition to Accelerated Biological Aging. JAMA Pediatr., 171(12):1160-1167.

Exhibit 11 Cahill, T. A., Barnes, D. E., Lawton, J.A., Miller, R., Nicholas, S., Willis, R.D., Kimbrough, S. (2016. Transition metals in coarse, fine, very fine and ultra-fine particles from an interstate highway transect near Detroit.

Atmos. Environ., 145:158-175.

Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
July 17, 2024

Page 30 of 30 ends

Exhibit 12 World Health Organization, Children and Noise: Children’s Health and the Environment (2009)
Exhibit 13 Gavin King, G., Roland-Mieszkowski, M., Jason, T., and Rainham, D.G. (2012). Noise Levels Associated with Urban Land Use. J Urban Health., 89(6):1017-30.

Exhibit 14 Mir, M., Nasirzadeh, F., Bereznicki, H., Enticott, P., Lee, S., Mills, A. (2023). Construction noise effects on human health: Evidence from physiological measures. Sustainable Cities and Society, 91: 104470.

Exhibit 15 Xiao, J., Li, X., Zhang, Z. (2016). DALY-Based Health Risk Assessment of Construction Noise in Beijing, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health.,13(11):1045.

EXHIBIT 1

July 16, 2024

Patrick M. Soluri
Soluri Meserve, A Law Corporation
510 8th Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814-1206

Subject: Airport South Industrial Project DEIR (SCH # 2022030181) P24003

Dear Mr. Soluri:

Per your request, I reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (the “DEIR”) for the Airport South Industrial Project (the “Project”) in the City of and the County of Sacramento (respectively the “City” and the “County”). My review is with respect to transportation and circulation considerations.

My qualifications to perform this review include registration as a Civil and Traffic Engineer in California, over 50 years professional consulting practice in these fields and both preparation and review of the traffic and transportation components of numerous environmental documents prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). My professional resume is attached hereto.

The DEIR Discloses That the Project Would Have a Significant Transportation Impact Involving Excessive VMT. However, It Defers Defining Specific Mitigation To The Time Of Application For Each Building Permit For Developments On The Project Site.

The DEIR finds that the Project’s industrial component would generate Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) at an average rate of 22.18 daily VMT per employee.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 2 ends

This is 28 percent above the VMT significant impact threshold which the DEIR sets at the regional average of 17.33 VMT per employee.1 As mitigation, the DEIR proposes that at the time of application for individual building permits for developments within the Project site, that the applicant would submit an individual VMT mitigation plan comprised of a selection from a series of measures, comprising a sufficient selection from Measures T-6 through T-13 drawn from the California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association (“CAPCOA”) publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, December 2021 edition. The mitigation plan as submitted at the time of building permit application would be subject to approval of officials of the City Public Works Department.

There are several flaws in this strategy.

• This is deferral of mitigation. Deferral of mitigation is improper under CEQA unless there are practical reasons why such deferral is necessary.

The DEIR offers no reasons for such a deferral.

• Deferral of mitigation takes the approval of a specific mitigation conditions outside of the CEQA process, deprives the public of the opportunity to review and comment on the adequacy of mitigation, eliminates the obligation of the City to respond to those comments and makes approval subject only to a private negotiation between the applicants’ representatives and Public Works staffers. Since the information in subsequent paragraphs herein make it apparent that actual full mitigation is unlikely on some if not all parcels in the Project, the DEIR must either propose additional and/or alternative mitigation strategies or disclose the VMT impact is significant and unavoidable. Defining necessary mitigation cannot be deferred to a private negotiation between Applicants and possibly sympathetic or complaisant Public Works staffers. The Project merits no compromises to full mitigation in private negotiation. The VMT significance criterion used – VMT per employee equal to baseline regional average - is already a compromise eased from the OPR2 recommended criterion of an average VMT per employee at 85 percent of baseline regional average per employee. This compromise is in recognition that industrial uses, particularly warehousing, are typically located away from

