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 2B — Sacramento City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 2 of 4)

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

If the quantified reduction measures do not reduce construction-related GHG emissions for subsequent development projects to below 1,100 MTCO2e per year, offsite carbon credits may be purchased and retired for those years to make up the difference. “Carbon credit” means an instrument issued by an 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-34 PLNP2018-00284
Approved Registry and shall represent the past reduction or sequestration of 1 MTCO2e achieved by a GHG emission reduction project or activity within the U.S. “Approved Registry” means: (i) the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, the Verified Carbon Standard, or the Clean Development Mechanism; (ii) any registry established by SMAQMD. The purchase of off-site carbon credits shall be negotiated with the County and SMAQMD at the time that credits are sought.

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

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

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

Geographic location: Carbon credits shall be obtained from GHG reduction projects that occur in the following locations in order of priority to the extent available: (1) within proximity to the proposed UWSP site; (2) within Sacramento County; (3) within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin; (4) the State 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-35 PLNP2018-00284
of California; and (5) the United States of America. Any carbon credits used for mitigation are subject to the approval of the County.

CC-1b Prior to the approval of tentative maps for each individual subsequent development project, the applicant shall implement the following measures:
 Consistent with SMAQMD’s GHG BMP 1, natural gas shall be prohibited in all residential land uses; and
 The applicant shall reduce GHG emissions associated with each phase of the proposed UWSP at a rate of 1.42 MTCO2e per year per thousand square feet of non-residential development (5,996 MTCO2e per year divided by the modeled total of 4,214 thousand square feet of nonresidential development = 1.42 MTCO2e per year per thousand square foot of nonresidential development). Prior to the approval of improvement plans or grading permits, each future development project implemented under the proposed UWSP shall prepare a GHG Reduction Plan. The purpose of the plan is to document GHG emissions reduction for each future development project through project specific GHG reduction measures on-site and to demonstrate that the project will achieve the required reduction of 1.42 MTCO2e per year per thousand square feet of non-residential development to meet the total reduction of 5,996 MTCO2e per year upon complete buildout of the proposed UWSP.

The GHG Reduction Plan shall quantify how the individual development projects will achieve this performance standard at the time of buildout of the project. The GHG Reduction Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the County’s Environmental Coordinator and SMAQMD. The GHG Reduction Plan shall include a summary of all GHG-reduction measures that would be implemented by the project and a quantification of the approximate GHG emissions reductions that will be associated with each action and mitigation measure. GHG emission reductions can be achieved through any combination of the following on-site mitigation options as long as the reductions are quantified and shown to meet the performance standard:
− Prohibit natural gas infrastructure in a portion of the nonresidential buildings.
− Require on-site renewable energy generation for nonresidential buildings in excess of Code requirements to reduce indirect emissions associated with grid-supplied electricity. Specific actions may include on-site carbon-zero renewable energy capable of serving energy needs of any urban development within the project, including energy needed for streetlights, sewer pumps, drainage pumps, traffic signals, and water pumps; and residential photovoltaic systems designed to be scalable over time to accommodate varying energy demands. 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-36 PLNP2018-00284
− Procure renewable energy from off-site sources within California via purchases from one or more of the following, depending on regulatory feasibility and availability: (a) SMUD; (b) a community choice aggregator such as the joint SMUD agreement with Valley Clean Energy and the East Bay Community Energy; or (c) other renewable energy provider.
− Procure and retire Renewable Energy Certificates (also known as RECs, green tags, Renewable Energy Credits, Renewable Electricity Certificates, or Tradable Renewable Certificates) for projects or activities located in California.
− Reduce electricity demand through implementation of reasonable and feasible design measures, such as:
 electrify loading docks to reduce emission from engine idling of transport refrigeration units; and
 install all-electric appliances, including water heaters and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems;
− Institute a composting and recycling program in excess of local standards; and
− Implement an Urban Forestry Management Plan to reduce the urban heat island effect.
− Implement on-site or funding off-site carbon sequestration projects (such as tree plantings or reforestation projects).
− Reduce VMT traveled by project residents and employees through implementation of reasonable and feasible design measures, such as:
 improve or increase access to transit;
 increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare;
 incorporate affordable housing into the project;
 orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;  improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service;  provide traffic calming;
 provide bicycle parking;
 limit or eliminate parking supply;
 unbundle parking costs;
 provide parking cash-out programs;
 implement roadway pricing;
 implement or provide access to a commute reduction program; 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-37 PLNP2018-00284
 provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs;  provide transit passes;
 shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-matching services;
 providing telework options;
 providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
 providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
 providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites; and
 providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.
− If Sacramento County has adopted a Communitywide CAP, comply with the provisions of the adopted CAP, including any applicable carbon neutrality requirement.
− Should new and quantifiable GHG emission reduction technology become available, the applicant may achieve the required GHG emissions reduction through other means, subject to review and approval by Sacramento County and the SMAQMD.

If the above on-site and off-site mitigation options are not sufficient to achieve the required GHG reduction, off-site carbon credits may be purchased to make up the difference. “Carbon credit” means an instrument issued by an Approved Registry and shall represent the past reduction or sequestration of 1 MTCO2e achieved by a GHG emission reduction project or activity within the U.S. “Approved Registry” means: (i) the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, the Verified Carbon Standard, or the Clean Development Mechanism; or (ii) any registry established by SMAQMD. The purchase of off-site mitigation credits shall be negotiated with the County and SMAQMD at the time that credits are sought.

Carbon Credit Standards: Carbon credits can result from activities that reduce, avoid, destroy or sequester an amount of GHG emissions in an off-site location to offset the equivalent amount of GHG emissions occurring elsewhere. For the purpose of mitigation, carbon credits shall consist of direct emission reductions or sequestration that are used to offset the proposed UWSP's direct and indirect emissions. All carbon credits shall be purchased from a carbon offset registry approved by CARB, which at present include the following: the American Climate Registry, Climate Action Reserve, and Verra (formerly Verified Carbon Standard). The carbon credits shall be verifiable by the County and 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-38 PLNP2018-00284
enforceable in accordance with the registry’s applicable standards, practices, or protocols. The carbon credits must substantively satisfy all six of the statutory “environmental integrity” requirements as set forth in both subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2) of California Health and Safety Code §38562: real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional.

Carbon credits shall be retired and emissions must be offset for every operational year the project is consuming natural gas. Such credits shall not allow the use of offset projects originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by Sacramento County and/or the SMAQMD.

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

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

Compliance with Mitigation Measures CC-1a, CC-1b, and CC-1c shall be ensured by the County’s Department of Planning and Environmental Review. 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-39 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT CC-2: CONFLICTS WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, POLICY, OR

REGULATION
CONSISTENCY WITH 2022 SCOPING PLAN
The 2022 Scoping Plan, adopted by CARB in December 2022, establishes the framework to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030, and establishes a roadmap for the state to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045 (as directed by AB 1279). The 2022 Scoping Plan includes a list of project attributes for residential and mixed-use projects which can be used to determine consistency with the Scoping Plan (Appendix D, Section 3.2.1).

According to CARB, a mixed-use development project that incorporates all these key project attributes would be aligned with the State’s priority GHG reduction strategies for local climate action with the State’s climate and housing goals. Such a project would be “consistent with the Scoping Plan or other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHGs; therefore, the GHG emissions associated with such projects may result in a less-than-significant GHG impact under CEQA” (CARB 2022).

Consequently, an analysis was conducted for each of the project attributes to determine if the proposed UWSP would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan.

The 2022 Scoping Plan details local actions that land use development projects can implement to support the statewide goals. In addition, the 2022 Scoping Plan incorporates a broad array of regulations, policies, and state plans designed to reduce GHG emissions. The key suggested project attributes applicable residential and mixeduse projects such as the proposed UWSP are listed in Table CC-6. As shown below, the proposed UWSP would implement sustainability features and incorporate characteristics to reduce energy use, conserve water, reduce waste generation, promote EV use, and reduce vehicle travel consistent with statewide strategies and regulations. As a result, the proposed UWSP would not conflict with 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

Based on the discussion above, the proposed UWSP generally aligns with most of the recommended project attributes outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan. However, there are some project attributes that the proposed UWSP would not fully implement, given that the proposed UWSP would result in some loss or conversion of natural and working lands, not meet the 20 percent affordable housing requirement, and use natural gas appliances for some nonresidential land uses. While the proposed UWSP would generate GHG emissions from use of natural gas in some nonresidential uses, it would implement Mitigation Measures CC-1b and CC-1c to provide an equivalent reduction in GHG emissions through other measures. Similarly, while the proposed UWSP does not delineate 20 percent of the housing units for affordable housing, all residential development proposed under the UWSP would be required to comply with Sacramento County Affordable Housing Ordinance, which creates an alternate fee-based approach for a developer to satisfy a development project’s affordable housing obligations. The County has obligated itself to use fifty percent of the funds to produce affordable housing in large development projects in order to achieve the objective of ensuring affordable housing is 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-40 PLNP2018-00284
distributed throughout the County including in new growth areas. Lastly, while the proposed UWSP would develop existing agricultural lands, development is planned while preserving open spaces including agriculturally designated lands to the west, open space buffers around the perimeter of the UWSP area, and drainage facilities. A total of 651.2 acres would be set aside for open space, including a 534±-acre agricultural Buffer to the west and north, 85.6 acres designated for basins and drainage channels, and 21.5 acres in open space and landscape corridors adjacent to I-80 and the West Drainage Canal.

Table CC-6: Consistency with Applicable GHG Reduction Actions in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update
Key Suggested Project Attributes Consistency Discussion Provides EV charging infrastructure that, at
minimum, meets the most ambitious
voluntary standard in the California Green
Building Standards Code at the time of
project approval.

The proposed UWSP would not be consistent with
SMAQMD BMP 2, which is a significant impact, as
discussed above. However, with implementation of
Mitigation Measure CC-1c, all EV capable parking spaces provided at the ratio required by CALGreen Tier 2 would be required to be equipped as EV Ready spaces to ensure
compliance with SMAQMD BMP 2.Therefore, compliance
with BMP 2 would be ensured by Mitigation Measure CC-1c.

Is located on infill sites that are surrounded
by existing urban uses and reuses or
redevelops previously undeveloped or
underutilized land that is presently served
by existing utilities and essential public
services (e.g., transit, streets, water,
sewer).

The UWSP area is predominantly agricultural land with
existing commercial uses, including a truck stop,
restaurants, gas stations, and hotels located west of the I80 off-/on-ramp. The area is also surrounded by I-80, multifamily residences, and a business park to the east; and single-family residences to the east, west, north, and south.

Therefore, the proposed UWSP would develop the area
with urban uses consistent with the existing uses in the project vicinity. The proposed UWSP would also include
roadway improvements, including the expansion of El
Centro Road and the development of additional roadways
throughout the project site. The Sacramento Regional
County Sanitation District (Regional San) currently
provides sewer service to developed portions of the UWSP area; the City of Sacramento currently serves domestic
customers within the eastern portion of the UWSP area;
stormwater in the UWSP area is managed by Reclamation
District 1000 (RD-1000), the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency (SAFCA), and the Sacramento County
Department of Water Resources (County DWR); and the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) currently
provides electric service to the USWP area.

Does not result in the loss or conversion of
natural and working lands.

While the UWSP area is predominantly agricultural land, existing commercial uses, including a truck stop,
restaurants, gas stations, and hotels are currently located onsite. In addition, portions of the area are designated Commercial/Office by the Sacramento County General
Plan, and are zoned General Commercial, and Highway
Travel Commercial. Therefore, portions of the UWSP area have been anticipated for urban development by the
County. Nevertheless, the proposed UWSP would result in 8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-41 PLNP2018-00284
Key Suggested Project Attributes Consistency Discussion the loss or conversion of natural or working lands, which would be inconsistent with this project attribute.

Consists of transit-supportive densities
(minimum of 20 residential dwelling units
per acre), is in proximity to existing transit
stops (within a half mile) or satisfies more
detailed and stringent criteria specified in
the region’s SCS.

The proposed UWSP includes a range of residential uses, including very low density, low density, low/medium density, medium density, high density, and very high density
residential, which would be developed at a density of one dwelling unit per acre (du/ac) to 32.5 du/ac. Overall,
approximately 65.5 acres of the UWSP area would consist of transit-supported densities that would be developed at a density higher than 20 du/ac. It should also be noted that the proposed UWSP would include the development of
commercial mixed use and employment/highway
commercial uses, as well as schools. By providing a range of residential, commercial, and school uses within the
UWSP area, approximately 22.9 percent of home-based
trips associated with the proposed UWSP would be internal.

In addition, the regional retail uses of the proposed UWSP would decrease the travel distance for many residents in the UWSP area who are currently traveling to a regional retail destination farther away. Also, SacRT would provide “crosstown” or large bus transit service to the UWSP area. At buildout, a large bus route is planned along major roadway corridors including West El Camino Avenue, Bryte Bend
Road, and Radio Road. This preliminary route includes
several conceptual bus stop locations, spaced at frequent intervals through the community, including the Town Center and educational node. Approximately 88 percent of the
proposed residential units would be located within a half mile of a cross-town bus stop. Therefore, the UWSP generally aligns with this project attribute.

Reduces parking requirements by:
 Eliminating parking requirements or
including maximum allowable parking
ratios (i.e., the ratio of parking spaces to
residential units or square feet); or
 Providing residential parking supply at a
ratio of less than one parking space per
dwelling unit; or
 For multifamily residential development,
requiring parking costs to be unbundled
from costs to rent or own a residential
unit.

The proposed project would create a Specific Plan for the UWSP area. As such, the analysis included herein is a
program-level analysis of the Specific Plan, and specific development proposals have not yet been prepared for the proposed land uses within the UWSP area. Nonetheless,
as specific development proposals are prepared in the
future, detailed plans would be prepared, which would
include parking standards, which would require review and approval by Sacramento County. For example, pursuant to Mitigation Measure CC-1c, the surface area dedicated to non-EV parking facilities would be reduced through the
elimination of minimum parking requirements and the
creation of maximum non-EV parking requirements; and
utilize performance pricing for publicly owned parking
spaces both on- and off-street, as well as creating parking benefit districts. As such, future review of specific
development proposals would ensure that the key project attributes identified in the 2022 Scoping Plan related to parking are implemented. Therefore, the UWSP generally
aligns with this project attribute.
8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-42 PLNP2018-00284
Key Suggested Project Attributes Consistency Discussion At least 20 percent of units included are
affordable to lower-income residents.

As discussed above, the proposed project would create a Specific Plan for the UWSP area. As such, the analysis
included herein is a program-level analysis of the Specific Plan, and specific development proposals have not yet
been prepared for the proposed land uses within the
UWSP area. Specific development proposals prepared in
the future would be required to comply with the
Sacramento County Affordable Housing Ordinance
(Chapter 22.35 of the Sacramento County Code), which
requires new development projects pay an affordability fee on all newly constructed market rate units; comply with the development project’s approved affordable housing plan, if one exists; or enter into a development agreement or other form of agreement with the County, which provides for a fee credit for land dedication, construction of affordable dwelling units, or other mechanism which leads to the
production of affordable housing, in an amount at least equivalent to the affordability fee established by the
County. The proposed UWSP includes an objective to plan for enough units to provide housing choices in varying
densities to respond to a range of market segments,
including opportunities for rental units and affordable housing. In addition, UWSP would require an entitlement to adopt an Affordable Housing Strategy that discusses the plan for the provision of moderate, low, and very‐lowincome housing. Therefore, the UWSP generally aligns with this project attribute.

Results in no net loss of existing affordable
units.

The UWSP area does not currently include any affordable housing units. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would not
result in a net loss of existing affordable units.

Uses all-electric appliances without any
natural gas connections and does not use
propane or other fossil fuels for space
heating, water heating, or indoor cooking.

As discussed above, it is assumed that only single-family residential uses of the UWSP would be constructed without natural gas infrastructure. Therefore, SMAQMD BMP 1
(projects shall be designed and constructed without natural gas infrastructure) would not be implemented by the
proposed UWSP and a significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure CC-1b is recommended to prohibit
natural gas use for all residential uses and require that all non-residential natural gas use be offset to reduce GHG emissions to the same extent as a fully electric project with no natural gas combustion. As such, the equivalent
reduction in GHG emissions would be ensured with
implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-1b and the
UWSP would not conflict with this Scoping Plan key
suggested project attribute.

SOURCE: CARB 2022; Appendix AQ-1, Table 21.
8 - Climate Change
Upper Westside Specific Plan 8-43 PLNP2018-00284
CARB states that project’s which implement all of these attributes are “clearly consistent with the state’s climate goals,” but also that “Lead agencies may determine, with adequate additional supporting evidence, that projects that incorporate some, but not all, of the key project attributes are consistent with the State’s climate goals” (CARB 2022). Based on the discussion above, and through implementation of Mitigation Measures CC-1a, CC-1b, and CC-1c, the proposed UWSP generally aligns with most of the recommended project attributes outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan and would be consistent with the state’s GHG goals.

IMPACT DETERMINATION
As described above, operation of the proposed UWSP would not align with all of the recommended project attributes outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan and would not be consistent with the state’s GHG goals. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure CC-1b and Mitigation Measure CC-1c, this impact would be reduced to less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implement Mitigation Measures CC-1b, and CC-1c (see above).

Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-1 PLNP2018-00284
9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential impacts on cultural resources, including consideration of impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains. Policies provided in the proposed UWSP, and existing County requirements, are evaluated as to their potential to mitigate or avoid any potentially significant impacts.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received scoping comments from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which recommended, pursuant to Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52, that the County conduct consultation with tribes that are affiliated with the County. The NAHC also recommended that the County conduct a cultural resources records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and that an archaeological inventory survey report be prepared along with outreach to consulting Native American tribes.

The information and analysis included in this chapter was adapted from a cultural resources assessment and background research prepared by Piñon Heritage Solutions LLC (Piñon 2021) and Draft Cultural Resources Conservation Strategy prepared by Helix Environmental Planning (Helix 2022).

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
Cultural resources are considered through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] 306108), and its implementing regulations. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., federal funding or issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (i.e., properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places [National Register]) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a property is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 60.4, as stated below:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and that:
a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-2 PLNP2018-00284
b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Federal review of projects is normally referred to as the Section 106 process. This process is the responsibility of the federal lead agency. The Section 106 review normally involves a four-step procedure, which is described in detail in the implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800):
 Identify historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and interested parties;
 Assess the effects of the undertaking on historic properties;  Consult with the SHPO, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the ACHP; and finally,
 Proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement.

STATE
The State of California consults on implementation of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and also oversees statewide comprehensive cultural resource surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level. The OHP also maintains the California Historical Resources Inventory System. The SHPO is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdiction.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have a significant effect on historical resources, including archaeological resources. The CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as: (1) a resource in the California Register of Historic Places (California Register); (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-3 PLNP2018-00284
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have a significant effect on important archaeological resources, either historical resources or unique archaeological resources. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4, would apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the CEQA Guidelines criteria for a historical resource, then the site may meet the threshold of PRC Section 21083 regarding unique archaeological resources. A unique archaeological resource is “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;  Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person” (PRC Section 21083.2 [g]).

The CEQA Guidelines note that if a resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on that resource shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[c][4]).

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]).

The criteria for eligibility are based on National Register criteria (PRC Section 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for or listed in the National Register.

To be eligible for the California Register, an historical resource must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (PRC Section 5024.1[c]).
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-4 PLNP2018-00284
For a resource to be eligible for the California Register, it must also retain enough integrity to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its significance.

A resource that does not retain sufficient integrity to meet the National Register criteria may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE AND HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE Several sections of the PRC protect cultural resources. Under PRC Section 5097.5, no person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site (including fossilized footprints), inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological, or historical feature situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency that has jurisdiction over the lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

PRC Section 5097.98 states that if Native American remains are identified within a project site, the lead agency must work with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission and develop a plan for the treatment or disposition of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials. These procedures are also addressed in Section 15046.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 prohibits disinterring, disturbing, or removing human remains from a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Section 30244 of the PRC requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological and archaeological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.

LOCAL
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The following policies from the Conservation Element of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

CO-150 Utilize local, state and national resources, such as the NCIC [North Central Information Center], to assist in determining the need for a cultural resources survey during project review.

CO-153 Refer projects with identified archeological and cultural resources to the Cultural Resources Committee to determine significance of resource and recommend appropriate means of protection and mitigation. The Committee shall coordinate with the Native American Heritage Commission in developing recommendations.

CO-154 Protection of significant prehistoric, ethnohistoric and historic sites within open space easements to ensure that these resources are preserved in situ for perpetuity.

CO-155 Native American burial sites encountered during preapproved survey or during construction shall, whenever possible, remain in situ. Excavation and 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-5 PLNP2018-00284
reburial shall occur when in situ preservation is not possible or when the archeological significance of the site merits excavation and recording procedure. On-site reinternment shall have priority. The project developer shall provide the burden of proof that off-site reinternment is the only feasible alternative. Reinternment shall be the responsibility of local tribal representatives.

CO-157 Monitor projects during construction to ensure crews follow proper reporting, safeguards, and procedures.

CO-158 As a condition of approval of discretionary permits, a procedure shall be included to cover the potential discovery of archaeological resources during development or construction.

CO-159 Request a Native American Statement as part of the environmental review process on development projects with identified cultural resources.

CO-166 Development surrounding areas of historic significance shall have compatible design in order to protect and enhance the historic quality of the areas.

CO-169 Restrict the circulation of cultural resource location information to prevent potential site vandalism. This information is exempt from the "Freedom of Information Act."

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed UWSP is located in the Sacramento Valley near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. The following discussion describes the natural and cultural setting of the proposed UWSP and vicinity, as well as the sensitivity for indigenous resources to be located within the UWSP area.