1 The City has no adopted significance threshold of VMT impacts for industrial use employee travel.The threshold assumed by the preparers happens to be consistent with the County’s threshold although the DEIR gives a different rationalization. Further discussion of the threshold itself is provided in a subsequent section herein.
2 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, the organization that manages CEQA and its Guidelines.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 3 ends

residential population centers to avoid conflicts and hence tend to have higher VMT per employee than other employment generating uses that can be located closer to residential neighborhoods.
• As demonstration of purported sufficiency of the proposed mitigation scheme, the DEIR relies on what it describes as a City Public Works Department memo that is bound in the DEIR Volume of Appendices as Appendix Q. Inspection of Appendix Q makes it apparent that it is not an official Public Works Department analysis memo but an advocacy document submitted to Public Works staffers by the Applicant/s attorneys asserting effectiveness of selection of mitigation measures from the list of CAPCOA T-6 through T-13. The fact that the DEIR describes the Applicant attorney’s document as a Public Works document should be an alarm bell for complaisance.
• The attorney who prepared the mitigation memo on behalf of the applicant presents no credentials as a qualified engineer or planner expert in the preparation and evaluation of Transportation Demand Management plans focused on VMT reductions.
• The naiveté or perhaps bias of the memo author is indicated by the facts that the author, in carrying out the computational procedures per the CAPCOA Handbook, always inserts the high end of the CAPCOA suggested effectiveness range of the candidate measure and always presumes that 100 percent of the Project’s employees would be able to participate in the measure. Neither of these assumptions are true for the uses involved in this Project nor the site location of the Project. Reasons for this are as follows:

1. Per Appendix O, Table 1, at least 78.7 percent of the industrial use in the Project would be warehousing. Some portion of the currently unspecified industrial use in the Project would likely also be warehousing. So the Industrial use in the Project could easily be comprised of 90 percent warehousing use or more. Modern warehousing, especially that related to e-commerce, tends to operate round-the-clock with three shifts. Where local delivery is involved. Drivers are often scheduled to report and depart on their routes at staggered times Because of the variability of difficulty in delivery of their daily loads and variability in traffic conditions, the time of their return to base is unpredictable. Some delivery drivers are also part-timers who pick up loads in the late afternoon and deliver them in their own vehicles. Because of these
considerations, Because of working night shifts times or shift staggering or variability, far less than 100 percent of employees can be considered as realistic participants in many of the recommended mitigation measures. Below we explain measure by measure.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 4 ends

2. CAPCOA Measure T-6 requires implementation of Measures T-7 through T-11. Its productivity is the sum of what can be achieved through implementing those 5 measures. The effectives of those measures is discussed in sections below.

3. Measure T-7 involves educating employees about their travel opportunities to the employment site including transit, pooling, bicycling, walking and other active transportation. The discussions which follow demonstrate why marketing those measures has little effect on the large percentage of employees who have no realistic or safe opportunity to travel to this site by those means.

4. Measures T-8 and T-11 involve carpooling and vanpooling. Few on the afternoon shift that departs for home near midnight or the night shift that reports near midnight are willing to be dropped off or meet at a darkened parking lot or roadside meeting point in the middle of the night. And delivery drivers who report at staggered times and whose return is unpredictable and those who use their own vehicles for deliveries cannot pool with anyone. So the candidates for participating in these measures are far less than 100 percent of the workforce; perhaps little more than 33 percent.

5. Measure T-9 involves subsidized or free transit passes. Again, people going off-shift and coming on-shift near midnight have no uses for discounted transit passes since most transit is inoperative at that time. Drivers who deliver with their own vehicles have no use for transit passes either and drivers whose shifts start after AM peak service frequencies have concluded and end well past the time when PM peak service frequencies have concluded and service terminations are beginning are unlikely to be motivated by subsidized or free fares. Then, there is the location factor, the first time we have addressed this. No existing transit lines have stops within reasonable walking distance of the Project. Hence, far less than 100 percent, probably less than 33 percent of all employees are likely to be motivated by subsidized or free transit passes.

6. Measure T-10 involves end-of-trip bicycle (and other active transportation) support facilities. Obviously, few if any of those on the evening or late night shifts will, for safety reasons, be willing to use bicycle or any form of active transportation at all. So again, only about one-third of the employee population could be influenced by this measure. In addition, the assessment of this measure must consider the site location. The Project site is located on the west rural/urban fringe of Sacramento. To the west of the Project site, there is about zero residential population within reasonable bicycling range of the site. To the east, because of its extreme westerly position with respect to the populated area, only a small portion of the Sacramento Metropolitan workforce lives Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 5 ends

within reasonable bicycling distance of the site. So it is improbable that as much of the workforce could be motivated to bicycle or travel by other forms of active transportation by this measure.3

7. Measure T-12 is an optional addition to the measures required by Measure T-6 and involves charging employees for workplace parking. For those on the evening and night shifts as well as the delivery drivers who have no realistic option to pool, use transit, bicycle or use other active transportation, they will just have to pay the parking fee. Only those on the day shift that have reasonable opportunity to pool, use transit or active transportation and are not already doing so will be motivated to do so by the fee. So the group susceptible to being induced to shift modes by this measure is likely considerably less than a third of the workforce. A key consideration for employers is that employees who have no good options other than driving and parking will be resentful of the fee, especially since other establishments will not be required to charge for parking. An unintended result of this measure is that employers may have difficulty hiring and retaining good people unless they undercut the fee measure by paying salaries higher than those at comparable employers who aren’t required to charge for parking.

8. Measure T-13 is called Employee Parking Cash-Out; that is, paying a bonus for employees not using employer supplied parking. The problem with this is the same as recited repeatedly above – a large percentage of the work force because of time-of-day
considerations and/or location of the Project site does not have reasonable opportunity to travel to/from work other than by single occupant auto means. Yet the applicant attorney’s computations assume 100 percent of the employees could be influenced by this measure.

9. Given all of the above, the conclusion of the applicant attorney’s computations and that of the DEIR which relies on it that the combination of CAPCOA measures suggested would result in the 22 percent reduction in overall VMT necessary to mitigate the impact to less than significant is undermined when it is realized that the whole of that reduction would have to come from the travel of the day-shift alone. In other words the day shift’s VMT would have to be reduced by about 66 percent, an implausible amount.

The DEIR’s Analysis of Queuing and Safety Impacts is Informationally Deficient

3 The CAPCOA handbook warns of the significance of site location, citing evidence that a certain measure that produces 4 percent reduction in an urban setting produces only 2 percent reduction in a suburban setting and zero in a rural setting. See Op. Cit., Appendix C, Table T -8.1.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 6 ends

The DEIR analyzes queuing at surface street intersections and freeway ramp terminus intersections in response to Impact Criterion 4.12-5 “Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use”. In this case, the geometric feature is queue storage length and the consideration is actual or projected queue length since queues exceeding the storage length can cause serious collisions, especially when there is a high speed differential between through traffic and those overspilling in queue. The DEIR analysis reveals that no queues exceeding queue storage capacity are caused by the Project in the Existing + Project Condition. However, in the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project Conditions, in the AM peak hour, Table 4.12-5 indicates the queues without the Project at the intersection of Del Paso Road with Northbound I-5 ramps would exceed the 1270 foot queue storage length4 by 635 feet for the Northbound Left and 575 feet for the Northbound Right.5 In the PM peak hour, these ramps are just at or below their storage capacity so there is no operational safety deficiency indicated. But for the Cumulative + Project Condition, as indicated on Table 4.12-6, the Project would, in the AM peak hour, cause the Northbound Left to exceed storage capacity by an additional 890 feet and the Northbound Right to exceed storage capacity by an additional 1115 feet. In the PM peak hour, adding Project traffic to the cumulative scenario at this location would cause the storage capacity of the Northbound Left to be exceeded for the first time in the PM peak, this by 840 vehicles. For the northbound right in this scenario, storage capacity is exceeded for the first time in PM peak, this by 940 feet. In addition to the above, Table 4.12-6 shows conditions at the Southbound I-5 ramps at Del Paso Road exceeding the short available queue storage for the first time by 55 feet, totally due to the Project.

DEIR Appendix N, page 31 states that a criterion of significant impact based on queuing is exceedance of storage capacity on freeway off-ramps. This is a conventional criterion because of the hazardous potential for high speed- differential collisions when queues on exit ramps extend beyond the gore point.

The EIR finds this criterion satisfied as described in the paragraph above.

However, the DEIR, claiming purported Caltrans guidance that is uncited, attests that, “the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to traffic safety, as the queues already spill back onto the mainline under the Cumulative condition, without the addition of project traffic.” It therefore concludes that “the project’s incremental contribution to significant cumulative impacts related to traffic safety would be less than cumulatively considerable under Cumulative with Project conditions.”