NATURAL SETTING

PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Sacramento Valley region is located in the northern half of the Central Valley physiographic province. California’s Central Valley is a single structural trough, geologically. The Central Valley has been filled with sediment derived from the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Ranges. This Holocene and Pleistocene-age deposition may be as thick as 20,000 feet along the southwest margin (Olmstead 1961). Due to this extensive sedimentation, bedrock does not occur on the valley floor. Together with the San Joaquin Valley to the south, the Sacramento Valley is the setting of the enormous Sacramento-San Joaquin river system that drains much of the state, and which forms the Bay-Delta. The UWSP area is situated adjacent to and east of the Sacramento River, at the very beginning of the Delta. This area of the Sacramento River floodplain is known as the American Basin.
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-6 PLNP2018-00284

HYDROLOGY
The American River originally flowed into the Sacramento River about 2.5 miles east of the UWSP area. These two rivers, in their natural state, would flood annually, and inundate extensive flood plains. Flooding results in the formation of natural levees, strips adjacent to the river where the river drops its sediment load since overbank flow is lower energy than the river in flood. Adjacent to these natural levees are floodwater settling basins—floodplains behind the natural levees where water stands, sometimes for months, after the river’s flood has receded. The floodplain is not completely level.

Small subsidiary runoff channels form, and small rises and depressions are present.

Over extended periods of time in the past, the Sacramento River channel has migrated back and forth across these low floodplains, reworking the sediment. This process has left remnants of natural levees as small, raised areas surrounded by flood basins and abandoned river channels.

LANDFORMS
Due to the prevalence of flooding, early Euroamerican settlers of Sacramento regarded the UWSP area as essentially useless land. The 1871 General Land Office (GLO) map, incorporating surveys from 1852 to 1870, labels the UWSP area and surroundings on both sides of the river as “Swamp and Overflowed Land.” Maps from 1915 and 1916 show the majority of the UWSP area as an expanse of water named Bush Lake, with a channel known as Fisherman’s Lake flowing into the UWSP area from another unnamed lake to the north. Small rises of land are mapped as about eight feet above the surrounding floodplain; these small rises are now known to encompass archaeological sites. Depressions and sloughs are also present. The natural river levees were in use for roads and farmsteads.

SOIL
As defined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), there are eight soil units in the UWSP area. Most abundant is Cosumnes Silt Loam, which occurs in most of the agricultural fields south of San Juan Road. North of San Juan Road, four additional soil types underlie the fields: Clear Lake clay, Durixeralfs, Jacktone clay, San JoaquinXerarents-Leveled, and Egbert Clay. Soils near the river tend to form bands roughly paralleling the river channel. These soils are Sailboat silt loam, and Columbia Sandy Loam.

Two of the three known indigenous sites in the UWSP area are in soils described as cut or leveled and filled. Records indicate that these sites were known to be partially disturbed. The current level of disturbance is unknown. In addition, four of these soil units indicate the presence of a buried ground surface, or paleosol. These soils, the Columbia, Cosumnes, Ebert and Sailboat, underlie the majority of the UWSP area.

These buried surfaces could have been occupied by indigenous Native Americans, and archaeological sites could be present on these now buried paleosols. Buried surfaces have also been found in soils described by the SCS as not having buried surfaces. Two parcels in the UWSP area underwent geomorphological testing in 2010 for a levee improvement project. Specifically, areas north and south of Radio Road were trenched for sediment characterization.
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-7 PLNP2018-00284
These parcels are underlain by Egbert clay, which is described by the SCS as not having a buried surface present. The 2010 trenching report concluded that there was a well-developed paleosol present under part of the area near Radio Road, possibly Pleistocene in age [2.6 million to 11,700 years before present (B.P.)]. Additionally, a not very well-developed young, buried soil was present further south of Radio Road. This soil was radiocarbon dated to 1,060 calendar year B.P.

However, some of these surfaces may not be sensitive for buried archaeological resources. The Pleistocene paleosol found near Radio Road exhibited signs of having been eroded prior to being buried. This may have displaced archaeological resources if any had been present. Additionally, the 2010 test effort also found three buried surfaces near the modern West Drainage Canal. The oldest of these was radiocarbon dated to 13,550 calendar years B.P. All these buried soils were clearly flood basin soils, and therefore would not have been suitable for human occupation. Subsurface finds cannot be predicted based on the soil maps, although broad trends can be observed. No archaeological resources were found in these parcels during the 2010 trenching.

CLIMATE
Climate in the region is Mediterranean, marked by hot, dry summers, and cool, wet winters. On average, temperatures range between 55- and 90-degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, and 35- to 65-degrees Fahrenheit in the winter months. There are periods of extreme heat, and very occasionally, winter frosts. Precipitation averages 18.5 inches per year and falls as rain. The majority of this precipitation comes in the fall and winter, between November and March. However, the climate has been both wetter and drier in the past.

FLORA
Native vegetation in the UWSP area consisted of riparian gallery forest, open water aquatic habitat, and freshwater marshes. Marshland covered with tule was the most common naturally occurring habitat in the UWSP area. Forest vegetation was concentrated along elevated banks along the main rivers and side streams, where flooding was limited. The most common tree was valley oak. Other common trees were sycamore, box elder: Oregon Ash, and black walnut. Cottonwoods occur in riparian areas with slightly wetter conditions. Fresh water aquatic habitat was present in ponds and sloughs where water depth usually exceeded five feet and did not dry up during the summer. Plants in this habitat include duckweed, pondweeds, elodea, water primrose, water milfoil, smartweed and yellow water weed.

Fresh water marshlands occurred in areas where flood water depths did not exceed five feet for long periods. These marshlands are usually adjacent to ponds and sloughs, flooded during the winter and spring runoff, then slowly dried out in the summer, and fall. The most notable plant in the marshes was tule. Also abundant were cattails, rushes, sedges, smartweed, water plantain and vervain. Tule was particularly useful to Native Americans, who used its tall reeds to make boats and to weave mats. In modern times, this vegetation has been largely replaced by agricultural fields. The exceptions are areas where riparian forest still lines the riverbanks in and amongst modern homes 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-8 PLNP2018-00284
and landscaping, and where tule, cattails and other wetland plants live along the banks of modern drainage ditches and canals.

FAUNA
Prior to Euro-American settlement, large terrestrial animals in the UWSP area included elk, antelope, deer, bear and mountain lion. An array of smaller species, such as coyote, grey fox, raccoon, skunk, beaver, weasel, and ringtail were present, as well as the usual small creatures: squirrels, rabbits, chipmunks, various types of mice, pocket gophers, amphibians and reptiles. Along the streams and lakes, muskrats, otter, and beaver were abundant. The rivers and wetland supported numerous birds. Bird species include water birds of various types such as ducks, geese, swans, egrets, and sand hill cranes. Hawks, owls, kites, turkeys, band eagles and many species of songbirds also were present in the UWSP area.

Fish were also abundant in the local waterways. Chinook, Steelhead and Coho salmon, as well as White Sturgeon and Pacific Lamprey all have populations that migrate up the Sacramento River and its tributaries. Fish present in the river all year included the thick tailed chub, the Sacramento tui-chub, Sacramento perch, the tule perch, Sacramento splittail, speckled dace, squawfish, and suckers. Species of fish common in river sport fishing today, such as bass and catfish, are introduced species. Fresh water mussels were also present in the river and side channels.

Most of these animals, birds and fish were exploited by the Native American inhabitants, although acorns appear to have been the primary foodstuff. The Native Americans in the Sacramento region fished more often for the thick tailed chub, rather than the river running salmon. These small fish were numerous in the shallow water lakes and were presumably very simple to harvest. Fresh water mussels were used for food and the shells were used to manufacture decorative items. Sandhill cranes appear to have been hunted in preference to ducks, perhaps due to their large size and larger bones.

Numerous other species of birds, fish and animals were hunted by the Native Americans, as opportunity allowed. Deer, elk, and antelope were hunted, but remains of these animals are not as common in archaeological sites as those of fish and birds.

Conversion of the land and rivers to modern uses has greatly reduced the habitat available to most animal, bird, and fish species, resulting in reduced numbers of many species. The thick tailed chub was appreciated by Euro-Americans and was commercially fished. Conversion of swamps and wetlands to agriculture eliminated most of the habitat of these fish, and introduced predators pushed them to extinction. The last reported thick tailed chub was caught in the San Joaquin River in 1957. Subsequent to the Gold Rush, elk and antelope were hunted out in the region.

CULTURAL SETTING
Three elements of the cultural setting of the UWSP area are important to understanding the cultural resources present: Pre-Contact, Ethnographic, and Historic. The pre-contact overview covers the era prior to sustained European contact (A.D. 1770), while the historic period overview covers the period after that contact. The ethnographic overview 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-9 PLNP2018-00284
covers the overlap between the two, presenting information regarding the Native American inhabitants of the region, as understood through historical accounts and information given to anthropologists by Native Californians.

PRE-CONTACT OVERVIEW
Archaeological work in the 1970s led to application of dividing the Pre-Contact period into three periods, the Paleo-Indian, the Archaic and the Emergent. Calibrated radiocarbon dates have been used over the succeeding decades to set date ranges for these time periods, and to divide the Archaic into the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic.

PALEO-INDIAN PERIOD 12,000 B.P. – 10,000 B.P.

The Paleo-Indian period begins with the first human occupation of California. The first occupants of the region were small groups of highly mobile big game hunters exploiting now extinct Pleistocene mega-fauna such as mammoths and mastodons. This time period is characterized by large, fluted spear points. These projectile points have a wide geographic range across North America and are referred to by many names including Folsom Points, Clovis Points, and Paleo-Indian Points. At the regional level, the people who made them are also referred to as Folsom and Clovis, and in California have been referred to as the Fluted Point Tradition. Paleo-Indian finds are rare and mostly consist of isolated artifacts without clear stratigraphic associations but are understood to represent the earliest occupants of the New World.

In central California, the earliest evidence of human occupation comes from sites along the eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley, at Rancho Murieta, and in the Clear Lake Basin at the Borax Lake, Burns Valley and Mostin sites. The Borax Lake (also known as the Borax Lake-Hodges Site) contains a record going back 12,000 years. Deposits at this location extend to ten feet below the modern ground surface. These very old sites are located in geomorphic settings in foothill regions with little active sediment deposition. Evidence of Paleo-Indian occupation of the Central Valley floor has not been found. Any material of this great age has probably been buried under extensive valley floor sedimentation.

LOWER ARCHAIC 10,000 B.P. TO 8000 B.P.

The Lower Archaic period saw the development of a broad-based subsistence pattern, with a greater reliance on floral resources. The changing climate in central California led to the expansion of oak woodlands and grasslands. No Lower Archaic period sites have been found in the Sacramento Valley, floodplain, again, probably due to burial under floodplain sediments. But Lower Archaic sites are abundant in the Sierra foothills, at Lake Tahoe, and in Coast Ranges. Increased reliance on plant foods is demonstrated by the presence of numerous milling tools in sites dated to the Lower Archaic. Milling slabs and handstones are abundant, along with other cobble-based chopping, scraping, and pounding tools. Hard seeds from a variety of plants were processed with these milling slabs and handstones and use of acorns was rare or non-existent. Sites appear to have been used intermittently as part of a mobile, seasonally structured settlement and subsistence pattern. Hunting of a broad range of animals was also part of the more generalized subsistence pattern. Large, well-made stemmed projectile points, probably 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-10 PLNP2018-00284
dart points, are found in Lower Archaic sites, as well as bifaces and other flaked tools.

Raw material for these flaked tools is primarily basalt and meta-volcanic rock.

MIDDLE ARCHAIC 8000 B.P. TO 3000 B.P.

The Middle Archaic is marked by an increase in temperatures and a warmer, drier climate in central California. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta system also took shape in recognizable form due to the end of sea-level rise. Despite generally arid conditions, marshlands developed in the Sacramento Valley, especially near the river and its tributaries. Archaeological deposits of this time period are rare on the Sacramento Valley floor due to ongoing sedimentation; however, the Middle Archaic is well represented in sites along the edges of the San Joaquin Valley, in the Diablo Range, and in the Sierra Nevada foothills.

A broad-based subsistence pattern continued in the early part of the Middle Archaic.

However, a significant change occurred with the development of acorn processing using the mortar and pestle. Pestles first appear in archaeological deposits in central California dated to about 7000 B.P. to 6000 B.P. Resource intensification occurred in the Sacramento Valley and lowland areas, where water was readily available. This intensification focused on exploitation of acorns from the expansive oak woodlands near the Sacramento River. Fishing also became a significant activity. Populations located near the river grew in number and began to be increasingly sedentary. Use of the river and the adjacent oak groves allowed the human population to remain localized, venturing out from small villages during specific resource procurement seasons.

Sedentism is reflected in the development of sites associated with the Windmiller Tradition, which begin about 4400 B.P. Windmiller Tradition sites have an abundance of decorative items, such as charmstones, shell beads and ornaments, and crystals, red ochre, and stone pipes. Burials were extended with a westerly orientation and included grave goods. Many baked clay objects are also found, especially net weights. These weights were produced by wrapping clay in tule leaves and baking them.

Windmiller sites as presently known are concentrated at the confluence of the Mokelumne and Consumes rivers, south of Sacramento near Galt. However, sites dating to the same time frame, but with different burial orientations and interment practices have been found in the north and west sides of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

This suggests that regional cultural variation may have begun in the late Middle Archaic.

UPPER ARCHAIC 3000 B.P. TO 1400 B.P.

Upper Archaic sites are widespread in the Sacramento Valley, due to stabilization of the landscape. The climate was generally cooler and wetter, resulting in increased vegetation, increased resources, and an increasing human population. Sedentary villages are found adjacent to major streams, with smaller satellite villages located on levee ridges and elevated landforms. The major villages encompass extensive midden deposits, numerous human burials, and subsurface features such as structural remains, fire hearths, storage pits, and trash dumps. The sites contain rich deposits of stone tools, and floral and faunal remains. Fishing was an important activity in these riverine settlements, and fishing equipment and fish bones are abundant in midden deposits. 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-11 PLNP2018-00284
Projectile points during the Middle Archaic include larger atlatl dart points, such as Maris and Elko points.

Settlement and subsistence in the Sacramento Valley was conducted from stable villages. Inhabitants made logistical forays to obtain resources and brought these resources back to central locations. In the foothills adjacent to the valley floor, humans moved seasonally to known resource locations, bringing human occupation to the resource as each resource matured and became available. These two contrasting patterns resulted in widely scattered smaller settlements in the foothill region, and the larger villages on the valley floor.

The sedentary valley floor villages exhibit complex variations in burial patterning and artifact styles. Large amounts of decorative items are found, often in burial contexts, including shell beads, bird bone tubes, and stone tubes. Much of this material was obtained by trade, such as Olivella and Halitosis shell beads and ornaments. Obsidian obtained from the Clear Lake region or the eastern Sierra Nevada is also common in these sites. Obsidian bifaces were manufactured at quarry locations and traded into the Central Valley.

EMERGENT 1400 B.P. (A.D. 550) TO SPANISH CONTACT (A.D. 1769) The Emergent period is characterized by the onset of cultural patterns similar to those existing at the time of European contact. The climate was similar to the present, except for a warmer period, the Medieval Warm (or Medieval Climate Anomaly), dating from about 1000 B.P. to 600 B.P. In the Sacramento Valley, population continued to expand, and socio-cultural complexity began to form the patterns seen at Contact. Subsistence continued to depend on fishing and acorn processing, as well as hunting and capture of small game and water birds. The mortar and pestle is common at sites dating to this period.

The Emergent is divided into a Lower and an Upper Phase. These Phases are distinguished by variation in artifacts such as soapstone pipes, soapstone ear spools, and decorative items, and types of Olivella shell beads. Cremation was limited to high status individuals in the Lower Phase but became common during the Upper Emergent.

This change may also reflect the spread of Penutian speaking peoples into the region, occupying what had been Miwok territory. The Upper Emergent clearly shows cultural patterns that resemble those existing at the time of European Contact, and ethnographically known villages were in use during the period.

A notable development in this period is the introduction of the bow and arrow. This took place in different area at various times between 1100 B.P. and 700 B.P. Point types include Gunther Barbed, and Gunther Side Notched, and a point type unique to the region, the Stockton Serrated point. By the end of the Emergent, Desert Side-notched points were commonly in use.

Other technological changes included the manufacture of a local pottery type, Cosumnes Brownware. Clay cooking balls were also very common, made where cooking stones were not available. Coiled basketry became more important, as bone 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-12 PLNP2018-00284
awls become much more abundant. A few rare examples of burnt basketry have been found in Emergent Period sites. Fishing gear was greatly elaborated during this time, including bone fishing spears, fishhooks, and gorge hooks. Fish weirs were built along the Sacramento River to facilitate harvest of enormous Chinook salmon runs.

In the Upper Emergent, shell bead manufacture began at Sacramento Valley sites.

Olivella shell beads were commonly used after 800 B.P.; clamshell disc beads became common after 300 B.P. However, debris from manufacture of clamshell disc beads is only found west of the Sacramento River, presumably reflecting a cultural monopoly on trade of this material in the region.

Trade in obsidian continued throughout the Emergent Period, but the trading pattern changed notably around 800 B.P. Obsidian bifaces were no longer manufactured and traded, rather unmodified raw material and flake blanks were brought into the Sacramento Valley. Napa Valley obsidian sources also came to dominate the assemblages, with sources from the eastern Sierra Nevada seldom used. This pattern may also reflect a regional monopoly on trade.

PRE-CONTACT PERIOD IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Due to the proximity of the Sacramento River, the UWSP area and vicinity has had a long record of human use. The resource rich riverine environment led to the development of sedentary villages, many of which contain human remains. This pattern suggests that buried indigenous villages may be present in the UWSP area. The following site descriptions provide examples of the types of site components that may be present.

The Beatty Site, CA-SAC-18, was recorded in 1934 by Robert F. Heizer. The site was described as a “mound” thirty yards in diameter, with a height of five feet. The site was located east of the Sacramento River on a small rise in a level agricultural field. No further work appears to have been done at the site until 1994 when a sparse lithic scatter was observed including a crypto-crystalline biface fragment, eight basalt flakes, an obsidian flake, a river cobble, and possible fire-cracked rock. No midden soil was observed. The site was reported to be located on a natural rise in the landscape and is not a mound in the archaeological sense. The condition of the site is unknown, but presumably it has been further spread over the recorded location by continued plowing.

Whether cultural materials are present below the plow zone is also unknown. Site CA-SAC-1145 was recorded in 2009 and included burned and unburned faunal bone, basalt flaked stone, and impressed clay approximately 50 to 200 centimeters below the modern ground surface. Two artifacts were also found on the ground surface, a serrated obsidian projectile point and a groundstone fragment as well as lithic debitage. No midden soil or features were observed.

South of the UWSP area, is a mound village known in modern times as Sandy Cove, CA-SAC-164, which was first recorded in 1951. Cultural deposits at this site are about

1.2 meters (4 feet) thick, overlain by about 1-2 meters (3-6 feet) of sterile river deposits.

The site, however, is exposed in the eroding riverbank, and human burials have been exposed by flooding over the years. Subsequently site boundaries have been tentatively 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-13 PLNP2018-00284
established by auguring and examination of subsurface sediment profiles; the site seems to extend over about 1.8 acres. Seven burials were exposed in 1972, which dated to the Windmiller Period, 4,000 B.P. to 1400 B.P. Six more burials were exposed by erosion in 2000. These were salvaged and protected.

Also, south of the UWSP area is another a significant village site, CA-SAC-16H, which is likely the Nisenan village known as Nawean. The site is also known as Mound Ranch or the Bennett Mound. When first recorded, the site was a mound about 20 feet in height, covering as area of seven acres on the north bank of the river. Excavations took place in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1960s. As a rise in the landscape adjacent to the river, the mound was inhabited by American settlers early in the Gold Rush Era. The site was gradually destroyed by construction and disturbances, and was finally leveled in 1971 for land development, presumably destroying all archaeological integrity. Materials found at the site indicate Middle Period (2500-1050 B.P.) and Late Period (1050–150 B.P.) occupation. The artifacts observed included numerous obsidian tools, steatite implements, shell beads, and baked clay items, faunal remains, and fire-affected rock deposits. Human remains were recovered at depths of 1.5-15 feet below the surface.

HISTORIC OVERVIEW
Post-contact history of California is divided into three major periods: the Spanish period (1769–1821), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848–present).

SPANISH PERIOD (1769–1821)
The Spanish period in California spans the years from 1769 to 1821 beginning with the founding of the first mission, the Mission San Diego de Alcala in 1769. Although the missions were located closer to the coast, five known Spanish expeditions entered the Sacramento-San Joaquin deltas before 1800, and the Sacramento River was given its name, commemorating the holy sacrament, sometime before 1808. Jose Antonio Sanchez explored the delta and river south of Sacramento in 1811, and Father Narciso Duran and his party probably traveled up the river as far as the present location of the city of Sacramento in 1817. No permanent Spanish settlements, however, were ever established in the vicinity of the proposed UWSP.

MEXICAN PERIOD (1822–1848)
In 1821, Mexico gained its independence from Spain, and Alta California became one of the provinces of the Republic of Mexico. After the government secularized the missions in 1833, the Mexican governors of Alta California began making large (commonly 48,000 acres) cattle-ranching grants of former mission lands to Mexican citizens, particularly to soldiers and members of prominent families who had financed various government initiatives. During the Mexican period in 1827, American trapper Jedediah Smith traveled along the Sacramento River and into the San Joaquin Valley to meet other trappers of his company who were camped there, but no permanent settlements were established by these fur trappers. The first Mexican land grant in the Project vicinity was to John A. Sutter, a German immigrant of Swiss descent. 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-14 PLNP2018-00284
Sutter arrived in the Project vicinity in 1839 and formed the first non-indigenous settlement in the Sacramento Valley. He became Mexican citizen and gained permission from Governor Juan B. Alvarado for his settlement, which he called New Helvetia. Sutter built an adobe building surrounded by walls and outfitted with horses and armaments acquired from Fort Ross, a Russian fortification in Sonoma County.