4 Normally measured from the ramp terminus intersection stop line to the gore point (the point where the exit ramp fully departs from the main line lane).
5 Here the directions are referenced by convention to the overall direction of the total length of I -5, though the layman might consider these as being westbound ramps.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 7 ends

This nonsensical finding is at conflict with stated conventional criterion of significance cited above.6 Because the authors failed to cite the purported “Caltrans Guidance”, we searched Caltrans records and identified a Caltrans internal memorandum dated 12-18-20 to Caltrans District Directors from Rachael Carpenter, Caltrans Chief Safety Officer, entitled Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1, Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance which we believe to be what the DEIR is purportedly referencing. The full memorandum is attached. Of particular relevance to this DEIR is its Appendix A which is reproduced here in part. “APPENDIX A–-FREEWAY QUEUING ANALYSIS
If the Project adds two or more car lengths to the ramp queue in the peak hour that will extend into the freeway mainline, then the location must be reviewed for traffic safety impacts which include a review for speed differential between the off‐ramp queue and the mainline of the freeway during the same peak hour.

The review for traffic safety impacts should be done to determine if traffic safety mitigation is necessary, not that it defaults to automatic traffic safety mitigation.

Traffic safety mitigation shall not be requested under conditions where queuing already exists on a freeway exit ramp. This includes:
• Conditions where freeway exit-ramp queuing currently spills back onto the mainline;
• Where queuing currently exceeds a freeway auxiliary lane length; or • Where freeway traffic volumes currently cause freeway exit ramp turning lanes to exceed capacity.

Traffic safety mitigation may be requested if freeway exit ramp queuing does not occur under the existing condition, but project-generated traffic volumes will cause a queue to exist onto the freeway mainline, creating a speed differential of 30 mph or greater. Speed differentials in congestion related rear-end collisions that are 30 mph or greater have shown the potential to increase severe injury and fatal injuries exponentially as the speed differential increases above the 30-mph speed differential2.

The speed differential should be determined by identifying the operating speed of the freeway mainline lanes during the peak hour that corresponds to the peak hour during which the ramp is expected to experience project‐related queue overflow. To determine the speed differential using a data-based approach, Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PEMS)

6 The primary DEIR author’s bias in attempting to avoid disclosure of impact is indicated in its description of the Project’s effect on off-ramp queues as “increase the already deficient 95th percentile queues by several car lengths” [emphasis added], implying a small number. In fact, the Project’s contributions to the northbound exit ramp cumulative queues range from about 45 vehicles to about 34 vehicles, not just a few vehicles.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 8 ends

data should be used to identify freeway operating speed(s) during the peak hour being analyzed.

If reliable PeMS data are not available at the subject location(s), other sources of speed data including location‐based data collection services from available sources could be used. If no reliable data can be obtained to determine speed differentials, then no traffic safety impact mitigation shall be requested.

If the speed differential between the mainline lane speeds and the ramp traffic is below 30 mph, the project would be considered to cause a less‐than‐significant safety impact and no traffic safety impact mitigation shall be requested.

If the speed differential is 30 mph or more, then there is a potential safety impact.”

We note that the document only exempts projects from further safety analysis and mitigation requirements only if existing traffic is spilling back past the gore point. The DEIR’s interpretation is flat wrong. The document does not exempt projects from further safety analysis where the project and other cumulative growth would cause traffic to exceed queue storage. Since queue storage on the subject off ramps is not exceeded in the existing condition, in order to be adequate, the DEIR must complete the requisite analysis described in the subject Caltrans memo.

The Queuing Problems the Project Intensifies Will Cause Weaving, Abrupt Lane Changes and Braking On I-5

The configuration on northbound I-5 approaching the Del Paso off ramps, the place where the DEIR discloses the most serious queuing problems occur in the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions I-5, is 3 through lanes and an auxiliary lane. The auxiliary lane begins at point the northbound on-ramp from Arena Boulevard meets the northbound through lanes and continues northward as an auxiliary lane for about 2000 feet, where it becomes an exclusive exit lane to the Del Paso ramps, extending about 450 feet7 to the gore point of those exit ramps. So traffic getting on northbound from Arena and intending to continue north on I-5 past Del Paso theoretically has about 2000 feet to merge over into the Number 3 through lane8 and vice versa for drivers in the thru lanes wanting to exit to Del Paso eastbound. Complicating things further, the Number 3 through thru lane also feeds the Del Paso exit ramp for cars intending to turn west on Del Paso.

7 Distances reported in this section, unless they were drawn from the DEIR, are inexact since they were measured using the “Ruler” tool and scale aerial maps available on Google Earth Pro. 8 By convention, lanes are numbered from left to right while facing in the direction of traffic.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 9 ends

In the AM peak, the data on Appendix N, Table 18 shows traffic exiting at Del Paso and wanting to turn right backing up 2960 feet. That is 1270 feet down the off ramp to the gore point, 450 feet on the part of the auxiliary lane marked Exit Only and back about another 1240 feet on the auxiliary lane. So northbound cars getting on at Arena will really have less than 800 feet to merge and transition into the Number 3 through lane and vice-versa for drivers intending to exit and turn right on Del Paso. But that that Number 3 thru lane also feeds the exit lane for traffic wanting to turn west on Del Paso. The data on Table 18 shows that traffic backing up the 1270 feet down the ramp to the gore point and 1525 feet further down the Number 3 thru lane. This means traffic from the Arena northbound on-ramp, after it merges into the Number 3 thru lane, will only have a few hundred feet to merge to the Number 2 lane to avoid being trapped in the exit queue in the Number 3 lane. What is predictable from this set of circumstances is extensive weaving maneuvers, abrupt lane changes, shock waves extending upstream and a tremendous amount of braking within a short segment of freeway.

The DEIR’s Treatment of Heavy Truck Traffic is Informationally Deficient

OPR guidance re the estimation of VMT9 includes the following statement:

“Vehicle Types. Proposed Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT). For an apples-to-apples comparison, vehicle types considered should be consistent across project assessment, significance thresholds, and mitigation.”

We understand from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (“SACOG”) documentation for its SACSIM-19 travel model that the DEIR relied upon in the transportation analysis includes a truck trip module. DEIR Appendix P (the VMT analysis) states at page 4 that “Consistent with OPR guidelines, only automobile trips are considered as a part of this analysis. Heavy-duty truck and delivery vehicle VMT as well as alternative mode VMT (transit vehicles) are not reflected.” So the question is, does this mean that the VMT analysis went the extra step of exercising special runs of SACSIM-19 without the truck module in spite of the fact that the above OPR guidance both parties acknowledge state it is acceptable to leave it in?

9 Technical Advisory on Estimating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018, page 4.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 10 ends

At Appendix O, page 4, after a lengthy discussion of heavy truck trip generation in the area, the document states: It is recommended that the heavy vehicle trip generation rates should be increased, and applied with a post-processor methodology to adjust the model estimates to reflect anticipated heavy vehicle travel volumes. Presumably this has happened in the trip distributions and traffic assignments described in Appendix N. But doesn’t this set up an apples-to- oranges comparison instead of the apples-to-apples one advised desirable in the OPR guidance above?

Furthermore, despite apparently overlaying heavy truck traffic atop the forecasts based on SACSIM-19, the transportation appendices give no indication of having converted the overlaid heavy truck volumes to passenger-car-equivalents.

Unless this was done but not reported, it makes the queue length safety and other operational analyses understate deficiencies. This must be rectified for the DEIR transportation analysis to be adequate.

The DEIR Fails to Disclose Whether Traffic From the “Non-Participating Parcels” Is Included In the Analysis

Appendix O, Table 4 shows a total of 12,794 industrial trips and Table 10 at pdf 2308, the Highway Commercial uses are indicated at 1,303 daily trips.

Combined, this is a total of 14,097 daily trips. Appendix N, Table 7, the daily trip total for both Industrial and Highway Commercial uses is 19,254 trips. Based on the fact that this total in Appendix N is a considerably higher number, it seems that only the applicants parcels while refining the trip generation rates and heavy truck shares as described in Appendix O but trips for the “non-participating parcels” were added in when the actual traffic assignments and related assessments were performed as described in Appendix N. But that is just conjecture. Please confirm whether or not traffic from the ‘non-participating parcels” was considered in the work documented in Appendix N and DEIR Section 4.12. Also, please confirm whether or not traffic from the “non- participating parcels” in other sections of the DEIR that involve traffic and transportation inputs.

The DEIR’s Presentation of Traffic Projections in a Format Understandable by the Lay Public Is Insufficient and in One Instance Not Logical

Residents of the neighborhoods east and southeast of the Project site are concerned about how future traffic from the subject Project and cumulative developments will affect the quality and livability of their neighborhoods. If the Public perseveres through the 2309 pages of the DEIR Volume of Appendices, they will find Appendix N, Figures 17 and 18, 21 and 22. These present respectively Baseline, Baseline + Project, Cumulative and Cumulative + Project daily traffic volume projections in a readily understandable map format.