Travelers referred to the place as Sutter’s Fort, and it became a refuge and stopping place for non-natives venturing into the area. In 1841, Sutter received a grant of nearly 50,000 acres on the Sacramento River called New Helvetia Rancho. Sutter attempted a variety of money-making ventures on his land, including trading furs, distilling alcohol, weaving woolen goods, and running a launch to San Francisco. He grew wheat, milled flour and grazed cattle and horses, which necessitated the diversion of water from the American River for irrigation. He also had a sawmill in Coloma, where his workers discovered gold January 24, 1848. This discovery ruined Sutter’s plans for New Helvetia because many of his workers fled to the hills to seek gold. Another Mexican Rancho, 44,000-acre Rancho Del Paso, was granted to Scotsman John Sinclair to the east of the Project vicinity in 1841. The western boundary of Rancho Del Paso was about five miles east of the UWSP area along today’s Northgate Boulevard. Sutter’s New Helvetia Colony was located about five miles southeast of the UWSP area on the southeastern side of the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers, while Sutter’s Rancho Helvetia included land north of the area extending along the Sacramento River into present Sutter and Yuba counties.

AMERICAN PERIOD (1848–PRESENT)
California became a United States territory in 1848 through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican War of 1846-1847, but it was not formally admitted as a state until 1850. At the time, California’s population was exploding with immigrants from all parts of the world rushing in to find gold in foothills east of the Project vicinity.

California’s 1848 population of fewer than 14,000 (exclusive of Indians) increased to 224,000 in just four years.

The town of Sacramento was planned in December of 1848 on Sutter’s grant along the road leading to his fort. Named for the adjacent river, Sacramento grew exponentially because of its location near both the gold mines and a navigable waterway that allowed access to the Pacific Ocean. By 1849, the town had 2,000 residents, with another 5,000 persons using it as a temporary base between forays to the gold mining areas.

Incorporated as a city in 1850, Sacramento became the state capital in 1854.

While Sacramento grew, ranchers and farmers in the region prospered by providing food for the growing population. Seasonal floods had deposited heavy sediment in natural levees along the river creating elevated areas of rich soil where farmers could grow a variety of crops including hops, corn, potatoes, and alfalfa. Boat landings built on the riverbanks allowed access to markets. Although the soil was productive and there was great demand for produce, the lack of drainage and devastating floods allowed only about one-tenth of the land surrounding the city to be used for agriculture.

From the first year of California’s statehood, National legislation had a major impact on the sale of wide swaths of the land in the Sacramento Valley. In 1850, the U.S. 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-15 PLNP2018-00284
Congress passed the Arkansas Act which made all public swamp and overflow lands the property of the states in which they were located. California enacted legislation in 1855 and 1858 that delegated the survey of these swamp lands to the various counties where they were situated. After being surveyed, swamp lands could be sold in limited amounts to private citizens who could build levees or ditches to reclaim the land for farming. To create regional oversight of various piecemeal and ineffective flood control efforts undertaken by individual farmers, California enacted Assembly Bill 54 in 1861 which created the Board of Swampland Commissioners to establish districts in the natural basins and oversee flood control projects. The laws were amended in 1868 with the Green Act, which allowed private citizens to buy unlimited amounts of land with less government oversight. This act resulted in greater sales of land to investors and corporations rather than individual farmers, and between 1868 and 1911, approximately 48 reclamation districts were organized in the Sacramento Valley and the Delta.

HISTORY OF THE PROJECT VICINITY
The UWSP area is located in American Township, which was partitioned from Sacramento Township in 1851. Situated north of the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers, the land lies within the American Basin, the smallest of five floodplains of the Sacramento River. Prior to land reclamation activities in the early twentieth century, the land in the UWSP area was part of a natural basin that flooded during the winter. Some of the water would drain back into the surrounding rivers through natural sloughs and the remainder would gradually dry out in the summer leaving behind a marsh of tule plants, which could grow 8 to 12 feet tall. Early maps show a large wetland, called Bush Lake covering the central portion of the UWSP area.

The 1871 Surveyors Map of Township No. 9 North Range No. 4 East of Mount Diablo Meridian identified the land in the UWSP area as “swamp and overflowed land.” As such, the land was subject to the Arkansas Act, which made it property of the state.

After the 1861 creation of the Board of Swampland Commissioners, the land including the UWSP area was designated Swamp Land District I. Between 1863 and 1865, 26 miles of levees and 20 miles of drainage canals were built in the district, but work was discontinued as a result of the American Civil War. After the 1868 Green Act, landowners built levees to protect their own property, with little regard for the neighboring tracts, and as a result, much of the area continued to be flooded. Consequently, the area was farmed with crops for several months in the summer, inundated for several months in the winter and intermittently grazed with cattle and sheep.

By 1907, all the land in the American Basin was in private hands, most of it in large parcels of 640 acres or more, held by speculators who expected it to rise in value after reclamation. The Natomas Company had acquired some of the land and joined with investors and dredging companies to consolidate its holdings in the UWSP area. When the California Legislature created Reclamation District 1000 (RD 1000) in 1911, two factors had emerged that would enable the massive reclamation endeavor encompassing the UWSP area: the emergence of modern corporations and the development of powerful equipment. The Natomas Development Company merged with other dredging companies to become the Natomas Consolidated Company and invested more than $1.3 million to purchase approximately 54,000 acres of the 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-16 PLNP2018-00284
American Basin, including land in the UWSP area. Two of the three trustees of the State district, Emery Oliver and Newton Cleaveland, were also employed by the Natomas Company, so the private corporation had decision-making control over a district established by the state. The company’s undertaking to develop the land was to be one of the largest private enterprises of its kind at the time. For the effort, the company had the equipment, the management skills and the mutually supportive relationships in the business community and government to succeed.

The company’s long-range plan for the area included a paved road to extend from the mouth of the American River to the Bear River, and electric railroad and landings along the river for shipping produce. The company proposed to divide the region into small farms between ten and forty acres for about 5,000 families and establish experimental farms to provide residents with information on crops and soils.

The company began constructing levees, cross canals, drainage and irrigation canals, and ditches in the UWSP area in 1912. Massive dredges developed by the company to extract gold from riverbeds were used to transform the seasonally inundated swampland into a landscape for agriculture. Clamshell dredges and draglines were used for the heavy work, and suction dredges filled the troughs between the earthen dykes with sand. Finishing work was completed with horse and mule teams dragging scrapers. Workers, who lived in camps or on sledges towed alongside the work areas, were employed in shifts so construction could proceed continuously, day and night.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps of Elkhorn Weir in 1915 (renamed Taylor Monument) and Lovdal in 1916 (renamed Sacramento West), do not show the transformed landscape in place. The land currently north of San Juan Road appears dry, but to the south, much of the UWSP area is submerged as part of Bush Lake. The zig-zag shape of that currently defines the northeast edge of the UWSP area is a natural water course identified as Fisherman’s Lake. This channel was the deepest portion of the existing lake and would be incorporated into the West Drainage Canal by the Natomas Company. The half-mile wide strip of land along the east side of the Sacramento River appears dry and higher in elevation. A paved road is shown on the alignment of current Garden Highway, and an unpaved track is shown running roughly parallel to it about a third of a mile east of the river. At the extreme southern end of the UWSP area, the point at the bend in the Sacramento River is labeled “Silvas Grove.” Only three buildings are shown in or near the UWSP area, situated along the banks of the Sacramento River.

Most of the features of RD 1000, which consisted of 125 miles of ditches and canals and two large pumping plants, were completed by 1918, when land became available for sale. Initially, the land was sold in 80-acre plots, manageable for farming by a single family with a team of horses. Some early settlers included Portuguese families who relocated to the newly created farmland from the Pocket/Riverside Boulevard area of Southern Sacramento.

In 1921, the Natomas Company of California produced a map of Reclamation Districts 1000 and 1400 that shows nine subdivisions divided into lots. Land in the UWSP area 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-17 PLNP2018-00284
lies within parts of Riverside Districts 2 and 3, and possibly a very small portion of Riverside District 1, the majority of which is south of current route Interstate 80 (I-80).

The lots in the strip of land between present San Juan Road and Radio Road do not appear to be part of Riverside District 2, to the south, or Riverside District 3 to the north.

The portion of the UWSP area south of San Juan Road is shown as Natomas Riverside Subdivision Number 2. This subdivision contains 49 numbered lots ranging from about 15 to about 40 acres. The 11 lots along the river are generally smaller and rectangular in shape, probably to create more lots with river frontage. One lot along the river is not numbered but bears the name “McClatchy.” It has a much wider river frontage and breaks the pattern established by the other lots, possibly because its subdivision and sale predates the Natomas Company project. East of current Bryte Bend Road, the lots are larger, about 40 acres each, and more square in shape. Notations on the map indicate that the lot lines were drawn to correspond with the existing sections numbered on the original 1871 survey of the land. A number of lots within the RD 1000 contain surnames in addition to their lot number and acreage, probably indicating ownership.

The Natomas Company had invested massive amounts of money in the project, and land sales were slower than anticipated, so the company reorganized in 1914 and defaulted on interest payments on its bonds in 1928. The completion of other reclamation districts in the Sacramento Valley created a land glut, and the outbreak of World War I drew many workers to industrial work, instead of farming. The stock market crash of 1929 brought sales to a halt, and in 1933, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation saved farmers from bankruptcy with bail outs. Furthermore, the black clay soils present in much of RD 1000 were more suitable for grain crops, such as wheat, barley and rice, which were large scale crops, instead of those favored by family farms for whom the small plots were intended.

To provide income and demonstrate the productivity of the land, the Natomas Company leased some of the unsold tracts to large scale grain farmers, beginning a trend toward larger scale agriculture rather than the small-scale farming originally intended. The majority of the land in RD 1000 finally sold in the 1940s and 50s when rice became one of the predominant crops. By 1955, the last lots had been sold, and the Natomas Company turned control of the district to the landowners.

When the Shasta Dam was completed in 1957, it regulated the flow of the Sacramento River, allowing the construction of riverside homes, including many on the river lots in the Project vicinity west of Garden Highway. Many of these homes were built for people who commuted to Sacramento. Construction of I-80 was completed in 1970 on the southeast border of the UWSP area to allow travelers from the Bay area to bypass Sacramento on their way to Reno. Two other large construction projects were built within RD 1000 in the 1970s — the Sacramento Metropolitan Airport on about 3,000 acres north of the UWSP area, and the Arco Arena on more than 200 acres northwest of the UWSP area. Housing developments were built immediately adjacent to the UWSP area in the late 1990s and the first decade of the twenty-first century. These developments are the Gateway West subdivision on both sides of El Centro Road at San Juan Road, and the Sundance Lake subdivision north of Fisherman’s Lake. 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-18 PLNP2018-00284

EXISTING CONDITIONS

RECORDS SEARCH
As recommended by the NAHC, a desktop cultural resource assessment, including a CHRIS records search, was conducted for the UWSP area and vicinity. This background research included obtaining information concerning previously conducted cultural resource surveys and previously recorded sites in the UWSP area, as well as examining historical maps and land patents in an effort to identify as-yet-unrecorded historic-era resources.

The NCIC search identified over 60 cultural resource studies have been conducted in the record search area, 34 of which included land in the UWSP area. This work has been associated with the following project types: 20 levee or drainage improvement projects, 16 residential developments, 14 highway-related projects, eight gas or electric utilities projects, and two academic archaeological excavations. Approximately 20 percent of the UWSP area has been surveyed as part of these projects.

Nine cultural resources have been previously recorded in the UWSP area. These resources are listed in Table CUL-1 and include three indigenous Native American resources, two multicomponent resources that include both indigenous and historic-era components, and ten built environment resources. In addition, the entire UWSP area is within RD 1000.

RD 1000 (P-34-05251) is a 55,000-acre Rural Historic Landscape District originally documented in 1995. Most of the previously recorded resources in the UWSP area are associated with RD 1000. RD 1000 was listed on the National Register and the California Register. At that time, it was understood that the integrity of the District would be gradually impacted by residential development associated with population growth in the Sacramento region. In November 2021, the SHPO concurred that the RD 1000 Rural Historic Landscape is no longer eligible for the National Register due to a degradation of integrity.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT DESKTOP REVIEW
A desktop review was conducted to compile a list of potential built environment resources observed within the UWSP area. These were preliminarily researched to assign approximate year-built dates. Each built environment improvement was categorized as more than 50 years of age (historic-era) or less than 50 years of age (contemporary-period) to identify potential resources that should be visited as part of field survey efforts. Sources used to obtain year-built dates include County Assessor data, historic USGS maps and aerial photography.

The desktop review identified 39 buildings or structures in the UWSP area that appear to be older than 50 years of age. These include farm complexes, buildings, two named roads, an electrical transmission line, a radio station complex and a well. These resources are listed in Table CUL-2.
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-19 PLNP2018-00284
Table CUL-1: Previously Recorded Resources Within a 1/4 Mile of the UWSP Area Primary Trinomial Name
Cultural
Affiliation Description
National/California
Register Eligibility
In Plan
Area
P-34-00045 CA-SAC-00018 Beatty Site Indigenous Lithic scatter, mound Unevaluated Yes P-34-00187 CA-SAC-00160H Richards Site Indigenous,
Historic
Trash scatter, burials, mound Unevaluated Yes
P-34-00191 CA-SAC-00164 Sand Cove Site Indigenous Burials, midden, projectile points Eligible Criterion D/4 No P-34-00457 CA-SAC-00430H West Drainage Canal Historic Earthen drainage canal RD 1000, East Drainage Canal
Contributing element of
RD 1000
Yes
P-34-00490 CA-SAC-00463H RD 1000 Levee Historic River Levee; RD 1000 East Levee Ueda Parkway Bike Trail
Contributing element of
RD 1000
Yes
P-34-00521 CA-SAC-00494H None Indigenous,
Historic
Trash scatter, habitation debris Unevaluated No
P-34-00883 None El Centro Road Historic Road Contributing element of RD 1000
Yes
P-34-00884 None San Juan Road Historic Road Contributing element of RD 1000
Yes
P-34-02197 None Natomas East & West
Drainage Canals
Historic Same as P-34-00457 Contributing element of
RD 1000
Yes
P-34-02393 None Edwin Witter Ranch Historic Ranch National Register Listed, Criteria A, B, C
No
P-34-04026 None 3800 Garden Highway Historic Ranch Ineligible Yes P-34-04055 CA-SAC-1145 N. Johnson Borrow Area Indigenous Habitation debris Unevaluated Yes P-34-04136 None Riverside Pump Station Historic Building Eligible, Criteria A/1 and C/3
No
P-34-05049 None Natomas Central Mutual
Water Company District
(NCMWC) Canal
Historic Irrigation ditch Ineligible No
P-34-05251 None RD 1000 Historic 55,000-acre Rural Historic Landscape District
Eligible, Criteria A/1 Yes
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-20 PLNP2018-00284
Table CUL-2: Built Environment Resources in the UWSP Area Older than 50 Years Parcel Number Address
Resource
Type Reference
225-0110-024 3802 Garden Highway Radio Station
Complex
Tax Assessor (1948), 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map
225-0110-026 Well (Radio Road) Well 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0110-032 3705 El Centro Road Building 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map (building straddles lot line with 3709 El Centro Road)
225-0110-054 3709 El Centro Road Building 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map (building straddles lot line with 3705 El Centro Road)
225-0121-002 3930 El Centro Road Dwelling Tax Assessor (1961); 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0131-005 3280 Leona Circle Dwelling Tax Assessor (1958); 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0131-008 3220 Leona Circle Dwelling Tax Assessor (1968) 225-0132-002 3337 Leona Circle Dwelling Tax Assessor (1971) 225-0132-005 3201 Leona Circle Dwelling 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0190-008 3540 Garden Highway Farm Complex 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0210-001 3291 El Centro Road Building 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0210-004 3201 El Centro Road Building 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0210-005 3830 El Centro Road Dwelling Tax Assessor (1961); 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 225-0210-007 2651 El Centro Road Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0210-021 2596 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0210-022 2598 Garden Highway Building Tax Assessor (1947); 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0210-023 2604 Garden Highway Dwelling Tax Assessor (1955); 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0210-024 2620, 2636 and 2700 Garden
Highway (Marsten Tract)
Farm Complex Tax Assessor (1956); 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0210-025 2870 Garden Highway Farm Complex 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0210-038 2600 Garden Highway Farm Complex 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-21 PLNP2018-00284
Parcel Number Address
Resource
Type Reference
225-0210-008, 225-0210-009,
225-0210-010, 225-0210-039,
274-0010-055, 274-0010-049,
274-0010-069
Bryte Bend (Miller) Road Unpaved road 1911 Natomas RD 1000 map 225-0220-051 2850 El Centro Road Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 225-0220-060 3100 El Centro Road Building Tax Assessor (1919) 225-0310-001 3360 Leona Circle Dwelling Tax Assessor (1962); 1967 Taylor Monument USGS Map 274-0010-057 and others Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E) transmission line
Electrical
transmission line
1967 Sacramento West USGS Map
274-0220-054 2178 and 2180 Garden
Highway
Buildings Tax Assessor (1935); 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0250-002 2490 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0250-004 2482 and 2484 Garden
Highway
Buildings 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map
274-0250-008 2434 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0250-009 2430 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0250-011 2426 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0250-013 2425 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0250-039 2590 Garden Highway Farm Complex Tax Assessor (1947); 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0260-008 2200 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0260-032 2196 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0260-042 2184 Garden Highway Farm Complex 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0260-045 2320 Garden Highway Building Tax Assessor (1957); 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map 274-0269-001 2350 Garden Highway Building 1967 Sacramento West USGS Map None Radio Road Two-lane road 1911 Natomas RD 1000 map
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-22 PLNP2018-00284

SUMMARY
The desk-top analysis of the UWSP area indicates that the entire area is sensitive for indigenous resources that may contain human remains. In addition, some of these extremely sensitive resources may be buried by as much as two meters of sediment and may not have any surface indications. Very little of the UWSP area has been subject to intensive archaeological survey, therefore the locations of these resources are mostly unknown.

Most of the recorded historic-era resources in the UWSP area are associated with historic rural agricultural development and reclamation.

Finally, the desktop, built environment review suggests that the UWSP area includes at least 39 resources in the area that are older than 50 years of age.

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts on cultural resources may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; or  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
All potential issues related to cultural resources identified in the significance criteria above are evaluated below.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
Potential impacts on architectural resources are assessed by identifying any activities that could affect resources identified as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.

Once a resource has been identified as a CEQA historical resource, it then must be determined whether the impacts of the project would “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]).

A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historic resource would be 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-23 PLNP2018-00284
materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[b][1]). A historical resource is materially impaired through the demolition or alteration of the resource’s physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Archaeological resources can include historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as well as unique archaeological resources as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g). The significance of most indigenous and historic-era archaeological resources is usually assessed under California Register Criterion 4. This criterion stresses the importance of the information potential contained within the site, rather than its significance as a surviving example of a type or its association with an important person or event. Although it is less common, archaeological resources also may be assessed under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and/or 3. Archaeological resources also may be considered under CEQA as unique archaeological resources, defined as archaeological artifacts, objects, or sites that contain information needed to answer important scientific research questions.

Impacts on unique archaeological resources or archaeological resources that qualify as historical resources are assessed pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2 which states that the lead agency shall determine whether the project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. As with architectural resources above, whether the impacts of the project would “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource must be determined (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]).

HUMAN REMAINS
Human remains, including those buried outside of formal cemeteries, are protected under several state laws, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. These laws are identified in the Regulatory Setting above. This analysis considers impacts on human remains including intentional disturbance, mutilation, or removal of interred human remains.

IMPACT CUL-1: HISTORICAL RESOURCES
A significant impact would occur if development allowed under the proposed UWSP would cause a substantial adverse change to a historical resource, herein referring to historic-era architectural resources or the built environment, including buildings, structures, and objects. A substantial adverse change includes the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

Based on the results of the background research there are historical resources and potential historical resources within the UWSP area. Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would involve ground disturbance, vibration, and removal of architectural resources (e.g., ranches, roads, levees, trails, outbuildings, etc.). In addition, construction of this development also has the potential to introduce new visual elements or modify existing visual elements. However, the exact details, 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-24 PLNP2018-00284
including precise locations, of any such construction activities have yet to be determined. Therefore, it is not known whether development allowed under the proposed UWSP would affect any significant historical resources.

Construction could result in significant impacts on historical resources in several ways:
 Construction could introduce new elements to the historic setting associated with a historical resource, or could physically alter a historical resource;  Ground-disturbing construction activities could alter existing landscapes; or  Vibration generated during construction work could physically damage or alter a nearby architectural resource that has the potential to qualify as a historical resource.

If construction activities for development allowed under the proposed UWSP were to result in either a direct impact (e.g., physical modification, damage, or destruction) or an indirect impact (e.g., alteration to setting, including visual) on any architectural resources that qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the impact would be potentially significant.

As also described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and depicted on Plate PD-20, the proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, including road improvements to El Centro and San Juan roads; new roadway connections to Garden Highway at Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road; a potential bike trail bridge crossing of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal); stormwater discharge facilities at two potential locations of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal); a new sewer force main from the UWSP area east to the New Natomas Pump Station (NNPS); potential improvements to the I-80/El Camino Avenue interchange; and a new water supply connection to the existing City of Sacramento water distribution system along West River Drive. The proposed offsite improvements would occur within existing rights-of-way and would not include new structures that would directly impact historical resources. However, there could be indirect impacts, such as visual impacts or vibratory impacts, to historical resources if any such resources are in the vicinity of offsite improvements.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires that each individual project inventory and evaluate historical resources within the affected area, and if historical resources are discovered, develop an approach to avoid or minimize impacts.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would be the responsibility of the project proponent(s). However, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid a historical resource, and the resource may need to be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of such actions are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measure, or an equally effective mitigation measure, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-25 PLNP2018-00284

MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-1 Conduct Inventory and Significance Evaluation of Architectural Resources.