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 11 ends

However, the figures fail to present the two most important pieces of information to the concerned residents – the traffic projections on Del Paso east of El Centro and those on El Centro south of Del Paso. Moreover, the traffic volumes shown on Figures 21 and 22 for the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project condition are in one case completely implausible. They indicate that the Project would cause cumulative traffic on El Centro to decrease from 20,750 vehicles per day to 18,810. The DEIR analysis must be modified to correct this obvious blunder and to supply absent traffic information on the key segments of El Centro and Del Paso mentioned above.

Residents of the neighborhoods to the east and southeast of the Project are concerned about what improvements the Project and other cumulative development may necessitate on El Centro. DEIR Appendix N defines the intersection of Del Paso and El Centro as requiring improvement to remedy projected operational deficiency in the Cumulative and Cumulative + Project conditions but defers identifying what those improvements are until preparation of what is described as the Project Phasing and Improvements Funding Plan.

Appendix N and a statement of a representative of the Applicant at the Planning Commission informational hearing on the Project referred to placement of a large traffic circle or channelization on Bayou Way at the east limits of the Project site so that heavy trucks (articulated tractor-trailer units as well as large single-unit vehicles) can be turned back from continuing easterly on Bayou. It is worth noting that any such feature must accommodate a full range of movements by fire vehicles including articulated aerial ladder or telescoping tower vehicles and large single unit vehicles known as “Quad-type” vehicles. Any circle or channelization designed to permit full movement of these fire vehicles will also accommodate the full movements of heavy trucks. Hence, any through truck bans on the easterly portion of Bayou will come police enforcement (probably spotty at best) rather than something self-enforced by a geometric feature or channelization. While these traffic design matters are considered to be outside the CEQA process, the DEIR should condition that representatives of the affected neighborhoods have a ‘seat at the table’ where these matters are negotiated.

Conclusion

This concludes my current comments on the Airport South Industrial Project DEIR. We are convinced that the VMT mitigations are inadequate for reasons stated in detail herein and the manner in which they will be conditioned is improper under CEQA and that the DEIR’s approach to VMT mitigation must be altered and recirculated for further review in draft status. We also would Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 12 ends

appreciate responses to our questions of fact and clarification since the responses may identify further deficiencies in the DEIR’s analysis of impacts.

Sincerely,

Smith Engineering & Management
A California Corporation

Daniel T. Smith Jr., P.E.

President
Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 13 ends

Mr. Patrick Soluri
Soluri Meserve
July 16, 2024

Page 14 ends

Transportation Centers. Project manager for Daly City Intermodal Study which developed a $7 million surface bus terminal, traffic access, parking and pedestrian circulation improvements at the Daly City BART station plus development of functional plans for a new BART station at Colma. Project manager for design of multi-modal terminal (commuter rail, light rail, bus) at Mission Bay, San Francisco. In Santa Clarita Long Range Transit Development Program, responsible for plan to relocate system's existing timed-transfer hub and development of three satellite transfer hubs. Performed airport ground transportation system evaluations for San Francisco International, Oakland International, Sea-Tac International, Oakland International, Los Angeles International, and San Diego Lindberg.

Campus Transportation. Campus transportation planning assignments for UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz and UC San Francisco Medical Center campuses; San Francisco State University; University of San Francisco; and the University of Alaska and others. Also developed master plans for institutional campuses including medical centers, headquarters complexes and research & development facilities.

Special Event Facilities. Evaluations and design studies for football/baseball stadiums, indoor sports arenas, horse and motor racing facilities, theme parks, fairgrounds and convention centers, ski complexes and destination resorts throughout western United States.

Parking. Parking programs and facilities for large area plans and individual sites including downtowns, special event facilities, university and institutional campuses and other large site developments; numerous parking feasibility and operations studies for parking structures and surface facilities; also, resident preferential parking .

Transportation System Management & Traffic Restraint. Project manager on FHWA program to develop techniques and guidelines for neighborhood street traffic limitation. Project manager for Berkeley, (Calif.), Neighborhood Traffic Study, pioneered application of traffic restraint techniques in the U.S. Developed residential traffic plans for Menlo Park, Santa Monica, Santa Cruz, Mill Valley, Oakland, Palo Alto, Piedmont, San Mateo County, Pasadena, Santa Ana and others. Participated in development of photo/radar speed enforcement device and experimented with speed humps. Co-author of Institute of Transportation Engineers reference publication on neighborhood traffic control.