Before each individual development phase or off-site element subject to approval under CEQA, the project proponent shall retain the services of a Secretary of the Interior qualified architectural historian to conduct an inventory and significance evaluation of architectural resources in the affected area. The architectural historian will conduct an inventory that includes the following:
 Map(s) and verbal description of the project-specific area that delineates both the horizontal and vertical extents of where a project could result in impacts, including both direct and indirect, on cultural resources.  A review of maps and aerial photos to see if existing buildings, roads, or other built features are in the project-specific area.
 If so, and the age of these features is either unknown or is known to be older than 45 years, an inventory and evaluation shall be completed that includes documentation of the resource on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms and an evaluation for California Register eligibility (i.e., whether they qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5)  If California Register-eligible resources are present, an assessment of potential project impacts shall be conducted. Where possible, the project shall be configured or redesigned to avoid impacts on eligible or listed resources. Alternatively, resources may be preserved in place, if possible, as suggested under California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.

Where impacts cannot be avoided, an analysis shall be completed of whether the project’s potential impacts on the historical resource would be consistent with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and applicable guidelines.

If potentially significant impacts on historical resources are identified, an approach for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be developed before project implementation and in coordination with interested parties (e.g., historical societies, local communities). Typical measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
 Modifying the project to avoid impacts on historical resources.  Documentation of historical resources, to the standards of and to be included in the Historic American Buildings Survey, Historic American Engineering Record, or Historic American Landscapes Survey, as appropriate. As described in the above standards, the documentation shall be conducted by a qualified architectural historian, defined above, and shall include large-format photography, measured drawings, written 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-26 PLNP2018-00284
architectural descriptions, and historical narratives. The completed documentation shall be submitted to the U.S. Library of Congress.  Relocation of historical resources in conformance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
 Monitoring construction-related and operational vibrations at historical resources.
 For historical resources that are landscapes, preservation of the landscape’s historic form, features, and details that have evolved over time, in conformance with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Guidance for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
 Development and implementation of interpretive programs or displays, and community outreach.

IMPACT CUL-2: ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This impact discusses archaeological resources, both as historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, as well as unique archaeological resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g). A significant impact would occur if development allowed under the proposed UWSP would cause a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

Based on the results of the background research there are indigenous and historic-era archaeological resources present within the UWSP area as well as the potential for previously unrecorded archaeological resources to be in the area. Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would involve ground disturbance (e.g., excavation, grading, drilling). However, the exact details, including precise locations, of any such construction activities have yet to be determined. Therefore, it is not known whether development allowed under the proposed UWSP would affect any significant archaeological resources.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements as previously described. The proposed offsite improvements would occur within existing rights-of-way (e.g. within existing roadway corridors, facility footprints, and/or underground). It is not known whether the offsite improvements would affect any significant archaeological resources.

Construction of development or infrastructure associated with the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements could partially or completely destroy archaeological resources, resulting in a significant impact. If construction activities for development allowed under the proposed UWSP were to result in an impact on any archaeological resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, the impact would be potentially significant. Development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-2a, which requires that each 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-27 PLNP2018-00284
individual project inventory and evaluate archaeological resources within the affected area, and if archaeological resources are discovered, develop an approach to avoid or minimize impacts, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2b, which discusses steps to take if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction or operation.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would be the responsibility of the project proponent(s). However, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid an archaeological resource, and the resource may be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of such actions are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measures, or equally effective mitigation measures, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-2a Conduct Inventory and Significance Evaluation of Archaeological Resources.

Before each individual development phase or off-site element subject to approval under CEQA, the project proponent shall retain the services of a Secretary of the Interior qualified archaeologist to conduct an inventory and significance evaluation of archaeological resources in the project-specific area. The archaeologist will conduct an inventory, including a review of the Cultural Resources Conservation Strategy (Helix 2022), that includes the following:
 Map(s) and verbal description of the project-specific area that delineates both the horizontal and vertical extents of where a project could result in impacts, including both direct and indirect, on cultural resources.  Communication with consulting Native American tribes to determine whether any indigenous archaeological resource or tribal cultural resources could be affected by the project. Project proponents shall request a list of consulting tribes from the County and coordinate determination of tribal cultural resources according to Mitigation Measure TCR-1a. For projects requiring additional CEQA review, consultation shall be completed pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.
 An updated records search of the project-specific area from the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.
 An archaeological sensitivity analysis to assess the potential for buried archaeological resources using geologic and historic maps, soils data, and other sources.
 An archaeological field survey that includes, at a minimum, a pedestrian survey. If the archaeological sensitivity analysis suggests a high potential for buried archaeological resources, a subsurface survey may also be required. Any archaeological resources identified during the survey shall 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-28 PLNP2018-00284
be recorded on the appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 forms.

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

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

If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for California Register eligibility (i.e., whether they qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or unique archaeological resources, as 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-29 PLNP2018-00284
defined in PRC Section 21083.2). Such evaluation may require archaeological testing (excavation), potentially including laboratory analysis.

If California Register-eligible resources are present, an assessment of potential project impacts shall be conducted. Where possible, the project shall be configured or redesigned to avoid impacts on eligible or listed resources.

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

If potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources that qualify as historical resources (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) and/or unique archaeological resources (per PRC Section 21083.2) are identified, an approach for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be developed, in coordination with interested or consulting parties (e.g., Native American representatives, historical societies, or local communities as appropriate).

Typical measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
 Modify the project to avoid impacts on resources.
 Plan parks, green space, or other open space to incorporate the resources.
 Develop and implement a detailed archaeological resources management plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from archaeological resources before any excavation at the resource’s location.

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

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

Before the start of ground-disturbing activities, the project proponent shall retain Secretary of Interior-qualified cultural resources specialist to conduct training for construction workers, to educate them about the possibility of encountering buried cultural resources and inform them of the proper procedures should cultural resources be encountered. This training shall be provided to all new workers within their first week of employment at the project site, along the linear facilities routes, and at laydown areas, roads, and other ancillary areas. The training shall be prepared in consultation with 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-30 PLNP2018-00284
consulting Native Americans and shall incorporate the traditions and beliefs of local Native American groups into the presentation.

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

IMPACT CUL-3: HUMAN REMAINS
Indigenous Native American archaeological resources may contain human burials and maybe also be considered tribal cultural resources. Based on the background research, there is the potential that the UWSP area and locations of offsite improvements has been used for human burial purposes and the possibility of encountering human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries, during project-related ground disturbing activities cannot be entirely discounted. 9 - Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 9-31 PLNP2018-00284
Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements could partially or completely destroy human remains, resulting in a significant impact. If construction activities for development allowed under the proposed UWSP were to result in an impact on any human remains, the impact would be potentially significant.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which discusses steps to take if unknown human remains are discovered during construction or operation.

Implementation of this mitigation measure would be the responsibility of the project proponent(s). However, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid human remains and they may be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of such actions are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measure, or an equally effective mitigation measure, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. For these reasons, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
CUL-3 Implement Measures to Protect Human Remains during Project Construction or Operation.

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

Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-1 PLNP2018-00284
10 ENERGY

INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses the impacts of the UWSP on energy resources at both the state level and regionally. The analysis focuses on the California energy profile (i.e., mix of energy resources and consumption characteristics) and the energy production and transmission profile of Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the regional purveyors of electricity and natural gas, respectively, to the UWSP area and vicinity.

This chapter also identifies the regulatory and policy frameworks that govern the production and consumption of energy resources and increase energy efficiency while reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The energy usage characteristics of development allowed under the proposed UWSP are also examined to determine whether such development could result in any energy-related environmental impacts during construction or operational activities. Demand for energy (electricity, natural gas, fuel) as a result of implementation of the proposed UWSP has been calculated for construction and operations. Impacts related to energy demand and conservation are analyzed and mitigation measures are described to avoid or reduce the magnitude of potential energy demand and conservation-related impacts as warranted.

The County received comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) related to energy demand and conservation; these comments are addressed in this chapter to the extent they pertain to the impacts of the proposed UWSP (see Appendix B). NOP comments relevant to this chapter include requests for the County to evaluate impacts related to energy efficiency.

The analysis included in this chapter was adapted from an Energy Estimates Summary Report prepared by Frontier Energy and Schweitzer & Associates in September 2021 and provided in Appendix EN-1 of this EIR. Additional data and information were obtained from the County, PG&E, SMUD, the California Energy Commission (CEC), and other published technical reports. The modeling for the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analyses conducted for this project also informs the analysis presented in this chapter.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

STATE SETTING
In 2021 (the most recent year for which data are available), total energy usage in California was 7,359 trillion British thermal units (Btu), which equates to an average of 189 million Btu per capita. These figures place California second among the nation’s 50 states in total energy use and 48th in per capita consumption. Of California’s total 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-2 PLNP2018-00284
energy usage, the breakdown by sector is roughly 38 percent transportation, 23 percent industrial, 19 percent commercial, and 20 percent residential (USEIA 2023a). In California, electricity and natural gas are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum-based fuel consumption is generally accounted for by transportation-related energy use. California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources.

ELECTRICITY
In 2021, California’s energy mix totaled 277,764 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity, of which 70 percent was from in-state electricity generation and the remaining 30 percent was imported from adjacent states in the Northwest and Southwest. GWh is a measure of energy, which is used to measure output of electricity generators over time.

Total system electric generation for California for 2021 increased by 2 percent from 2020’s total generation of 272,576 GWh (CEC 2023a). Electricity from non–carbon dioxide (CO2) emitting electric generation categories (i.e., nuclear, large and small hydroelectric, and renewable generation) accounted for approximately 49 percent of total in-state generation for 2021, compared to 51 percent in 2020. As a result, California's in-state non-CO2-emitting electric generation dropped by 2 percent in 2021.

This change is attributable to the continued impacts from California’s ongoing drought, which also has an influence on the significant reduction by 32 percent of in-state hydroelectric generation. Net imports of electricity increased by 2.4 percent, partially offsetting the decreased output from California’s hydroelectric power plants.

The overall increase observed in California’s total electric generation system for 2022 is consistent with the trends observed in energy demand. In recent years, electricity demand has been flat or declining slightly as energy efficiency programs have resulted in end-use energy reduction, and as customers install behind-the-meter solar photovoltaic (PV) systems that directly displace utility-supplied generation. In 2020, solar PV generation was estimated to be 27,179 GWh, a 56 percent increase since 2017. The strong growth in solar PV has had a measurable impact on utility-served load and, consequently, on the total system’s electric generation.

California has approximately 82,776 megawatts (MW) of electric generation capacity installed across the state among more than 1,500 power plants that use a broad array of technologies. MW is a measure of power or the rate that energy can be generated.

Total installed renewable generation capacity includes 15,221 MW from solar PV and 6,117 MW from wind. Large hydroelectric power plants, considered a zero-carbon resource, provide an additional 12,281 MW of capacity, while California's last remaining operational nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, provides approximately 2,393 MW.

Natural gas–fired power plants make up 39,479 MW, or about half of the state's total generating capacity, but their energy is displaced by hydroelectric generation during wet years when spring runoff from snowpack is plentiful. The tremendous growth in utilityscale renewable generation has also helped reduce the state's reliance on natural gas, favoring those power plants that can provide fast-ramping capabilities to integrate wind 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-3 PLNP2018-00284
and solar generation while displacing the use of aging steam generators that are slow to respond to changing grid conditions.

Increasingly, electricity is used in multiple transportation modes, including light-duty vehicles, transit buses, and light and heavy rail. In California, its use is forecast to emerge in battery-electric medium-duty trucks, battery-electric buses, catenary-electric port drayage trucks, and high-speed rail. The CEC forecasts that the statewide electricity demand for electricity-powered transportation modes will increase from its current level of 2,000 GWh annually to between 12,000 and 18,000 GWh per year by 2030, depending on technology development and market penetration of the various vehicle types (CEC 2018a).

NATURAL GAS
One-third of the energy commodities consumed in California consist of natural gas.

Although natural gas is the most common energy source for electricity generation in California, 90 percent of the state’s natural gas is imported from the Rocky Mountain region, the Southwest, and Canadian basins (USEIA 2023b). Californians consumed more than 11,923 million therms of natural gas in 2021, equal to 1,192,270,564 million Btu (MMBtu) (CEC 2023b). The natural gas market continues to evolve and service options expand, but its use falls mainly into the following four sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, and electric power generation. In addition, natural gas is a viable alternative to petroleum fuels for use in cars, trucks, and buses.

Nearly 45 percent of the natural gas burned in California is used for electricity generation, and most of the remainder is consumed in the residential (21 percent), industrial (25 percent), and commercial (9 percent) sectors (CEC 2023c). Natural gas has become an increasingly important source of energy because most of the state’s power plants rely on this fuel, providing the largest portion of the total in-state capacity and electricity generation in California.

TRANSPORTATION FUELS
The energy consumed by the transportation sector accounts for roughly 41 percent of California’s petroleum demand. Gasoline and diesel, both derived from petroleum (also known as crude oil), are the two most common fuels used for vehicular travel. According to the CEC, the state relies on petroleum-based fuels for 96 percent of its transportation needs. The transportation sector, including on-road and rail transportation (but excluding aviation), accounts for more than 96 percent of all motor gasoline use in the U.S., at roughly 3.4 million barrels in 2019. California is the third largest consumer of gasoline in the world, behind the U.S. (as a whole) and China (USEIA 2023a). In 2022, approximately 26 percent of California’s crude oil was obtained from within the state, about 15 percent came from Alaska, and the remaining 60 percent came from outside the United States (CEC 2023d).

In 2022, taxable gasoline sales (including aviation gasoline) in California amounted to approximately 14 billion gallons (CDTFA 2022a), and taxable diesel fuel sales amounted to approximately 3 billion gallons (CDTFA 2022b). Statewide, there was an 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-4 PLNP2018-00284
overall decrease in gasoline and diesel consumption from 2007 to 2011 because of the economic recession, but consumption increased again until 2020. The year 2020 saw another drop as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The CEC forecasts that demand for gasoline in California will range from 12.3 billion to

12.7 billion gallons in 2030, with most of the demand generated by light-duty vehicles.

While the models show an increase in light-duty vehicles along with population and income growth over the forecast horizon, total gasoline consumption is expected to decline, primarily because of increasing fuel economy (stemming from federal and state regulations) and displacement of gasoline vehicles by the increasing market penetration of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).

For diesel, demand is forecast to increase modestly by 2030, following the growth of California’s economy; however, the demand will be tempered by an increase in fleet fuel economy and market penetration of alternative fuels, most prominently by natural gas in the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sectors (CEC 2018a).

California’s oil fields make up the fourth largest petroleum-producing area in the United States, behind areas of federal offshore production, Texas, and North Dakota. Crude oil is moved from area to area within California through a network of pipelines that carry the oil from both onshore and offshore wells to refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Los Angeles area, and the Central Valley. Currently, 16 petroleum refineries operate in California, processing approximately 2.0 million barrels of crude oil per day (CEC 2023e).

Electricity consumption in the transportation sector is projected to increase to between 12,000 and 18,000 GWh by 2030, a six-fold to nine-fold increase from 2017. The growth of light-duty plug-in electric vehicles is mostly responsible for the change in electricity demand, but increasing electrification in other transportation sectors also contributes to the projected increase in electricity consumption (CEC 2018a).

Other transportation fuel sources used in California include alternative fuels, such as methanol and denatured ethanol (alcohol mixtures that contain no less than 70 percent alcohol), natural gas (compressed or liquefied), liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, and fuels derived from biological materials (i.e., biomass).

REGIONAL SETTING

ELECTRICITY
SMUD is a publicly owned utility responsible for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical power to its 900-square-mile service area, which includes the UWSP area. SMUD’s service area includes most of Sacramento County and a small portion of Placer County. In 2021, SMUD obtained its electricity from the following sources: large hydroelectric (18 percent); natural gas (51 percent); and eligible renewable resources (30 percent), including biomass and waste, geothermal, eligible hydroelectric, solar, and wind. The remaining 1 percent came from nuclear and other unspecified power sources (SMUD 2021). Sacramento County consumed 11,218 million GWh of electricity in 2021 (CEC 2023f).
10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-5 PLNP2018-00284

NATURAL GAS
PG&E provides natural gas distribution, procurement, and storage in Sacramento County and is the only supplier of natural gas to the UWSP area. As a regulated utility, PG&E is required to update its systems to meet any additional demand. PG&E provides service to 48 counties in California, with a total service area of approximately 70,000 square miles in Northern and Central California. The utility provides service via 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. PG&E serves approximately 4.5 million natural gas distribution customers (PG&E 2023). Natural gas distribution lines in new development are placed underground in accordance with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulations. Natural gas is supplied to the Sacramento area through a network of highand low-pressure transmission and distribution systems. In 2021, natural gas consumption in Sacramento County was 30,070,670 MMBtu (CEC 2023b).

PETROLEUM
Gasoline and diesel fuel are, by far, the largest volume transportation fuels used in Sacramento County. Estimated totals of 557 million gallons of gasoline and 87 million gallons of diesel were sold in Sacramento County in 2021 (CEC 2023g).

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The UWSP area has electrical and natural gas infrastructure from SMUD and PG&E, respectively. Existing energy consumption in the UWSP area is minimal. Most of the existing land uses within the UWSP area are agriculture, agricultural residential, commercial, and recreation.

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY ACT
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) serves as the underlying authority for federal energy management goals and requirements. Signed into law in 1978, it has been regularly updated and amended by subsequent laws and regulations.

This act is the foundation of most federal energy requirements. NECPA established energy efficiency standards for consumer projects and includes a residential program for low-income weatherization assistance, grants and loan guarantees for energy conservation in schools and hospitals, and energy efficiency standards for new construction. Initiatives in these areas continue today.

NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
The National Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets equipment energy efficiency standards and seeks to reduce reliance on nonrenewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, consumers 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-6 PLNP2018-00284
and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products, including hybrid vehicles; constructing energy-efficient buildings; and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for installing qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment.

Executive Order 13423 (Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management), signed in 2007, strengthens the key energy management goals for the federal government and sets more challenging goals than the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The energy reduction and environmental performance requirements of Executive Order 13423 were expanded upon in Executive Order 13514 (Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance), signed in 2009.

ENERGY AND INDEPENDENCE SECURITY ACT OF 2007
The Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007 sets federal energy management requirements in several areas: energy reduction goals for federal buildings, facility management and benchmarking, performance and standards for new buildings and major renovations, high-performance buildings, energy savings performance contracts, metering, and energy-efficient product procurement. It also sets requirements for reductions in petroleum use, such as by setting automobile efficiency standards and encouraging increases in the use of alternative fuels. This act also amends portions of the National Energy Policy Conservation Act.

CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS
Established by Congress in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency jointly administer the CAFE standards. Congress has specified that the CAFE standards must be set at the “maximum feasible level” with consideration given for technological feasibility, economic practicality, the effect of other standards on fuel economy, and the need for the nation to conserve energy.1

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent agency that regulates the transmission and sale of electricity, natural gas, and oil; licenses and inspects hydropower projects; reviews proposals to build liquefied natural gas terminals; and oversees related environmental matters (FERC 2024).
1 For more information on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, see https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy. 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-7 PLNP2018-00284
STATE

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The CPUC regulates the design, installation, and management of California’s public utilities, including electric, natural gas, water, transportation, and telecommunications.

The CPUC also provides consumer programs and information, such as energy efficiency, low-income programs, demand response, and California solar initiative for California’s energy consumers.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
On May 9, 2018, the CEC adopted new building standards requiring all new homes to have solar photovoltaic systems starting in 2020. The new standards aim to reduce energy uses in new homes by more than 50 percent. Other key areas the new standards address include updated thermal envelope standards (prevention of heat transfer), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements.

WARREN-ALQUIST ACT
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the California Energy Commission or CEC. The act established a state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY ACTION PLAN
California’s 2008 Energy Action Plan Update revised the 2005 Energy Action Plan II, the state’s principal energy planning and policy document. The plan maintains the goals of the original Energy Action Plan, describes a coordinated implementation plan for state energy policies, and identifies action areas to ensure that California’s energy is adequate, affordable, technologically advanced, and environmentally sound.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED ENERGY POLICY
In 2002, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1389, which required the CEC to develop an integrated energy plan biannually for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Report. SB 1389 requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report (IEPR) that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the state’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code Section 25301[a]). The IEPR has replaced the 2008 Energy Action Plan as the chief program intended to provide a comprehensive statewide energy strategy to guide energy investments, energy-related regulatory efforts, and GHG reduction measures.

The most recent update to the IEPR (2022) examines how California’s energy system must be transformed to meet the state’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction goal, including 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-8 PLNP2018-00284
implementation of SB 350 (De Leon, Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015) to double the energy efficiency of existing buildings and SB 100’s target of achieving 60 percent renewables in the electricity supply by 2030. The report also covers policies and trends in integrated resource planning, distributed energy resources, transportation electrification, barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, demand response, transmission and landscape-scale planning, the California Energy Demand Preliminary Forecast, the preliminary transportation energy demand forecast, renewable gas (in response to SB 1383), the natural gas outlook, and solutions to increase resiliency in the electricity sector. The key strategies identified in the 2022 IEPR Update are summarized below (CEC 2023h).

DECARBONIZING THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR
Decarbonizing the electricity sector is part of an integrated approach to reducing emissions from energy use. In 2023, about 34 percent of the electricity used to serve California was produced from renewable resources.

The electricity sector is leading the state’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. Although the state’s GHG reduction goals (i.e., Assembly Bill [AB] 32 and SB 32) are economywide, in 2016 the electricity sector surpassed AB 32’s 2020 goal and nearly met SB 32’s 2030 goal (see Chapter 8, Climate Change, for more information about AB 32 and SB 32). In 2016, GHG emissions from the electricity sector were 37.6 percent below 1990 levels. These gains are largely attributable to advancements in energy efficiency, increased use of renewable energy resources, and reduced use of coal-fired electricity.

To further reduce GHG emissions, California is increasingly using renewable resources to produce electricity while planning for increased demand from transportation electrification and other opportunities for electrification.

In 2021, solar energy accounted for 49 percent of the state’s renewable energy generation (CEC 2023a). The increase in solar and other renewables is a California success story in reducing GHG emissions, but also creates operational challenges. Grid operators must manage the ramp-up of solar generation as it peaks during midday and then ramps down at sunset while electricity demand remains high.