Bicycle Facilities. Project manager to develop an FHWA manual for bicycle facility design and planning, on bikeway plans for Del Mar, (Calif.), the UC Davis and the City of Davis. Consultant to bikeway plans for Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., Buffalo, New York, and Skokie, Illinois. Consultant to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for development of hydraulically efficient, bicycle safe drainage inlets. Consultant on FHWA research on effective retrofits of undercrossing and overcrossing structures for bicyclists, pedestrians, and handicapped.

MEMBERSHIPS
Institute of Transportation Engineers Transportation Research Board

PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS
Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, with W. Homburger et al. Prentice Hall, 1989.

Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Citation, Mission Bay Master Plan, with I.M. Pei WRT Associated, 1984.

Residential Traffic Management, State of the Art Report, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.

Improving The Residential Street Environment, with Donald Appleyard et al., U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979.

Strategic Concepts in Residential Neighborhood Traffic Control, International Symposium on Traffic Control Systems, Berkeley, California, 1979.

Planning and Design of Bicycle Facilities: Pitfalls and New Directions, Transportation Research Board, Research Record 570, 1976.

Co-recipient, Progressive Architecture Award, Livable Urban Streets, San Francisco Bay Area and London, with Donald Appleyard, 1979.

California State Transportation Agency
State of California

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Memorandum Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
To: DISTRICT DIRECTORS Date: December 18, 2020
From: RACHEL CARPENTER
Chief Safety Officer
Subject: TRAFFIC SAFETY BULLETIN 20-02-R1: INTERIM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW SAFETY REVIEW PRACTITIONERS GUIDANCE This bulletin supersedes Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02. The purpose of the attached Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance is to provide instructions to district staff and other California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) personnel, lead agencies, developers, and consultants conducting safety reviews for proposed land use projects and plan affecting the State Highway System. This guidance establishes the safety impact review expectations for Caltrans and lead agencies to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This guidance also can be used by lead agencies, developers, and consultants as a model for analyzing the safety impacts of proposed land use projects and plans on local roadways. This guidance prioritizes vulnerable users and communities; enhances safety for pedestrians, bicycle, transit and vehicular modes; and applies both reactive and systemic perspectives.

This guidance supports the shift away from using Level of Service (LOS) as a metric of analysis under CEQA, in accordance with implementing Senate Assembly Bill 743 (SB 743, Steinberg: Chaptered by Secretary of State, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013), and complements the “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide” (dated May 20, 2020).

This guidance also supports achievement of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) goals. Working in conjunction with other statewide safety plans such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program, the Highway Safety Plan, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan, the SHSP provides guidance that will influence the development of goals, strategies, and performance measures for stakeholders working to improve traffic safety throughout California with a goal to reduce traffic fatalities to zero. These interim LDIGR guidelines address how to increase vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety through documented, appropriate and targeted improvements.
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

DISTRICT DIRECTORS
December 18, 2020

Page 2 ends

This interim guidance eventually will be replaced by the Caltrans Safety Analysis Guide, which will be developed and released in 2022.

If you have questions about this interim LDIGR guidance, please contact Troy Bucko, with the Safety Investigation Branch, Office of Safety Programs, by e-mail sent at <[email protected]>.

Attachment
Interim LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidelines
c: David S. Kim, Secretary, California State Transportation Agency Stephanie Dougherty, Deputy Secretary, Transportation Safety and Enforcement, California State Transportation Agency
Darwin Moosavi, Deputy Secretary, Environmental Policy and Housing Coordination, California State Transportation Agency
Toks Omishakin, Director, California Department of Transportation James E. Davis, Chief Deputy Director, California Department of Transportation
Erin H. Holbrook, Chief Counsel, Legal Division, California Department of Transportation
Ellen Greenberg, Deputy Director, Sustainability, California Department of Transportation
Cory Binns, Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations, California Department of Transportation
Jeanie Ward-Waller, Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs, California Department of Transportation
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

Page 1 of 10 ends

California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS)

INTERIM LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW (LDIGR)

SAFETY REVIEW PRACTITIONERS GUIDANCE
December 2020 Release

PURPOSE

The Caltrans “Vehicle Miles Traveled-Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide” (TISG), dated May 20, 2020 (see the Caltrans SB 743 Implementation webpage), was prepared to provide guidance to Caltrans districts, lead agencies, tribal governments, developers, and consultants regarding Caltrans’ review of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impact analysis for land use projects and land use plans.

The updated TISG states, “Additional future guidance will include the basis for requesting transportation impact analysis that is not based on VMT. This guidance will include a simplified safety analysis approach that reduces risks to all road users and that focuses on multi-modal conflict analysis as well as access management issues.”
The purpose of this Interim LDIGR Safety Review Practitioners Guidance is to provide immediate direction about the safety review process while final guidance is being developed. The interim guidance will be used to develop final guidance and will incorporate lessons learned as the new safety review process is utilized statewide.

BACKGROUND
Caltrans has set a goal to reach zero traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries in California by 2050, which is part of the Federal Highway Administration’s nationwide zero goal. National data indicates 40-60% of fatalities occur on locally owned roadways. This is also the case in California.

Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes in California (2009-2018)

State
Highway
System
36%
Non-State
Highway
System 64%

Page 2 of 10 ends

Nearly two-thirds of all fatalities and serious injuries occur on the local road network indicating a need for local traffic safety planning. Lead agencies should develop Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSPs), Systemic Safety Analysis Reports (SSARs) or Vision Zero Plans that create a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety issues and recommend traffic safety improvements. While conducting Type Intergovernmental Review (IR) investigations, District traffic safety staff should review available LRSPs, SSARs, and Vision Zero plans, as well as other available traffic safety plans and assessments, to see what traffic safety patterns and improvements may be applicable to the SHS in the study area. Caltrans encourages lead agencies to complete traffic safety impact analysis in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process so that, through partnerships and collaboration, California can reach zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2050.

SCOPE
This interim guidance is intended to apply to proposed land use projects and plans affecting the State Highway System (SHS). Specific effects may include but are not limited to adding new automobile, bicycle, or pedestrian trips to state roadways; modifying access to state roadways; or affecting the safety of connections to or travel on state roadways. Local agencies may also use this guidance at their own discretion as a guide for review of local facilities. Caltrans traffic safety and planning staff are available to advise local agency staff, project developers, and consultants on the application of this guidance.

This interim guidance does not establish thresholds of significance for determining safety impacts under the CEQA. The significance of impacts should be determined with careful judgment on the part of a public agency and based, to the greatest extent possible, on scientific and factual data consistent with Caltrans’ CEQA guidance contained in Caltrans’
Standard Environmental
Reference (SER),Chapter 36, “Environmental Impact Report”, and CEQA guidelines found in the California Code of Regulations, title 14, division 6, chapter 3, article 5, section 15064, “Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project”. The substantial evidence for safety impacts should also consider benefits of infill development on safety outcomes as explained in the
State of California 2017 General Plan Guidelines, Appendix B, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2017.

Specifically, Appendix B states, “infill development, which exhibits low VMT, itself provides safety benefits by reducing motor vehicle collision exposure, lowering speeds, and increasing pedestrian and cyclist volumes leading to

Page 3 of 10 ends

‘safety in numbers’ (in addition to improving overall health broadly and substantially).”
Compact infill development, in addition to providing livable and vibrant neighborhoods, walkable communities, environmental benefits, land conservation, fiscal benefit and cost reduction for citizens, also improves traffic safety.”

CONDUCTING REVIEW
Caltrans Review
Caltrans will review the proposed project for significant traffic safety impacts to the SHS. If significant impacts are identified, consistent with standard CEQA practice, mitigation or alternatives which do not cause the impacts are then considered. For mitigation to be appropriate, the reviewer needs to identify a direct causal connection between the project and the impact, a nexus. If a nexus is identified, appropriate mitigation or alternatives should be considered.

Practitioners should be reminded that if significant safety impacts are identified, any proposed mitigation must be roughly proportional to project specific impacts and should be limited to the project’s “fair share”. A proposed project should not be required to mitigate for impacts caused by factors such as other projects, existing operational conditions or where economic growth not related to the project is a cause of the traffic safety impact, and should avoid increasing roadway vehicle capacity, which may induce VMT or affect conditions for vulnerable users. The intent is to avoid mischaracterizations of safety issues by taking an overly narrow perspective, that will place a heavier burden on the development than would be necessary to mitigate the development impacts.

District traffic safety staff will use available data to determine if the proposed project may influence or contribute significant impacts to locations identified by traffic safety investigations generated by network screening or initiated by the district within the latest three-year period available. District traffic safety staff are not expected to review local roadways unless requested to do so by the local lead agency.

The lead agency is encouraged to review safety-related local planning documents to determine if the proposed project would significantly affect locations identified for traffic safety improvements in these plans or would otherwise interfere with completion of remedial actions or projects identified in these plans. Examples of relevant plans are provided below. The lead

Page 4 of 10 ends

Sacramento City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025