The 2022 IEPR emphasizes the current challenge the state faces in increasing its ability to integrate more renewable energy into the grid. There is an increasing need for energy storage that can balance supply and demand by absorbing excess energy and reinjecting it into the grid when demand increases. There is also a need for transmission investments to link the state’s extensive renewable resources to load centers throughout the grid. The challenges are compounded by increasing numbers of Californians who are generating, and in some cases storing, their own electricity, or are purchasing electricity from local providers called community choice aggregators.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND BUILDING DECARBONIZATION
In 2017, as called for in SB 350, the CEC established ambitious annual targets to achieve a statewide doubling of cumulative energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. The CEC developed the doubling targets in collaboration with the CPUC, investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, and other stakeholders 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-9 PLNP2018-00284
through a public process. However, the state will need additional efforts to decarbonize homes and businesses to meet California’s goals for 2030 and 2050.

As spelled out in the California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, the CPUC has set a goal of achieving zero net energy performance for all new low-rise homes constructed in or after 2020, and for all new commercial buildings constructed in or after 2030. The latest adopted building energy standards (2022 Title 24 standard, described below), require, for the first time, PV installations on new homes.

TRANSPORTATION ELECTRIFICATION
California is working to transform the transportation sector away from petroleum to nearzero-emission vehicles operating with low-carbon fuels and ZEVs that run on electricity from batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Because the transportation sector accounts for almost half of the state’s GHG emissions (CARB 2022), the state is advancing goals, policies, and plans to support the proliferation of zero-emission and near-zero-emission vehicles. As described in more detail below, the Governor’s Executive Orders have set goals of reaching 1.5 million ZEVs on California’s roadways by 2025 and 5 million by 2030. As usage grows, ZEVs will have an increasing role in grid management and the integration of renewables in particular.

TITLE 24 – CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
Energy consumption for new residential and nonresidential buildings is regulated by California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6, California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code), which was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption in the state. The standards are updated periodically (typically every three years) to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods. The current standards became effective on January 1, 2023. These standards require solar PV systems for new homes, encourage demand-responsive technologies including battery storage and heat pump water heaters, and improve the thermal envelopes of buildings through high-performance attics, walls, and windows. In nonresidential buildings, the standards update indoor and outdoor lighting, making maximum use of light-emitting diode (LED) technology (CEC 2023i).

TITLE 24 – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
Part 11 of CCR Title 24 California Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen. CALGreen is intended to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low-pollution–emitting substances that cause less harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment.

Since 2011, CALGreen has been mandatory for all new residential and nonresidential buildings constructed in the state. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality.
10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-10 PLNP2018-00284
The 2022 CALGreen updates, which took effect on January 1, 2023, incorporate amendments to electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces, outdoor water use provisions, and clarifications (CBSC 2023).

RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD
The State of California has adopted a Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the percentage that retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, must provide from renewable resources. Qualifying renewables under the RPS include bioenergy such as biogas and biomass, small hydroelectric facilities (30 MW or less), wind, solar, and geothermal energy. The CPUC and CEC jointly implement the RPS program. The CPUC’s responsibilities include the following:
• Determine annual procurement targets and enforce compliance. • Review and approve each investor-owned utility’s renewable energy procurement plan.
• Review contracts for RPS-eligible energy.
• Establish the standard terms and conditions used in contracts for eligible renewable energy.

EXECUTIVE ORDERS S-14-08 AND S-21-09
In November 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-14-08, which expanded the state’s RPS to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In September 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger continued California’s commitment to the RPS by signing Executive Order S-21-09, which directed the California Air Resources Board (CARB) under AB 32 authority to enact regulations to help the state meet its RPS goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.

SENATE BILL 350—CLEAN ENERGY AND POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015 SB 350, known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, was enacted on October 7, 2015, and provides a new set of objectives in clean energy, clean air, and pollution reduction by 2030. The objectives include the following:
• To increase from 33 percent to 50 percent the procurement of our electricity from renewable sources.
• To double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation.

SENATE BILL 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed SB 100, establishing that all electricity in California must be obtained from renewable and zero-carbon energy resources by December 31, 2045. SB 100 goes beyond the RPS goals established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the law increases the percentage of energy that must come from renewable sources for both investor-owned utilities and publicly owned utilities from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. Incrementally, the law required these 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-11 PLNP2018-00284
energy providers to have a renewable energy supply of 33 percent by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, and 52 percent by 2027. The updated RPS goals are considered achievable because many California energy providers are already meeting or exceeding the RPS goals established by SB 350.

CALIFORNIA APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS
California’s Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR 1601–1608) contain standards for both federally regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. The regulations are updated regularly to allow consideration of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current regulations were adopted by the CEC on November 18, 2009. The standards outlined in the regulations apply to appliances that are sold or offered for sale in California. More than 23 different categories of appliances are regulated, including refrigerators, freezers, water heaters, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, pool equipment, and plumbing fittings.

TRANSPORTATION ENERGY
ASSEMBLY BILL 1007 (PAVLEY)—ALTERNATIVE FUEL STANDARDS
AB 1007 (Pavley, Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other federal, state, and local agencies. The final State Alternative Fuels Plan, published in December 2007, attempts to achieve an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions associated with personal modes of transportation, even as California’s population increases.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1493 (PAVLEY)
Because the transportation sector accounts for more than half of California’s CO2 emissions, AB 1493 (commonly referred to as CARB’s Pavley regulations), enacted on July 22, 2002, requires CARB to set GHG emissions standards for new passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles manufactured in and after 2009 whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation. Phase I of the legislation established standards for model years 2009 through 2016 and Phase II established standards for model years 2017 through 2025. See Chapter 8, Climate Change, for additional details regarding this regulation.

LOW CARBON FUEL STANDARD
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), established in 2007 through Executive Order S-1-07 and administered by CARB, requires producers of petroleum-based fuels to reduce the carbon intensity of their products that started with a 0.25 percent reduction in 2011, and culminated in a 10 percent total reduction in 2020. In September 2018, CARB extended the LCFS program to 2030, making significant changes to the design and implementation of the program, including a doubling of the carbon intensity reduction to 20 percent by 2030.
10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-12 PLNP2018-00284
Petroleum importers, refiners, and wholesalers can either develop their own low-carbon fuel products or buy LCFS credits from other companies that develop and sell lowcarbon alternative fuels, such as biofuels, electricity, natural gas, and hydrogen.

EXECUTIVE ORDER B-16-12—2025 GOAL FOR ZERO-EMISSION VEHICLES In March 2012, Governor Brown issued an executive order establishing a goal of

1.5 million ZEVs on California roads by 2025. In addition to the ZEV goal, Executive Order B-16-12 stipulated that by 2015, all major cities in California would have adequate infrastructure and be “zero-emission vehicle ready”; that by 2020, the state would have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs; and that by 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the state would be based on ZEVs, and GHG emissions from the transportation sector would be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ADVANCED CLEAN CAR PROGRAM The Advanced Clean Cars emissions control program was approved by CARB in 2012 and is closely associated with the Pavley regulations. The program requires a greater number of ZEV models for the years 2015 through 2025 to control smog, soot, and GHG emissions. This program includes the Low-Emissions Vehicle (LEV) regulations to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and GHGs from light- and medium-duty vehicles; and the ZEV regulations to require manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery and fuel cell EVs) with the provision to produce plug-in hybrid EVs between 2018 and 2025.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD MOBILE SOURCE STRATEGY
The Mobile Source Strategy (2016) includes an expansion of the Advanced Clean Cars program (which further increases the stringency of GHG emissions for all light-duty vehicles, and 4.2 million zero-emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty vehicles by 2030). It also calls for more stringent GHG requirements for light-duty vehicles beyond 2025, as well as reduction of GHG emissions from medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and increased deployment of zero-emission trucks primarily for Class 3–7 “last-mile” delivery trucks in California. Statewide, the Mobile Source Strategy would result in a 45 percent reduction in GHG emissions and a 50 percent reduction in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels. CARB’s Mobile Source Strategy includes measures to reduce total light-duty vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 15 percent compared to business as usual in 2050.

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD ADVANCED CLEAN TRUCKS RULE The Advanced Clean Trucks regulation was approved on June 25, 2020, and has two main components: a manufacturers’ ZEV sales requirement and a one-time reporting requirement for large entities and fleets. Manufacturers that certify Class 2b–8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero-emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b–3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4–8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales. 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-13 PLNP2018-00284
EXECUTIVE ORDER B-48-18
On January 26, 2018, Governor Brown issued an executive order establishing a goal of 5 million ZEVs on California roads by 2030 and spurring the installation and construction of 250,000 plug-in EV chargers, including 10,000 direct current fast chargers, and 200 hydrogen refueling stations by 2025.

LOCAL

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The following goals and policies from the Energy, Land Use, and Public Facilities elements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan (County of Sacramento 2011) are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

ENERGY
EN-16 Promote the use of passive and active solar systems in new and existing residential, commercial, and institutional buildings as well as the installation of solar swimming pool heaters and solar water and space heating systems.

LAND USE
LU-28 Encourage the development of energy-efficient buildings and communities.

LU-29 Promote voluntary participation in incentive programs to increase the use of solar photovoltaic systems in new and existing residential, commercial, institutional, and public buildings.

LU-30 Whenever feasible, incorporate energy-efficient site design, such as proper orientation to benefit from passive solar heating and cooling, into master planning efforts.

LU-70 Enact cost effective energy conservation performance standards consistent with USEPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Energy Star standards for new construction.

LU-71 Reduce the energy impacts from new residential and commercial projects through investigation and implementation of energy efficiency measures during all phases of design and development.

PUBLIC FACILITIES
PF-76 The County supports the generation and use of energy produced from renewable resources.

PF-77 The County supports a variety of solar and other renewable energy sources, including:
• A dispersed system that feeds into the electric delivery system • On-site facilities that primarily supply energy for on-site uses, and • Properly sited large, centralized facilities consistent with Policy PF-78. 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-14 PLNP2018-00284

SACRAMENTO COUNTY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
On November 9, 2011, the County of Sacramento adopted the Climate Action Plan – Strategy and Framework Document, which presented a framework for reducing GHG emissions and developing a second phase of the Climate Action Plan (CAP). On September 11, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Climate Action Plan – County Government Operations, which identifies GHG emissions associated with government operations and develops sector-level measures to reduce these GHG emissions. The County is currently working to develop the Communitywide CAP to address communitywide emissions. While the County of Sacramento CAP focuses specifically on reducing greenhouse gases, many of the plan’s measures have the potential to both reduce countrywide energy use and improve energy efficiency. The County is currently in the process of updating the CAP after a hearing at the Board of Supervisors in September 2022. Sacramento County is preparing a subsequent EIR (SEIR) to analyze the potential impacts associated with the revisions to the September 2022 CAP.

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to energy may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
• Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would require indirect energy use (i.e., the use of electricity imported through the SMUD electrical grid) to generate electricity, refine fuels, and make the materials and components used in construction, including the energy used for extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, and transportation.

This analysis does not address the energy intensiveness of electricity generation, fuel refining, and materials, also referred to as the energy life cycle, because the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has indicated that life-cycle analyses are not required under CEQA. The CNRA has explained that, in the context of GHG emissions:
(1) There exists no standard regulatory definition for “life cycle.” (2) Even if a standard definition for life cycle existed, the term might be interpreted to refer to emissions beyond those that could be considered “indirect effects” as 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-15 PLNP2018-00284
defined by the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, beyond what an EIR is required to estimate and mitigate.

In 2018, this reasoning was reaffirmed in Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which cautions that the analysis of energy impacts is subject to the rule of reason and must focus on energy demand caused by the project, signaling that a full “life-cycle” analysis that would account for energy used in building materials and consumer projects will generally not be required (CNRA 2018).

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This analysis considers the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G criteria and Appendix F guidance, as described in this chapter, in determining whether development allowed under the proposed UWSP would directly result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. The evaluation involved reviewing regulations and determining their application to the proposed UWSP. As discussed previously, there are several state and local plans and policies that are intended to increase energy conservation and the use of renewable energy. Consistency of development allowed under the proposed UWSP with these regulations would result in energy and fuel savings and would also contribute to avoiding the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy.

CONSTRUCTION
The construction activities associated with development allowed under the proposed UWSP would consume energy primarily in the form of transportation fuels (e.g., diesel and gasoline) used by haul trucks, heavy-duty equipment, and worker vehicles traveling to and from construction areas. Electricity consumed by any electric-powered equipment would be minimal relative to the amount of diesel and gasoline consumed.

Natural gas is generally not used during construction.

Construction activities and associated energy use could vary substantially from day to day, depending on the phase and type of construction activity and the number of workers and vendors traveling to the construction areas. The assumptions used for this analysis regarding the construction schedule, and regarding the types, number, and level of usage of construction equipment and vehicles for each activity, are consistent with the assumptions used for the air quality and GHG emissions analyses. This chapter provides the best possible estimates of energy consumption for informational purposes; overall, however, the analysis applies a qualitative assessment relative to the two Appendix G CEQA checklist criteria.

Diesel fuel consumption by on-site construction equipment has been estimated based on the GHG emissions estimates for off-road equipment from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (version 2020.4.0), in combination with The Climate Registry default factors for calculating CO2 emissions from diesel fuel (The Climate Registry 2023). All off-road construction equipment is assumed to be diesel-fueled.

With regard to on-road construction vehicles, this analysis assumes that light-duty automobiles and trucks used by commuting workers would be fueled by gasoline and 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-16 PLNP2018-00284
that on-road construction vehicles (e.g., vendor and haul trucks for demolition debris, soil, and other material hauling) would use diesel fuel. The analysis further assumes that no electric on-road vehicles would be used during construction. The fuel quantities required by on-road vehicles during construction have been calculated based on the GHG emissions associated with commuting workers and vendor and haul trips. Such GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod defaults for estimated trip counts and trip lengths and The Climate Registry default factors for calculating CO2 emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels.

OPERATIONS
A technical report with operational energy usage estimates was provided by Frontier Energy and Schweitzer & Associates (2021) for buildings, site lighting, EV charging, water supply, wastewater, stormwater, and groundwater pumping.

For building energy usage, annual consumption was estimated for all buildings by considering energy intensity for each building type, current and expected code requirements, and project-specific information. The buildings would be all-electric except for natural gas use that would be associated with cooking equipment and lab services to serve commercial uses, and the high school and community college sites within the Development Area. Natural gas would not be extended to proposed residential uses. Energy usage was estimated using software tools that use Title 24, Part 6 prototype building energy models.

For site lighting, all LED technology would meet Title 24 requirements, and each subcategory of site lighting was given its own lighting density to calculate energy usage.

For EV charging, it was assumed that there would be Level 2 EV chargers at the singlefamily homes and parking lots for commercial and multifamily land uses. It was estimated that each charger be used for 3 hours each day, drawing approximately 10,950 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per charger. However, it was acknowledged that EV charging use is changing rapidly and the estimates are based on the best information available at the time of the analysis.

For wastewater, estimates on energy consumption were made using the Upper Westside Level 1/2 Sewer Study updated February 2021 and the Upper Westside Specific Plan February 2021 Administrative Draft (UWSP). Annual wastewater flow for the project was calculated using flow rates and pump information from the Upper Westside Level 1/2 Sewer Study updated February 2021 and the wastewater infrastructure energy use intensities came from a study by Stanford University’s Water in the West Program, Water and Energy Nexus: A Literature Review (Water in the West 2013). The energy use intensity is then multiplied by the annual flows to get the annual energy use associated with wastewater.

For stormwater, energy usage was calculated for the detention basins and regional stormwater pumping stations for the project. Water would be pumped first into the West Natomas Drainage Canal and then pumped into the Sacramento River. Pumping energy 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-17 PLNP2018-00284
is based on infrastructure and runoff information from the 2024 site-specific drainage study prepared by Wood Rodgers (2024) provided in Appendix HWQ-1 of this EIR.

Groundwater energy usage was calculated for both aeration and pumping efforts necessary for the project. Pumping efforts to account for leaking from the detention basins were calculated for an average groundwater levels and small leaks, although there could be years with higher or lower groundwater levels and smaller or larger leaks. Aeration energy use accounts for the aerating of the central canal that maintains water quality for the proposed UWSP.

Mobile-source fuel usage associated with operation of the proposed UWSP was estimated based on the calculated GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips. Such GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod defaults for estimated trip counts and trip lengths and the associated fuel use volumes were estimated using The Climate Registry default factors for calculating CO2 emissions from gasoline and diesel fuels.

The CalEEMod output presented in Appendix A of the air quality and GHG emissions technical report conducted by Raney Planning and Management for the project suggests that approximately 95 percent of the project-related vehicle fleet that would consume fuel would use gasoline and approximately 5 percent would use diesel fuel.

Therefore, these percentages were used with The Climate Registry default CO2 emission factors to estimate the corresponding fuel use volumes associated with project vehicle use during operation.

IMPACT EN-1: WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION

OF ENERGY DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
Construction activities under the proposed UWSP would require the use of fuels (primarily gasoline and diesel) by construction equipment and vehicles that would perform a variety of activities, including excavation, hauling, paving, and general vehicle travel. In addition, minimal amounts of energy in the form of electricity may be consumed by some pieces of construction equipment, such as welding machines, power tools, lighting, and other tools and equipment. However, this analysis assumes that diesel and gasoline would be the two primary fuels used for construction.

Tables EN-1 and EN-2 present the estimated total and annual-average construction energy consumption, by energy source, for the proposed UWSP. It should be noted that the total energy consumption would occur incrementally during the project’s construction phases over the development period of 23 years, rather than all at once.

Energy usage would fluctuate depending on the type of development proposed and the construction activities underway during any particular period. Energy use would be higher during Phase 1 of construction for a development involving demolition of existing structures and initial site clearance and earthmoving/grading. The largest and most powerful equipment would be required to demolish existing structures and to excavate, lift, and transport large volumes of soil and demolition debris (such as concrete slabs and asphalt) from the site. Gasoline and diesel fuel would be the primary energy sources for vehicles driven by construction crews and to power the large haul trucks used to deliver and retrieve construction equipment, materials, and debris. 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-18 PLNP2018-00284
Table EN-1: Construction Energy Use Associated with the UWSP Phase 1 Construction
Energy Use Type Unit of Measure Construction Usage
DIESEL
On-road vehicles total gallons 1,174,350
Off-road equipment total gallons 602,432
Total Diesel Use total gallons 1,776,783
Annual Average Diesel Use1 average gallons/year 222,098

GASOLINE
On-road vehicles total gallons 1,837,660
Annual Average Gasoline Use1 average gallons/year 229,707 NOTE:
1 Annual averages are estimated by dividing the total energy use by the expected 8-year duration of construction during Phase 1.

SOURCE: ESA calculations based on Raney Planning and Management, Inc. 2024, and CalEEMod outputs
Table EN-2: Construction Energy Use Associated with the UWSP Phases 2–4 Construction
Energy Use Type Unit of Measure Construction Usage
DIESEL
On-road vehicles total gallons 2,766,998
Off-road equipment total gallons 1,285,988
Total Diesel Use total gallons 4,052,986
Annual Average Diesel Use1 average gallons/year 270,199

GASOLINE
On-road vehicles total gallons 4,756,317
Annual Average Gasoline Use1 total gallons/year 317,088 NOTES:
1 Annual averages are estimated by dividing the total energy use by the expected 15-year duration of construction during Phases 2–4.

SOURCE: ESA calculations based on Raney Planning and Management, Inc. 2024, and CalEEMod outputs
10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-19 PLNP2018-00284
Over the entire construction period for the proposed UWSP, construction-related offroad equipment and on-road vehicles would consume approximately 5,829,769 gallons of diesel fuel and on-road worker vehicles would consume approximately 6,593,977 gallons of gasoline (Tables EN-1 and EN-2). These total-use amounts are equivalent to averages of approximately 492,297 gallons of diesel fuel per year and 546,795 gallons of gasoline fuel per year over the 23-year construction period. These annual-average diesel and gasoline use amounts are equivalent to approximately 0.5 percent of the diesel and less than 0.01 percent of the gasoline sold in Sacramento County in 2022.

IMPACT CONCLUSION SUMMARY
Transportation fuels (gasoline and diesel) are produced from crude oil, which can be produced domestically or imported from various regions around the world. Based on current proven reserves, crude oil production would be sufficient to meet more than 50 years of worldwide consumption (BP Global 2023). All project construction equipment and vehicles would be subject to vehicle and equipment fuel efficiency standards that are set at the federal and state levels. Vehicles used for construction would comply with CAFE fuel economy standards, which would result in more efficient use of transportation fuels (lower consumption). Vehicles used for project-related trips would also comply with AB 1493 and the LCFS, which are designed to reduce vehicular GHG emissions, but would also result in additional fuel savings.

Construction of the development provided for under the proposed UWSP would use fuel-efficient equipment consistent with federal and state regulations, such as fuel efficiency regulations in CARB’s Pavley Phase II standards; the anti-idling regulation in 13 CCR Section 2485; and fuel requirements for stationary equipment in 17 CCR Section 93115 (concerning the Airborne Toxic Control Measures). In accordance with 13 CCR Sections 2485 and 2449, idling by commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds and off-road equipment over 25 horsepower would be limited to a maximum of five minutes. The intent of these regulations is to reduce construction emissions; however, compliance with the anti-idling and emission reduction regulations discussed above would also result in fuel savings from the more efficient use of equipment.

Construction equipment and vehicles would be industry-standard, designed to comply with all applicable fuel efficiency standards. In addition, construction activities and the corresponding fuel energy consumption would be localized and necessary, and would not constitute a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use compared with other heavy-duty equipment and vehicles used in the region. For the reasons described above, construction activities associated with the proposed UWSP would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy. The impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

It should also be noted that although not required for this construction energy impact, climate change Mitigation Measure CC-1 has been identified to reduce the GHG 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-20 PLNP2018-00284
emissions impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure could also reduce diesel fuel use through implementation of numerous options, including increasing the use of renewable diesel; use of alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power, use a CARB-approved low carbon fuel for construction equipment, etc. In addition, if the emission reductions associated with the mitigation options do not reduce construction-related GHG emissions to a less-thansignificant level, off-site carbon credits that could promote the use of renewable resources may be purchased and retired to make up the difference.

IMPACT EN-2: WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION

OF ENERGY DURING PROJECT OPERATION
Operation of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would require long-term consumption of energy primarily in the form of electricity, diesel, and gasoline. Electricity would be used as the primary power source for the proposed buildings, including to operate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, lights, and other equipment. In addition, water used in buildings in the UWSP area would require the consumption of electricity to supply, treat, and distribute potable water to the buildings and to convey and treat wastewater generated at the buildings.

The fuel volumes (diesel and gasoline) used by vehicles during operation of the proposed UWSP has been estimated based on the calculated vehicle CO2 emissions (see the Operations discussion in the Methods and Assumptions section, above).

Electricity demand for EV charging is based on one EV charger installed for each single-family garage space and EV chargers at 20 percent of multifamily and commercial parking spaces. EV charging estimates for single-family homes are based on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration, resulting in an annual estimate of energy use per EV charger of 3,387 kWh (see Appendix EN-1, Table 6). The energy estimates for the public chargers at the commercial and multifamily parking lots assume three full hours of daily charging with a Level 2 charger that draws 10 kilowatts during charging. This results in an annual estimate of 10,950 kWh per charger (see Appendix EN-1, page 13).

Table EN-3 summarizes the annual energy use requirements estimated for full-buildout operations under the proposed UWSP by energy use type. As specific developments proposed under the proposed UWSP are constructed, they would become operational.

However, Table EN-3 provides estimates of total operational energy use for the year 2045, when all development proposed under the proposed UWSP would be complete in its entirety.

The UWSP area is currently supplied with electricity and natural gas by SMUD and PG&E, respectively. Both utility companies have established contracts and commitments to ensure that there is adequate electricity generation and natural gas capacity to meet current and future energy loads. Furthermore, development of land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate demand for natural gas and electricity services consistent with the use assumptions identified in the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan.
10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-21 PLNP2018-00284
Table EN-3: Operational (Annual) Energy Use at Project Buildout Energy Use Type Units
Operational Energy Use
at Buildout

ELECTRICITY
Buildings MWh/year 52,842
Site Lighting MWh/year 3,741
EV Charging1 MWh/year 58,691
Water Supply MWh/year 2,721
Wastewater MWh/year 2,481
Stormwater MWh/year 115
Canal Aeration MWh/year 12
Groundwater Pumping MWh/year 1
Total Electricity Use MWh/year 120,603

NATURAL GAS
Buildings therms/year 588,173
DIESEL
Vehicle Use gallons/year 246,373

GASOLINE
Vehicle Use gallons/year 4,886,410
NOTES: EV = electric vehicle; MWh = megawatt-hours
1 The fuel economy is consistent with the current range of fuel efficiencies of electric cars from U.S. Department of Energy. Available: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action= noform&path=1&year1=1984&year2=2019&vtype=Electric. Use of this fuel economy for full buildout is considered conservative since overall efficiency is anticipated to increase over time.

SOURCE: ESA calculations based on Raney Planning and Management, Inc. 2024, CalEEMod outputs, and Frontier Energy and Schweitzer & Associates 2021.

ELECTRICITY
To put the project’s operational electricity requirements in context, in 2021 a total of 277,764 GWh of electricity was generated for California, of which consumers in Sacramento County used 11,218 GWh (CEC 2023f). The CEC estimates that statewide energy demand will increase to 320,375 GWh in 2025, based on a moderate average annual energy demand growth rate of 1.32 percent (CEC 2018b). As shown in Table EN-3, the anticipated long-term, operational electricity usage requirements of the 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-22 PLNP2018-00284
proposed UWSP would be 120,603 MWh per year by the buildout year, 2045. This represents approximately less than 0.05 percent of the total 2021 statewide electricity usage and 1.1 percent of Sacramento County’s 2021 electricity usage.

Based on a comparison to statewide and Sacramento County annual energy demand and the projected demand growth rate, the project-related increase in electricity consumption is not expected to adversely affect local and regional energy supplies, or to require additional generation capacity beyond the statewide planned increase to accommodate projected energy demand growth.

In addition, estimates of the project’s operational electricity demand conservatively exclude the benefits of additional sustainability features that future development would be required to include to pursue the UWSP’s goal of achieving a Net Zero Energy (NZE) design, such as installation of PV panels on homes and businesses (see Chapter 2, Project Description, p. 2-52). The estimates also conservatively exclude efficiencies that would be required from future revisions to Title 24 CALGreen energy standards, which would further reduce electricity demand.

All development proposed would be subject to the most current California Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, but there would be an increase in electricity use with the elimination of natural gas in some buildings. However, the UWSP includes a commitment to achieve the goal of being an NZE community. This commitment is expected to partially offset the increased electricity that would be associated with the proposed reduced natural gas consumption and increase EV charging through the increased use of rooftop PV installations and other increased energy efficiencies required by the Title 24 CALGreen energy code.

TRANSPORTATION FUELS
During project operation, consumption of diesel fuel in motor vehicle trips would be approximately 246,373 gallons per year and gasoline consumption would be approximately 4,886,410 gallons per year (Table EN-3). The total amounts of annual diesel and gasoline use are equivalent to less than 0.3 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively, of the diesel fuel and gasoline sold in Sacramento County. Overall, the use of gasoline and diesel fuels during operation of the proposed UWSP would not be substantial relative to the total sales of fuels in Sacramento County.

It is also important to consider the types and mix of land uses developed in terms of the balance between jobs, housing, and amenities. Developing the proposed UWSP with a mix of uses would help accommodate future residents and employees at a higher energy efficiency (i.e., less transportation energy usage per capita) than a project less central to amenities and dense populations.

In other words, given the proximity of the UWSP area to existing urban areas and amenities (e.g., jobs, shopping, entertainment), regional modeling by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments demonstrates that the UWSP would reduce transportation fuel use compared to a project on the urban fringe with limited access to transit, fewer bicycle/pedestrian access corridors, reduced access to jobs and amenities, and lower 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-23 PLNP2018-00284
development densities. The mix of uses under the proposed UWSP would allow residents to access amenities such as retail, health care, restaurants, cultural events, and jobs using alternative modes such as walking and biking, which would reduce overall transportation-related energy consumption. Development under the proposed UWSP also would result in shorter trip distances to amenities and places of employment, reducing transportation-related energy consumption. An increase in transportation fuel consumption would also be offset to a certain extent by continued improvements to vehicle fuel efficiency.

Based on VMT and fleet-average data from the Emission Factor (EMFAC) 2021 model for the project buildout year of 2045, only 11 percent of total VMT in Sacramento County will be by EVs. Therefore, by providing proposed EV charging stations, gasoline and diesel use would continue to decrease under the UWSP. In addition, although not required to reduce energy impacts, climate change Mitigation Measure CC-2 requires the installation of an additional 5 percent EV charging stations beyond the most recently adopted version of CALGreen and Mitigation Measure CC-3 requires that all EV charging stations be EV ready (i.e., installed versus capable). These climate change mitigation measures would have the added effect of further reducing gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with the UWSP.

IMPACT CONCLUSION SUMMARY
For the reasons described above, operation of the proposed UWSP is not expected to result in a significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy. The impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

It should also be noted that although not required for this operational energy impact, climate change Mitigation Measure CC-2 has been identified to reduce the GHG emissions impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure would also reduce electricity use and promote renewable energy generation through implementation of numerous requirements, including development of on-site renewable energy generation, procurement of renewable energy from off-site sources within California, and use of electricity reduction design measures. The measure would also reduce the use of transportation fuels by reducing VMT by UWSP residents and employees through implementation of design measures. In addition, if the emission reductions associated with the mitigation do not reduce operational GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level, off-site carbon credits that could promote the use of renewable resources may be purchased and retired to make up the difference.
10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-24 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT EN-3: OBSTRUCT A STATE OR LOCAL PLAN FOR RENEWABLE

ENERGY OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Development under the proposed UWSP would comply with existing energy standards and plans, including state and local standards designed to minimize the use of fuel in construction vehicles, maximize energy efficiency in buildings, and encourage the use of renewable energy, as described further below.

CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT
As discussed previously, project construction would require the use of on-road trucks for deliveries of construction materials and hauling of soil and demolition debris, and the use of off-road equipment such as excavators, cranes, forklifts, and pavers.

Construction activities would comply with state and local requirements designed to minimize idling and associated emissions, which would also minimize the use of fuel.

Specifically, pursuant to 13 CCR Sections 2485 and 2449, idling of commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds and off-road equipment over 25 horsepower would be limited to a maximum of five minutes.

BUILDING EFFICIENCY
The anticipated use of electricity and natural gas in buildings constructed under the proposed UWSP is discussed above. Construction of new buildings are subject to California’s Title 24 standards, including the Building Energy Efficiency Code and CALGreen as discussed in Regulatory Setting above. California’s Title 24 reduces energy use in residential and commercial buildings through progressive updates to both the Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). Provisions added to Title 24 over the years include consideration and incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods for building features such as space conditioning, water heating, and lighting, as well as construction waste diversion goals. Additionally, some standards focus on larger energysaving concepts such as reducing loads at peak periods and seasons, improving the quality of energy-saving installations, and performing energy system inspections.

Past updates to the Title 24 standards have proven very effective in reducing building energy use; the 2013 update to the energy efficiency standards was estimated to reduce energy consumption in residential buildings by 25 percent and in commercial buildings by 30 percent, relative to the 2008 standards (CEC 2012). The 2019 Title 24 standards further reduced energy use compared to the 2016 standards, with singlefamily residential savings of 79 percent for electricity and 9 percent for natural gas. For low-rise multi-family buildings, savings were estimated to be 79 percent for electricity and 5 percent for natural gas. The first-year savings associated with the 2019 standards for newly constructed nonresidential buildings were estimated to be 10.7 percent for electricity and 1 percent for natural gas (CEC 2018b).

Project construction is proposed to occur in multiple phases, with a target completion date by 2045 for the proposed UWSP as a whole. Thus, further energy use reductions beyond the current 2022 standards can be anticipated from future Title 24 code revision 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-25 PLNP2018-00284
cycles, as building permits are issued at future dates corresponding to those code updates.

In addition, as spelled out in the California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, the state has developed a goal of zero net energy use in all new homes beyond 2020 and in commercial buildings by 2030 (CPUC 2011). Implementation of 2022 Title 24 would make all development allowed under the proposed UWSP highly efficient in terms of energy use in residential and commercial structures.

Although the County’s CAP does not identify countywide GHG reduction targets beyond the year 2030, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be consistent with policies that emphasize energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy consistent with Title 24 standards.

TRANSPORTATION
Fuel use is correlated with VMT. Many regulatory requirements reduce VMT, which results in reductions in mobile-source fuel use. For example, SB 743 requires projects to evaluate VMT relative to existing regional averages rather than evaluating traffic level of service for CEQA significance and allows streamlining for projects in areas well served by transit. Development under the proposed UWSP would comply with or exceed all requirements for reducing VMT.

SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Program, requires metropolitan planning organizations to develop sustainable community strategies to reduce per capita VMT. The proposed UWSP would incorporate interconnected land uses, promote pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and provide transit options that would reduce per capita VMT, which is a part of the sustainable community strategies (CARB 2023). The proposed UWSP would also help accomplish the Governor’s Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan (Executive Order B-48-18) by promoting the use of EVs through the installation of EV charging infrastructure, as required by the 2022 Title 24 standards. The vehicles that travel to and from individual project sites within the project area would be registered at the California Department of Motor Vehicles consistent with the overall regional fleet. The California Department of Motor Vehicles requires vehicle owners to comply with vehicle efficiency standards to obtain registration.

IMPACT CONCLUSION SUMMARY
For the reasons described above, development under the proposed UWSP would not conflict with applicable energy standards and plans, including the County’s CAP, and this impact would be less than significant.

It should also be noted that although not required for this construction energy impact, climate change Mitigation Measure CC-1 has been identified to reduce the GHG emissions impact to a less-than-significant level. This measure could also reduce diesel fuel use through implementation of numerous options, including increasing the use of renewable diesel; use of alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power, use a CARB-approved low carbon fuel for 10 - Energy
Upper Westside Specific Plan 10-26 PLNP2018-00284
construction equipment, etc. In addition, if the emission reductions associated with the mitigation options do not reduce construction-related GHG emissions to a less-thansignificant level, off-site carbon credits that could promote the use of renewable resources may be purchased and retired to make up the difference.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-1 PLNP2018-00284
11 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY

INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies and evaluates issues related to geology, soils, and paleontology in the context of the proposed UWSP. It includes the environmental and regulatory setting, the criteria used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts, the methods used in evaluating these impacts, and the results of the impact assessment.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. No comments were received related to geology, soils, or paleontology.

The geology and geologic hazard analysis in this chapter is based in part on geologic maps provided by the California Geological Survey (CGS) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Geologic Map Database, as well as the California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ Zapp) for additional, hazard-specific geologic mapping. The soils analysis in this chapter is based in part on information from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey online database.

The paleontological resources analysis in this chapter is based in part on records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online fossil locality database, as well as geologic mapping and peer-reviewed scientific literature.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

EXISTING CONDITIONS

REGIONAL AND LOCAL GEOLOGY
The UWSP area is located in the Sacramento Valley between the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east and Coast Range Mountains to the west, within the central portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province.
1 The Great Valley is an elongate
lowland valley, approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long. The Great Valley rises from about sea level to approximately 400 feet in elevation at its northern and southern ends. The northern portion of the valley, referred to as the Sacramento Valley, is drained by the Sacramento River, while the southern portion of the valley, referred to as the San Joaquin Valley, is drained by the San Joaquin River. The Great Valley is filled with large volumes of sediments that have been eroded from the Sierra Nevada and Coast Range provinces. These sediments are nearly six miles deep at the southern end of the Great Valley (CGS 2002; Leech 2006).

1 A geomorphic province is an area that possesses similar bedrock, structure, history, and age.

California has 11 geomorphic provinces.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-2 PLNP2018-00284
The UWSP area is relatively flat ranging in elevation from approximately 12 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 20 feet above msl.

Surficial geology within the UWSP area is comprised of Holocene-age alluvium (Qha), Holocene-age basin deposits (Qhb), and Pleistocene-age Riverbank Formation (Qr) (Gutierrez 2011). While not mapped at the surface, mapping indicates that Pleistoceneage “older” alluvium (Qoa) occurs in the surrounding area and may be present in the subsurface (Gutierrez 2011).

SEISMIC HAZARDS
There are no known Holocene-active2faults or pre-Holocene3faults within the UWSP area (CGS 2022a; ENGEO 2021). The closest known Holocene-active fault is the Huntington-Berryessa fault system, approximately 37.5 miles west of the UWSP area (CGS 2022b). The Dunnigan Hills fault is a pre-Holocene fault and is approximately 17 miles to the northwest of the UWSP area (CGS 2022a).

FAULT RUPTURE
EQ Zapp is an interactive map available on the CGS website (CGS 2022b). The EQ Zapp allows users to view all available earthquake hazard zone data, including earthquake fault, liquefaction, and earthquake-induced landslide zones. Holoceneactive faults are designated as Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZ) because they display evidence of surface rupture within the last 11,700 years. The UWSP area is not within an established EFZ as delineated on an EFZ Map, required by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The nearest EFZ is the Huntington-Berryessa fault system, approximately 37.5 miles west of the UWSP area (ENGEO 2021; CGS 2022b).

GROUND SHAKING
Ground shaking due to fault rupture can cause damage to life and property. The extent of the damage varies by event and is determined by several factors, including (but not limited to): magnitude and depth of the earthquake, distance from epicenter, duration and intensity of the shaking, underlying soil and rock types, and integrity of structures.

There is a potential for strong seismic ground shaking due to the presence of the nearby Huntington-Berryessa fault system. The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities4(WGCEP) concluded that there is between a 1.2 and 16.3 percent probability that a magnitude (MW) 6.7 earthquake or higher could occur within the Huntington-Berryessa fault system within the next 30 years (Field et al. 2015).

2 Holocene-active faults show evidence of displacement within the Holocene Epoch, or the last 11,700 years are considered active (CGS 2008).
3 Pre-Holocene faults have not shown evidence of displacement in the last 11,700 years (CGS 2008). 4 Also referred to as WGCEP 2014, this is a working group comprised of seismologists from the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), and California Earthquake Authority (CEA).
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-3 PLNP2018-00284
Additionally, the WGCEP estimates the 30-year probability for a MW 6.7 earthquake, or greater, in Northern California at 95 percent (Field et al. 2015; ENGEO 2021).

LIQUEFACTION AND LATERAL SPREADING
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which unconsolidated, water saturated sediments become unstable due to the effects of strong seismic shaking. During an earthquake, these sediments can behave like a liquid, potentially causing damage to overlying structures. Lateral spreading is a variety of minor landslide that occurs when unconsolidated liquefiable material breaks and spreads due to the effects of gravity, usually down gentle slopes. Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is defined as the finite, lateral displacement of gently sloping ground as a result of pore-pressure buildup or liquefaction in a shallow underlying deposit during an earthquake. The occurrence of this phenomenon is dependent on many complex factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, particle-size distribution, and density of the soil.

The potential damaging effects of liquefaction include differential settlement, loss of ground support for foundations, ground cracking, heaving and cracking of structure slabs due to sand boiling, and buckling of deep foundations due to ground settlement.

Dynamic settlement (i.e., pronounced consolidation and settlement from seismic shaking) may also occur in loose, dry sands above the water table, resulting in settlement of and possible damage to overlying structures. In general, a relatively high potential for liquefaction exists in loose, sandy soils that are within 50 feet of the ground surface and are saturated (below the groundwater table). Lateral spreading can move blocks of soil, placing strain on buried pipelines that can lead to leaks or pipe failure.

According to the EQ Zapp, the UWSP area is not mapped within or near any known liquefaction zone (ENGEO 2021; CGS 2022b); however, this is likely because the CGS has not yet conducted mapping for the area to determine liquefaction potential.

However, according to the Safety Element of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, the UWSP area is susceptible to liquefaction due to the presence of loose sediments below the water table (County of Sacramento 2017). Additionally, the subsurface investigation indicates that loose, sandy soils present below the groundwater table is common in the area—suggesting that the area is susceptible to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake (ENGEO 2021).

SUBSIDENCE AND GROUND SETTLEMENT
Land subsidence is the gradual settling or sudden sinking of the earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials. Subsidence in alluvial valley areas is typically associated with groundwater or petroleum withdrawal, and regional ground subsidence or settlement is typically caused by compaction of alluvial deposits, or other saturated deposits in the subsurface (USGS 1999).

Sacramento County is affected by five types of subsidence: liquefaction caused by earthquake shaking, compaction by heavy structures, the erosion of peat soils, peat oxidation, and fluid withdrawal. Groundwater extraction for residential, commercial and agricultural uses causes the greatest amount of subsidence in Sacramento County. The 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-4 PLNP2018-00284
UWSP area is mapped in an area of medium to high subsidence potential (County of Sacramento 2017). However, data gathered by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) indicate that the subsidence rate in the area is relatively minor. Further, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires medium- and high-priority groundwater basins to halt aquifer overdraft by balancing pumping and recharge levels (ENGEO 2021); balancing aquifer pumping and recharge would significantly reduce regional ground subsidence within a groundwater basin (ENGEO 2021).

EXPANSIVE SOILS
Expansive soils are soils that possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic, also referred to as linear extensibility. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying; the volume change is reported as a percent change for the whole soil. This property is measured using the coefficient of linear extensibility (COLE) (NRCS 2017).

The NRCS relies on linear extensibility measurements to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. If the linear extensibility percent is more than 3 percent (COLE=0.03), shrinking and swelling may cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures (NRCS 2017). Changes in soil moisture can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, and/or perched groundwater.5 Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained and have a high to very high percentage of clay. Structural damage may occur incrementally over a long period of time, usually as a result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils.

The NRCS Web Soil Survey data indicate that the soils underlying the UWSP area have a 2.3 to 7.5 percent linear extensibility rating, indicating a low to high expansion potential (NRCS 2021). In particular, the Web Soil Survey data indicate that a majority of the central UWSP area has a moderate expansion potential, and the northern portion of the area has a high expansion potential (NRCS 2021). Web Soil Survey data further indicate that the near-surface soils are predominantly clay, which is likely to be expansive (ENGEO 2021).

LANDSLIDES
Landslide is a general term used for a falling mass of soil and rock. As the topography of the UWSP area is relatively flat, and there are no major slopes, the potential for landslide risk is very low (ENGEO 2021).

SOIL EROSION
Erosion is a natural geological process by which water and/or wind removes soil or rock from one location and moves it to another location to be deposited. According to the Safety Element of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, erosion occurs in Sacramento County, but it does not pose a significant hazard to property. The central

5 Perched groundwater is a local saturated zone above the water table that typically exists above an impervious layer (such as clay) of limited extent.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-5 PLNP2018-00284
and western portions of the county are fairly level and very little erosion takes place in these areas unless poor farming practices leave large areas of soil exposed and dry and subject to wind erosion. There is a greater potential for erosion in the eastern foothills of the county, but extensive grass cover protects most of the vulnerable soils.

Although construction activity does present a potential for erosion – specifically in instances where soils are continuously exposed – Sacramento County provides measures to limit or restrict such practices through Grading and Drainage Ordinances and any permit issued under such ordinances would not be granted for a project which might generate potentially significant erosion hazards (County of Sacramento 2017).

Based on the nearly flat topography and nature of the soils, significant soil erosion is unlikely (ENGEO 2021).

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or impressions of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones; mammals, birds, fish, etc.), invertebrates (animals without backbones; starfish, clams, coral, etc.), and microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). They are valuable, non-renewable, scientific resources used to document the existence of extinct life forms and to reconstruct the environments in which they lived. Fossils can be used to determine the relative ages of the depositional layers in which they occur and of the geologic events that created those deposits. The age, abundance, and distribution of fossils depend on the geologic formation in which they occur and the topography of the area in which they are exposed. The geologic environments within which the plants or animals became fossilized usually were quite different from the present environments in which the geologic formations now exist.

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) established guidelines for the identification, assessment, and mitigation of adverse impacts on nonrenewable paleontological resources (SVP 2010). Most practicing paleontologists in the United States adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as outlined in these guidelines, which were approved through a consensus of professional paleontologists. Many federal, state, county, and city agencies have either formally or informally adopted the SVP’s standard guidelines for the mitigation of adverse construction-related impacts on paleontological resources. The SVP has helped define the value of paleontological resources and, in particular, indicates that geologic units of high paleontological potential are those from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate or plant fossils have been recovered in the past (i.e., are represented in institutional collections). Geologic units of low paleontological potential are those that are not known to have produced a substantial body of significant paleontological material. As such, the sensitivity of an area with respect to paleontological resources hinges on its geologic setting and whether significant fossils have been discovered in the area or in similar geologic units.

Paleontological sensitivity is defined as the potential for a geologic formation to produce scientifically important fossils. This is determined by the rock type, the past history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and the fossil localities recorded from 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-6 PLNP2018-00284
that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey. In its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, the SVP defines four categories of paleontological sensitivity for rock units, reflecting their potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources:
 High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered.
 Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or that based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances, with the presence of fossils being the exception, not the rule.
 Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment.
 No Potential: Rock units such as high-grade metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (e.g., granites and diorites) that will not preserve fossil resources.

Based on geologic mapping, the surficial geology within the UWSP area consists of Holocene-age alluvium, Holocene-age basin deposits, and Pleistocene-age Riverbank Formation. While not mapped at the surface, there are older Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits that are expected to be present in the subsurface at an unknown depth (Gutierrez 2011).

A search of the UCMP fossil locality online database suggests that there are no fossil localities within the UWSP area (ENGEO 2021; UCMP 2022a). While no localities have been reported from within the UWSP area, other localities are present in the area.

Although exact locations of fossil localities are not available through the online database, some localities can be inferred by the localities names provided (i.e., Teichert Gravel Quarry, Consumnes River College, Lost Lake, Sacramento Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the former ARCO Area [Sleep Train Arena]). The recovered fossils include remains of mammoth, horse, camel, ground sloth, bison, wolf, coyote, rabbits, frogs, birds, fish, and several rodents (Hilton et al. 2000, 2008; ENGEO 2021; UCMP 2022a).

Due to the relatively young age of the Holocene-age alluvium, these deposits are unlikely to preserve significant paleontological resources at the surface and have low paleontological sensitivity (ENGEO 2021); however, these sediments increase in age (and paleontological potential) with depth, such that the deeper layers of this unit are of an age conducive to preserving fossil resources (i.e., over 5,000 years old, as per the SVP [2010]). Pleistocene-age sedimentary deposits are generally considered to have a moderate to high potential to contain significant paleontological resources due to their age and because there have been similar finds in Sacramento County and throughout California (Sub Terra Consulting 2017; UCMP 2022a, 2022b). 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-7 PLNP2018-00284
While no records of paleontological resources were identified within the UWSP area, the presence of high potential formations and nearby fossil discoveries indicates that there is potential to encounter paleontological resources (ENGEO 2021).

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

CLEAN WATER ACT
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and subsequent amendments, under the enforcement authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), was enacted “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The purpose of the CWA is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies. The CWA gave the USEPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. In California, implementation and enforcement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is conducted through the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The CWA also sets water quality standards for surface waters and established the NPDES program to protect water quality through various sections of the CWA. Section 402 of the CWA would apply to the proposed UWSP because the proposed UWSP would be required to control discharges of pollutants from point sources, as discussed below.

This would also require the proposed UWSP to prevent erosion.

SECTION 402
The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (Section 402). The 1987 amendments to the CWA created a new section of the CWA devoted to stormwater permitting (Section 402[p]). The USEPA has granted the SWRCB primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of CWA and NPDES through the local RWQCBs. NPDES is the primary federal program that regulates pointsource and non-point-source discharges to waters of the United States.

The SWRCB issues both general and individual permits for discharges to surface waters, including for both point-source and non-point-source discharges. In response to the 1987 amendments, the USEPA developed the Phase I NPDES Storm Water Program for cities with populations larger than 100,000, and Phase II for smaller cities.

In California, the SWRCB has drafted the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 General Permit). The proposed UWSP would be subject to the Phase I MS4 permit, discussed in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality. Surface water runoff during construction activities are also regulated under an NPDES permit, as discussed below.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-8 PLNP2018-00284

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT
The NPDES permit system was established in the CWA to regulate municipal and industrial point discharges to surface waters of the U.S. Each NPDES permit for point discharges contains limits on allowable concentrations of pollutants contained in discharges. Section 402 of the CWA contains general requirements regarding NPDES permits.

The CWA was amended in 1987 to require NPDES permits for non-point source (i.e., stormwater) pollutants in discharges. Stormwater sources are diffuse and originate over a wide area rather than from a definable point. The goal of NPDES stormwater regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” through the use of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs can include the development and implementation of various practices including educational measures (workshops informing public of what impacts results when household chemicals are dumped into storm drains), regulatory measures (local authority of drainage facility design), public policy measures, and structural measures (filter strips, grass swales and detention ponds). The NPDES Construction General Permit is discussed further below.

STATE

ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. In accordance with this act, the State Geologist established regulatory zones, called “earthquake fault zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and published maps showing these zones.

Within these zones, buildings for human occupancy cannot be constructed across the surface trace of active faults. Each earthquake fault zone extends approximately 200 to 500 feet on either side of the mapped fault trace, because many active faults are complex and consist of more than one branch. There is the potential for ground surface rupture along any of the branches.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
The California Building Code (CBC), which is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 2, was promulgated to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum standards related to structural strength, means of egress to facilities (entering and exiting), and general stability of buildings.

The purpose of the CBC is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The California Building Standards Commission administers Title 24, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California, and would apply to structures proposed within the UWSP area. 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-9 PLNP2018-00284
Relevant to development allowed under the proposed urban water management plan (UWMP), Chapter 18 of the CBC covers the requirements of geotechnical investigations, including expansive soils Section 1803); excavation, grading, and fills (Section 1804); load-bearing of soils (Section 1806); as well as foundations (Section 1808), shallow foundations (Section 1809), and deep foundations (Section 1810).

Chapter 18 requires analysis of slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable to faulting or lateral spreading, plus an evaluation of lateral pressures on basement and retaining walls, liquefaction and soil strength loss, and lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity. It also addresses mitigation measures to be considered in structural design, which may include ground stabilization, selecting appropriate foundation type and depths, selecting appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements, or any combination of these measures. The potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss must be evaluated for site-specific peak ground acceleration magnitudes and source characteristics consistent with the design earthquake ground motions.

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would disturb 1.0 acre or more of land surface and could affect the quality of stormwater discharges into waters of the U.S.; therefore, it would be subject to the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014- DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). The Construction General Permit regulates constructionrelated discharges of pollutants in stormwater to waters of the U.S. from sites that disturb 1.0 or more acres of land surface, or that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than 1.0 acre of land surface. The permit regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction or demolition activities, such as clearing and excavation; construction of buildings; and linear underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines. See Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional details.

The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that includes specific best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwater from moving off site into receiving waters. The BMPs fall into several categories, including erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping, and are intended to protect surface water quality by preventing the offsite migration of eroded soil and construction-related pollutants from the construction area. Routine inspection of all BMPs is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit. In addition, the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-10 PLNP2018-00284

SEISMIC HAZARDS ACT
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was passed in 1990 following the Loma Prieta earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property damage caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones, and cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. For projects that would locate structures for human occupancy within designated Zones of Required Investigation, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires project applicants to perform a site-specific geotechnical investigation to identify the potential site-specific seismic hazards and corrective measures, as appropriate, prior to receiving building permits.

The CGS Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards (Special Publication 117A) provides guidance for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards (CGS 2008).

The CGS is in the process of producing official maps based on USGS topographic quadrangles, as required by the Act.

LOCAL
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The following policies from the Conservation and Safety elements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

CONSERVATION
CO-161 As a condition of approval for discretionary projects, require appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts where development could adversely affect paleontological resources.

CO-162 Projects located within areas known to be sensitive for paleontological resources, should be monitored to ensure proper treatment of resources and to ensure crews follow proper reporting, safeguards and procedures.

CO-163 Require that a certified geologist or paleontological sources consultant determine appropriate protection measures when resources are discovered during the course of development and land altering activities. I’ve also attached that letter.

SAFETY
SA-1 The County shall require geotechnical reports and impose the appropriate mitigation measures for new development located in seismic and geologically sensitive areas.

SA-2 The County shall protect citizens from the hazards of old architecture affected by seismic activity.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-11 PLNP2018-00284

LAND GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
The Sacramento County Land Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Sacramento County Code Ch. 16.44) was established to minimize damage to surrounding properties and public rights-of-way; limit degradation to the water quality of watercourses; and curb the disruption of drainage system flow caused by the activities of clearing, grubbing, grading, filling, and excavating land. The ordinance establishes administrative procedures, minimum standards of review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for the control of erosion and sedimentation that are directly related to land grading activities.

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontology may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;
 Strong seismic ground shaking;
 Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or  Landslides.
 Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil;  Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;  Be located on expansive soil6 creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property;
 Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; or

6 The CBC, based on the International Building Code and the now defunct Uniform Building Code, no longer includes a Table 18-1-B. Instead, Section 1803.5.3 of the CBC describes the criteria for analyzing expansive soils.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-12 PLNP2018-00284
 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
Substantial adverse effects related to fault rupture – The UWSP area is not within an established EFZ as delineated on an EFZ Map, required by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The nearest EFZ is the Huntington Creek-Berryessa fault system, approximately 37.5 miles to the west of the UWSP area. Therefore, no impact would occur, and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR.

Substantial adverse effects related to landslides – The UWSP area has nearly flat topography. There are no mapped landslides within or around the UWSP area (Gutierrez 2011). For these reasons, the potential for landslide hazards at the site is very low. As a result, no impact would occur, and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR.

Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems – Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be served by the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer), which currently serves developed portions of the UWSP area. An existing 24-inch sewer conveyance line currently flows from outside the plan area south along El Centro Road into a 33-inch sewer line located at the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road that flows approximately 1.5 miles east along San Juan Road to a pump station located outside the UWSP area operated by SacSewer. Wastewater infrastructure would be expanded to serve the entire 1,532±-acre Development Area. Therefore, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not introduce an environmental or public health hazard by building septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems in soils that are incapable of adequately supporting such systems. Therefore, no impact would occur, and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This environmental analysis of the potential impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources is based on a review of the results of the site-specific reports, and a review of literature and database research (geologic, seismic, soils, and paleontological resources reports and maps). This analysis assumes that construction and design of proposed UWSP components would utilize standard site preparation practices, engineering designs, and seismic safety techniques that are required under the CBC and other state and local geologic hazard regulations. Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be regulated by the various laws, regulations, and policies summarized in the Regulatory Setting above. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in this analysis and local and state agencies would be expected to continue to enforce applicable requirements to the extent that they do so now. Note that compliance with many of the regulations is a condition of permit approval.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-13 PLNP2018-00284
The following impact analysis considers the potential impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of development allowed under the proposed UWSP. Impacts related to geologic, seismic, and soil-related hazards would be considered significant if they resulted in injury, structural collapse, unrepairable facility or utility damage, or severe service disruption. Impacts to paleontological resources would be considered significant if construction of the development allowed under the proposed UWSP would disturb or destroy significant paleontological resources.

IMPACT GEO-1: STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING
Strong seismic ground shaking could occur within the UWSP area due to the presence of the Huntington-Berryessa fault system, as well as other active faults located farther away. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and the distance to the epicenter, the magnitude, the duration of shaking, and the nature of the geologic materials on which UWSP components and the offsite improvements described in Chapter 2, Project Description, Offsite Improvements, would be constructed. Strong groundshaking and high ground accelerations could affect the entire UWSP area, including the structures, foundations, and associated utilities.

As discussed in the Regulatory Setting above, the CBC and County building codes would require that the structural elements of development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements undergo appropriate design-level geotechnical evaluations prior to final design and construction. The geotechnical investigations would include any necessary recommendations for soils remediation and/or foundation systems necessary to reduce seismic-related hazards to less than significant.

Implementing the regulatory requirements in the CBC and County codes and ensuring that buildings and structures are constructed in compliance with the law is the responsibility of the Project engineers and building officials. The CBC includes the required standards for the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California. The standards include earthquake design requirements that determine the seismic design category and then describe the structural design requirements. The geotechnical engineer for each new development, as a registered professional with the State of California, is required to comply with the CBC and County codes while applying standard engineering practice and the appropriate standard of care for the particular region in California. The California Professional Engineers Act (Building and Professions Code Sections 6700–6799), and the Codes of Professional Conduct, as administered by the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, provides the basis for regulating and enforcing engineering practice in California. The local building officials are typically with the local jurisdiction and are responsible for inspections and ensuring CBC and County code compliance prior to approval of the building permit.

As previously discussed, the geotechnical investigations for development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements would include recommendations to 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-14 PLNP2018-00284
address geotechnical issues, including seismic shaking. With compliance with the regulatory requirements and the implementation of geotechnical design recommendations, the impact relative to seismic shaking would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT GEO-2: SEISMIC RELATED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING

LIQUEFACTION
Based on the available data (i.e., geologic mapping and the Safety Element of the General Plan), new development within the UWSP area, including the offsite improvements, could be subject to soil liquefaction, depending on the soil conditions of a particular site. Thus, development allowed under the proposed UWSP could be subjected to the damaging effects of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake in the region.

As required by California law, any new development would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the CBC and County building codes, which require that all improvements be constructed to withstand any anticipated seismic-related ground failures, including liquefaction and lateral spreading, due to ground shaking from an earthquake. Each new development would be required to obtain a site-specific geotechnical report prior to the issuance of individual grading permits; each new development would be required to retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to investigate and evaluate each new development site and design new structures to withstand probable seismic-related ground failures, such as liquefaction and lateral spreading.

The CBC standards and County codes require all new development to be designed consistent with a site-specific, design-level geotechnical report, which would be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations of a California-registered professional geotechnical engineer. Liquefaction hazards can generally be addressed through site preparation measures or foundation design measures such as removal and replacement of liquefiable soils, densification of these soils, or specific foundation design recommendations. Implementation of these measures in accordance with building code requirements can effectively reduce the hazard to minimize any potential for substantive damage.

Compliance with all applicable CBC and County code requirements would ensure that development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-15 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT GEO-3: SOIL EROSION
Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements would include ground-disturbing activities that could increase the risk of erosion or sediment transport, if not managed appropriately. Such activities could result in soil erosion during excavation, grading, trenching, and soil stockpiling. Because such activities would exceed 1 acre during construction, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit described in Regulatory Setting above, and discussed further in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality. This requirement was developed to ensure that stormwater is managed to protect water quality and includes erosion control measures for construction sites as well as post-construction requirements.

The Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP that identifies BMPs to control stormwater from construction work sites. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation; construction of sedimentation basins; limitations on work periods during storm events; use of infiltration swales; protection of stockpiled materials; and other measures identified by a qualified SWPPP preparer that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction.

In summary, with thorough compliance with existing requirements (including implementation of the SWPPP and adherence to the included BMPs during the construction), development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and the impact relative to soil erosion would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT GEO-4: UNSTABLE SOIL
As previously discussed, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to liquefaction and other seismic-related ground failure. The UWSP area displays no evidence of previous landslides, and the consolidated sediments underlying the UWSP area would be unlikely to destabilize during project construction. The UWSP area is in an area that has experienced moderate to high land subsidence in the past.

While the potential for landslides is low, the potential for the UWSP area to be affected by the damaging effects of liquefaction and subsidence is present. However, as discussed above, the final design-level geotechnical investigations for individual projects would analyze the site-specific conditions within each project area where foundations, footings, and other infrastructure would be located, and would identify any potential for individual projects to exacerbate any geologic hazards. Should any potential hazards be identified, the geotechnical reports for individual projects would provide specific measures to address relevant site preparation, design, or other requirements consistent with the current version of the CBC. 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-16 PLNP2018-00284
Compliance with CBC requirements, including recommendations provided by the final design-level geotechnical reports, would reduce the impact related to unstable soils to a less-than-significant level.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT GEO-5: EXPANSIVE SOILS
As discussed in the Environmental Setting above, the NRCS Web Soil Survey data indicate that most of the soils underlying the UWSP area have a low to high expansion potential. As previously discussed, project design and construction activities for individual onsite and offsite projects would be required to comply with CBC and County building code regulations and requirements and would employ standard engineering and building practices common to construction projects throughout California (e.g., soil removal and replacement with engineered soil) that are also consistent with building code requirements.

The required design-level geotechnical investigations described above would identify any expansive soils within a particular project area and include specific responsive requirements to ensure that all foundations and other below-ground infrastructure would not be adversely affected by expansive soils. Adherence to design requirements consistent with the current version of the CBC and site-specific geotechnical reports would ensure that this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT GEO-6: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The surficial geology within the UWSP area is composed of Holocene-age alluvium, Holocene-age basin deposits, and Pleistocene-age Riverbank Formation. While not mapped at the surface, there are older Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits that are expected to be present in the subsurface at an unknown depth. The Holocene-age deposits (Qha and Qhb) are considered to have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources at the surface, but the potential increases with increased depth into the subsurface. The Pleistocene-age Riverbank Formation (Qr) is considered to have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources at any depth; this conclusion is made due to the numerous fossil discoveries from the Riverbank Formation from within Sacramento County, as well as throughout California (ENGEO 2021). Additionally, Pleistocene-age age alluvium (Qoa) is considered to have a moderate to high potential to contain significant paleontological resources and, while not mapped at the surface within the UWSP area, these deposits are expected to be present at an unknown depth below the Holocene-age deposits.

The proposed UWSP is envisioned as a mixed-use community, which would include new housing and commercial developments. As these developments have yet to be 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-17 PLNP2018-00284
designed, the details regarding the location and extent of ground disturbance associated with future development with the UWSP area is not known at the time of this analysis. However, it can be assumed that new housing and commercial developments would include some degree of ground disturbance when installing building foundations and other infrastructure, and construction-associated grading and excavation could destroy paleontological resources. The offsite improvements would only disturb relatively shallow soils that have already been disturbed; paleontological resources are not anticipated in the offsite improvement locations. Therefore, the impact related to paleontological resources would be potentially significant.

With the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-6a through GEO-6d, below, this impact would be reduced to less than significant as qualified technical specialists would provide oversight and worker training, and clear parameters for resource monitoring and steps to be executed if a paleontological resource is discovered would be provided.

MITIGATION MEASURES
GEO-6a Project Paleontologist: The project applicant for each individual project shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist (qualified paleontologist) meeting the SVP standards as set forth in the “Definitions” section of Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources prior to the approval of grading permits. The qualified paleontologist shall attend the project kick-off meeting and project progress meetings on a regular basis, shall report to the site in the event potential paleontological resources are encountered, and shall implement the duties outlined below.

GEO-6b Worker Training: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity, the qualified paleontologist shall prepare paleontological resources sensitivity training materials for use during Project-wide Worker Environmental Awareness Training (or equivalent). The paleontological resources sensitivity training shall be conducted by a qualified environmental trainer working under the supervision of the qualified paleontologist. In the event construction crews are phased, additional trainings shall be conducted for new construction personnel. The training session shall focus on the recognition of the types of paleontological resources that could be encountered within the UWSP site and the procedures to be followed if they are found, as outlined in an approved Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (discussed below). The Project Applicant shall retain documentation demonstrating that all construction personnel attended the training prior to the start of work on the site and shall provide the documentation upon request.

GEO-6c Paleontological Monitoring: The qualified paleontologist shall prepare, and the project applicant shall implement, a paleontological resources monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP). The project applicant shall submit the plan to the County for review and approval at least 30 days prior to the start of 11 – Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
Upper Westside Specific Plan 11-18 PLNP2018-00284
construction. This plan shall address specifics of monitoring and mitigation and comply with the recommendations of the SVP, as follows:
 The qualified paleontologist shall identify, and the project applicant or its contractor(s) shall retain, qualified paleontological resource monitors (qualified monitors) meeting the SVP standards.
 The qualified paleontologist and/or the qualified monitors under the direction of the qualified paleontologist shall conduct full-time paleontological resources monitoring for all ground-disturbing activities in previously undisturbed sediments in the UWSP area that have high paleontological sensitivity. This includes any disturbance below 6 feet in Holocene-age deposits, and any depth of excavation into the Riverbank Formation. The PRMMP shall clearly map these portions of the project based on final design.
 If multiple pieces of heavy equipment are in use simultaneously but at diverse locations, each location will need to be individually monitored.  Monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt or divert work away from exposed fossils in order to evaluate and recover the fossil specimens, establishing a 50-foot buffer.
 If construction or other project personnel discover any potential fossils during construction, regardless of the depth of work or location and regardless of whether the site is being monitored, work at the discovery location shall cease in a 50-foot radius of the discovery until the qualified paleontologist has assessed the discovery and made recommendations as to the appropriate treatment.
 The qualified paleontologist shall determine the significance of any fossils discovered and shall determine the appropriate treatment for significant fossils in accordance with the SVP standards.
 Monitors shall prepare daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. The qualified paleontologist shall prepare a final monitoring and mitigation report to document the results of the monitoring effort and any curation of fossils.

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

Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-1 PLNP2018-00284
12 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies and evaluates issues related to hazards and hazardous materials in the context of the proposed UWSP. It includes the environmental and regulatory setting, the criteria used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts, the methods used in evaluating these impacts, and the results of the impact assessment.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received comments from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) with respect to the following issues: site contamination from past uses, including from the use of pesticides during agricultural operations; site contamination adjacent to roadways within and adjacent to the UWSP area due to aerially deposited lead from the past use of leaded gasoline; and the potential for buildings and structures within the UWSP area to contain hazardous materials, the demolition of which could result in the accidental release of these materials into the environment.

The analysis of historic and current hazardous materials sites within or near the UWSP area in this chapter is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I assessment) provided by ENGEO Incorporated (ENGEO) (see Appendix HAZ-1), as well as the DTSC EnviroStor and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker online databases. The analysis of safety hazards or excessive noise posed by the proximity of the UWSP area to the Sacramento International Airport (SMF) and the relation of the proposed UWSP to the SMF Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in this chapter is based on an analysis by Wood Rodgers, Inc (2021). The analysis of emergency evacuation in this chapter is based in part on the Sacramento County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) Evacuation Functional Annex (2021).

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

EXISTING CONDITIONS

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DATABASE SEARCH
A Phase I assessment was prepared for the UWSP area, in conformance with ASTM Practice E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The objective of the Phase I assessment was to determine the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), and historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), as defined in ASTM 1527-13. Several search methods were utilized in the process of the Phase I assessment, including regulatory file searches, historic use research, interviews, and on-site observations.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-2 PLNP2018-00284
The Phase I assessment included a review of local, state, tribal, and federal environmental record sources, historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, and physical setting sources. Site reconnaissance was completed to review site use and current conditions to check for the storage, use, production, or disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials. Written and/or oral interviews were conducted with persons knowledgeable about current and past uses within the UWSP area. The assessment identified four HRECs identified within the UWSP area, and that there are no current RECs and no CRECs (ENGEO 2021).

The following four HRECs were identified:
 Former Johnson Ranch (Case Number T10000012933) at 3800 Garden Highway (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 225-0110-058) is listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cleanup site. The site is associated with elevated levels of pesticides, lead, and arsenic in the soil as a result of legacy agrichemicals. Also, contamination of the soil and groundwater with total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) and motor oil contamination associated with a 550-gallon underground storage tank (UST). Approximately 260 tons of contaminated soil was removed, and the case was closed on July 31, 2020, by the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department (SCEMD) (ENGEO 2021). Case closure means that the regulatory agency concluded that this site no longer poses a risk to people or the environment.  Private Residence (Case Number T0606748466) at 3650 El Centro Road (APN 225-01900-019) is also listed as a closed LUST cleanup site. The site is associated with elevated concentrations of TPH-gasoline (TPHg), TPH-diesel (TPHd), TPH-motor oil (TPHmo), and benzene. Removal of the contaminated soils and treatment of in-situ soils was performed in July 2008 through September 2009. Additional sampling was conducted in 2014 and 2015, and the case was closed on February 19, 2016, by the SCEMD (ENGEO 2021). Case closure means that the regulatory agency concluded that this site no longer poses a risk to people or the environment.
 49er Truck Plaza Case #1 (Case Number T0606700843) at 2828 El Centro Road (APN 225-0220-055) is the location of a gasoline and diesel spill that resulted in elevated levels of TPHg and TPHd in the soil and groundwater. The impacted soil and groundwater were removed and the site was monitored quarterly from 2005 to 2010, and the case was closed by the SCEMD on March 26, 2014 (ENGEO 2021). Case closure means that the regulatory agency concluded that this site no longer poses a risk to people or the environment.  The #23 Satellite Dispenser Pump at the 49er Truck Plaza Case #2 (Case Number T0606700843). The #23 Satellite Dispenser pump was damaged in an accident, causing the release of diesel fuel, in February 2019. The impacted soils were removed, and a soil investigation was performed in July 2019. The case was closed by the SCEMD on April 16, 2020 (ENGEO 2021). Case closure means that the regulatory agency concluded that this site no longer poses a risk to people or the environment.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-3 PLNP2018-00284
Through site reconnaissance and a regulatory database review, other potential environmental issues were identified, including the potential presence for sumps/tanks and septic systems to be encountered. In addition, asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) materials may exist in existing structures within the UWSP area and could be encountered if these structures were to be demolished during buildout of the UWSP; the soil in the area of these structures may also contain ACM and/or LBP (ENGEO 2021). In addition, an abandoned and plugged gas/oil well is located within the UWSP area in the vicinity of the intersection of Radio Road and El Centro Road (CalGEM 2022). Due to the past use of agrichemicals in the area, it is possible that pesticides, lead, and arsenic may be present. Pole-mounted transformer units were observed; while there did not appear to be evidence of leakage or soil impacts, it is possible that some units could contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

Due to certain data gaps, while the Phase I assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs within the UWSP area, it cannot be conclusively stated that there is not a REC within the UWSP area (ENGEO 2021).

An independent review of the DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker hazardous materials databases confirms the findings of the database search included in the Phase I assessment (SWRCB/DTSC 2021).

SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE CENTERS
There are three schools within 0.25 mile of the UWSP area. The nearby schools are as follows:
 Witter Ranch Elementary School, 3790 Poppy Hill Way, Sacramento, CA (approximately 0.1 mile east of the UWSP area).
 Merryhill Preschool, 2855 Karitsa Avenue, Sacramento, CA (approximately

0.2 mile northeast of the UWSP area).
 Two Rivers Elementary School, 3201 W. River Drive, Sacramento, CA (approximately 0.25 mile east of the UWSP area).

AIRPORTS
There are no airports within 2 miles of the UWSP area. The nearest airport is the SMF, which is approximately 3 miles northwest of the UWSP area.

An analysis of the UWSP area in relation to the SMF ALUCP indicates that the UWSP area is within the SMF’s Airport Planning Policy Area (Wood Rodgers 2021). According to the analysis, the UWSP area is within the SMF Airport Influence Area and is entirely within a boundary referred to as Referral Area 2, which is an area with specific Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restrictions (i.e., FAA height requirements, restrictions on electrical or visual hazards to aircraft, and restrictions on thermal plumes that could affect aircraft) (Wood Rodgers 2021).

The analysis indicates that the UWSP area would be outside of any delineated noise contours or safety hazard zones.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-4 PLNP2018-00284

EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The County’s Office of Emergency Services has prepared an EOP that describes the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with large-scale disasters affecting Sacramento County. The EOP is based on the functions and principles of the California Standardized Emergency Management System, the National Incident Management System, and the California Incident Command System. It identifies how the Sacramento County emergency operational system fits into the overall California and national risk-based, all-hazard emergency response and recovery operations plan. The EOP does not identify specific emergency response or evacuation routes; the routes would depend on the nature and location of the emergency.

The EOP includes an Evacuation Functional Annex, which identifies the major interstates, highway, and prime arterials as primary evacuation routes in Sacramento County (County of Sacramento 2021). While these are the primary routes, evacuation routes would be determined by emergency personnel at the time of the incident and would be based on the location and extent of the incident.

WILDFIRE HAZARDS
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Forest Resource Assessment Program published maps that delineate Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) in State Responsibility Areas and Local Responsibility Areas. Based on mapping by CAL FIRE, the UWSP area is not within a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2008).

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). With respect to hazardous materials, state and local agencies often have either parallel or more stringent regulations than federal agencies. In most cases, state law mirrors or overlaps federal law and enforcement of these laws is the responsibility of the state or of a local agency to which enforcement powers are delegated. For these reasons, the requirements of the law and its enforcement are discussed under either the state or local agency section.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA as long as the state program is at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements and is approved by the USEPA. The USEPA approved California’s RCRA program, referred to as the Hazardous Waste Control Law, in 1992. In addition, RCRA regulates USTs under Code 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-5 PLNP2018-00284
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 2801, as expanded by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.

TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was enacted by Congress to give the USEPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. The USEPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or humanhealth hazard. The USEPA can ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
The USDOT regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads. Within California, the state agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, federal and state agencies determine driver-training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications. Although special requirements apply to transporting hazardous materials, requirements for transporting hazardous waste are more stringent, and hazardous waste haulers must be licensed to transport hazardous waste on public roads.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
OSHA is the agency responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The federal regulations pertaining to worker safety are contained in CFR Title 29, as authorized in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. They provide standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to hazardous materials handling. At sites known or suspected to have soil or groundwater contamination, construction workers must receive training in hazardous materials operations and a site health and safety plan must be prepared.

The health and safety plan establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site.

OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
Part 112 of Subchapter D of Chapter I of Title 40 of the CFR (40 CFR 112) establishes procedures, methods, equipment, and other requirements to prevent discharges from non-transportation-related onshore and offshore facilities into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States.

These regulations require facilities with a single tank or cumulative aboveground storage capacities of 1,320 gallons or greater of petroleum to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan (40 CFR 112.1). The purpose of an SPCC plan is to form a comprehensive federal/state spill prevention program that minimizes the potential for discharges. The SPCC plan must address all relevant spill prevention, control, and countermeasures necessary at the specific facility for which the SPCC plan is written.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-6 PLNP2018-00284
FEDERAL REGULATION 49 CFR PART 77
Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 77 establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. This notification serves as the basis for evaluating the effect of the proposed construction or alteration on operating procedures; determining the potential hazardous effect of the proposed construction on air navigation; identifying mitigating measures to enhance safe air navigation; and charting of new objects. FAA Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 includes the establishment of imaginary surfaces (airspace that provides clearance of obstacles for runway operation) that allows the FAA to identify potential aeronautical hazards in advance, thus preventing or minimizing adverse impacts to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace. The regulations identify three-dimensional imaginary surfaces through which no object should penetrate.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) from Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III improved community access to information regarding chemical hazards and facilitated the development of business chemical inventories and emergency response plans. EPCRA also established reporting obligations for facilities that store or manage specified chemicals. EPCRA applies to development allowed under the proposed UWSP because the contractors that conduct cleanup, remove hazardous materials from the UWSP area, and construct remediation systems would be required to prepare and implement written emergency response plans to properly manage hazardous materials and respond to accidental spills.

STATE

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 66261.20 through 66261.24, contains technical descriptions of characteristics that would classify wasted material, including soil, as hazardous waste. When excavated, soils with concentrations of contaminants higher than certain acceptable levels must be handled and disposed as a hazardous waste.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
The DTSC is responsible for regulating the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances in the state. DTSC maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List for site cleanup. This list is commonly referred to as the Cortese List. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to update the Cortese List at least annually. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-7 PLNP2018-00284

UNIVERSAL WASTE RULE
Universal waste comes primarily from consumer products containing mercury, lead, cadmium, and other substances that are hazardous to human health and the environment. These items cannot be discarded in household trash or disposed of in landfills. Examples of universal waste are batteries, fluorescent tubes, and many electronic devices.

California’s Universal Waste Rule allows individuals and businesses to transport, handle, and recycle certain common hazardous wastes, termed universal wastes, in a manner that differs from the requirements for most hazardous wastes. The more relaxed requirements for managing universal waste were adopted to ensure that they are managed safely and are not disposed of in the trash.

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The SWRCB and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer the requirements of the Clean Water Act that regulate pollutant discharges into waterways of the U.S.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014- DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ), known as the Construction General Permit or CGP, regulates discharges of pollutants in stormwater associated with construction activity to waters of the U.S. from construction sites that disturb 1 or more acres of land surface, or that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than 1 acre of land surface. As construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would disturb more than 1 acre of land surface with the potential to affect the quality of stormwater discharges into waters of the U.S., it would be subject to the CGP. The permit regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction or demolition activities, such as clearing and excavation; construction of buildings; and linear underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines. The CGP requires the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that includes specific best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwater from moving offsite into receiving waters. The BMPs fall into several categories, including erosion control, sediment control, waste management, and good housekeeping, and are intended to protect surface water quality by preventing the off-site migration of eroded soil and construction-related pollutants from the construction area.

UNIFIED HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

REGULATORY PROGRAM
In January 1996, CalEPA adopted regulations implementing a Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program). The program has six elements: hazardous waste generators and hazardous waste on-site treatment; underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks; hazardous materials 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-8 PLNP2018-00284
release response plans and inventories; risk management and prevention programs; and Unified Fire Code hazardous materials management plans and inventories. The plan is implemented at the local level. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is the local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program. The SCEMD is the certified local CUPA for Sacramento County.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE RESPONSE PLANS AND INVENTORY LAW The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires businesses that store hazardous materials on-site to prepare a hazardous materials business plan (HMBP) and submit it to local health and fire departments. The business plan must include details of the facility and business conducted at the site, an inventory of hazardous materials that are handled and stored on-site, an emergency response plan, and a safety and emergency response training program for new employees with an annual refresher course.

HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLING
The DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. State and federal laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. Laws and regulations require hazardous materials users to store these materials appropriately and to train employees to manage them safely.

Under the federal RCRA, individual states may implement their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of RCRA, as long as the state program is at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements. In California, the DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribe management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous waste that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

ABOVEGROUND STORAGE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
The Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act of 1990 requires owners or operators of facilities that store petroleum products with a capacity of 1,320 gallons or more to file a storage statement with the SWRCB and prepare a SPCC plan. The plan must identify appropriate spill containment or equipment for diverting spills from sensitive areas, as well as discuss facility-specific requirements for the storage system, inspections, recordkeeping, security, and personnel training.

The SWRCB requires registration of an aboveground storage tank at a construction site only if the tank is 20,000 gallons or larger, or if the aggregate volume of aboveground petroleum storage is over 100,000 gallons, which would not be applicable to the proposed UWSP because individual projects under the UWSP would not require tanks of this size. For smaller temporary tanks used during construction, methods for controlling a release and measures to clean up an accidental release and prevent 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-9 PLNP2018-00284
degradation of water quality are addressed in the SWPPPs that would be prepared for individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
State laws governing USTs specify requirements for permitting, monitoring, closure, and cleanup associated with these facilities. Regulations set forth construction and monitoring standards for existing tanks, release reporting requirements, and closure requirements. In the UWSP area, SCEMD has regulatory authority for permitting, inspection, and removal of USTs. Any entity proposing to remove a UST must submit a closure plan to the regulating agency prior to tank removal. Upon approval of the UST closure plan, the regulating agency would issue a permit, oversee removal of the UST, require additional subsurface sampling if necessary, and issue a site closure letter when the appropriate removal and/or remediation has been completed.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
The State of California has adopted USDOT regulations for the intrastate movement of hazardous materials; state regulations are contained in 26 CCR. In addition, the State of California regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating in the state and passing through the state (26 CCR). Both regulatory programs apply in California.

The two state agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the CHP and Caltrans. The CHP enforces hazardous materials and hazardous waste labeling and packing regulations to prevent leakage and spills of material in transit and to provide detailed information to cleanup crews in the event of an accident. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are the responsibility of the CHP, which conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to assure regulatory compliance. Caltrans has emergency chemical spill identification teams at as many as 72 locations throughout the state that can respond quickly in the event of a spill.

Common carriers are licensed by the CHP, pursuant to California Vehicle Code section 32000. This section requires the licensing of every motor (common) carrier who transports, for a fee, in excess of 500 pounds of hazardous materials at one time, and every carrier, if not for hire, who carries more than 1,000 pounds of hazardous material of the type requiring placards.

Every hazardous waste package type used by a hazardous materials shipper must undergo tests that imitate some of the possible rigors of travel. Every package is not put through every test. However, most packages must be able to be kept under running water for a time without leaking, dropped fully loaded onto a concrete floor, compressed from both sides for a period of time, subjected to low and high pressure, and frozen and heated alternately.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-10 PLNP2018-00284

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Because California has a federally approved OSHA program, it is required to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as those found in Title 29 of the CFR.

Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace require employee safety training, safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. Cal/OSHA enforces hazard communication program regulations, which contain training and information requirements, including procedures for identifying and labeling hazardous substances, and communicating hazard information relating to hazardous substances and their handling. The hazard communication program also requires that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) be available to employees, and that employee information and training programs be documented. These regulations also require preparation of emergency action plans (escape and evacuation procedures, rescue and medical duties, alarm systems, and training in emergency evacuation).

EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Pursuant to the Emergency Services Act, California has developed an Emergency Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governmental agencies and private persons. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one part of this plan. The plan is administered by the State Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the USEPA, CHP, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the RWQCBs (in this case the Central Valley RWQCB), the local air districts (in this case, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [SMAQMD]) and local agencies. The State Emergency Plan defines the “policies, concepts, and general protocols” for the proper implementation of the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). The SEMS is an emergency management protocol that agencies within the State of California must follow during multi-agency response efforts whenever state agencies are involved.

FIRE PROTECTION
The California Fire Code is contained within Title 24, Chapter 9 of the CCR. Based on the International Fire Code, the California Fire Code is created by the California Buildings Standards Commission and regulates the use, handling, and storage requirements for hazardous materials at fixed facilities. Similar to the International Fire Code, the California Fire Code and the California Building Code use a hazards classification system to determine the appropriate measures to incorporate to protect life and property.

The California Public resources Code includes fire safety regulations that apply to state responsibility areas during the time of year designated as having hazardous fire conditions. During the fire hazard season, these regulations restrict the use of equipment 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-11 PLNP2018-00284
that may produce a spark, flame, or fire; require the use of spark arrestors on equipment that has an internal combustion engine; specify requirements for the safe use of gasoline-powered tools in fire hazard areas; and specify fire-suppression equipment that must be provided on-site for various types of work in fire-prone areas. Additional codes require that any person who owns, controls, operates, or maintains any electrical transmission or distribution line must maintain a firebreak clearing around and adjacent to any pole, tower, and conductors that carry electric current as specified in Sections 4292 and 4293. The state’s Fire Prevention Standards for Electric Utilities (14 CCR §§1250-1258) provides specific exemptions from electric pole and tower firebreak and electric conductor clearance standards and specifies when and where standards apply.

LOCAL
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The following policies from the Hazardous Materials Element of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan (County of Sacramento 2017) are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

HM-4 The handling, storage, and transport of hazardous materials shall be conducted in a manner so as not to compromise public health and safety standards.

HM-7 Encourage the implementation of workplace safety programs and to the best extent possible ensure that residents who live adjacent to industrial or commercials facilities are protected from accidents and the mishandling of hazardous materials.

HM-8 Continue the effort to prevent ground water and soil contamination.

HM-9 Continue the effort to prevent surface water contamination.

HM-10 Reduce the occurrences of hazardous material accidents and the subsequent need for incident response by developing and implementing effective prevention strategies.

HM-11 Protect residents and sensitive facilities from incidents which may occur during the transport of hazardous materials in the County.

HM-13 Develop and implement a comprehensive hazardous materials management program and permit process for all applicable County agencies. The program and permitting process should be devoid of overlap and shall be consistent with the Goals and Policies of this Hazardous Materials Element to the best extent possible under existing laws and regulations.

HM-14 Support local enforcement of hazardous materials regulations. 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-12 PLNP2018-00284

SACRAMENTO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS DIVISION
The Hazardous Materials Division of the SCEMD is the designated CUPA for the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County and is responsible for implementing six statewide environmental programs for Sacramento County, including:
 Underground storage of hazardous substances (USTs);
 HMBP requirements;
 Hazardous Waste Generator requirements;
 California Accidental Release Prevention program;
 Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plan; and  Above Ground Storage Tanks (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan).

SACRAMENTO COUNTY WELL ORDINANCE
Chapter 6.28 of the Sacramento County Code is intended to protect the health safety and general welfare of the people by ensuring that the groundwater of the County is not polluted or contaminated by improper well construction, modification, repair, or abandonment. The ordinance prohibits digging, boring, drilling, deepening, modifying, repairing or destroying a well without receiving a permit to do so from the SCEMD.

MATERIALS-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS
From the above-listed regulations, the use and removal of hazardous building materials is subject to the following regulations specific to the demolition and renovation of structures.

ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS REGULATIONS
State-level agencies, in conjunction with the USEPA and OSHA, regulate removal, abatement, and transport procedures for ACM. Releases of asbestos from industrial, demolition, or construction activities are prohibited by these regulations and medical evaluation and monitoring is required for employees performing activities that could expose them to asbestos. Additionally, the regulations include warnings that must be heeded and practices that must be followed to reduce the risk for asbestos emissions and exposure. Finally, SMAQMD must be notified prior to the onset of demolition or construction activities with the potential to release asbestos. The following regulations apply to the removal and disposal of ACM: CFR Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M (Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [NESHAP]); CCR Title 8, Sections 1529 and 5208; and SMAQMD Rule 902, which provides detailed requirements for the definition of materials that qualify as ACM, qualifications for ACM contractors, and procedures for testing, containment, removal, and disposal. 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-13 PLNP2018-00284

LEAD-BASED PAINT
Cal/OSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard is contained in CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1.

This regulation addresses all of the following areas: permissible exposure limits (PELs); exposure assessment; compliance methods; respiratory protection; protective clothing and equipment; housekeeping; medical surveillance; medical removal protection; employee information, training, and certification; signage; record keeping; monitoring; and agency notification. The following regulations apply to the removal and disposal of LBP: Title IV, Toxic Substances Control Act, Sections 402, 403, and 404; and CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1. In addition, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) requires that LBP removal actions prepare and submit CDPH Form 8551: Abatement of Lead Hazards Notification and CDPH Form 8552: Lead Hazard Evaluation Report to the CDPH.

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
PCBs are mixtures of 200-plus individual chlorinated compounds (known as congeners). PCBs were used in many applications like coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, and other electrical equipment because they do not burn easily and are good insulators. The manufacture of PCBs ended in the U.S. in the late 1970s because they can cause harmful effects to human health and the environment.

PCBs can be found in sources such as electrical transformers, fluorescent light ballasts and electrical devices with PCB capacitors, hydraulic oils, and building materials. PCBs are toxic, highly persistent in the environment, and bioaccumulate. There are no known natural sources of PCBs.

The US EPA prohibited the use of PCBs in most new electrical equipment and fluorescent light ballasts starting in 1979 and initiated a phase‐out for much of the existing PCB-containing equipment. The inclusion of PCBs in electrical equipment and the handling of those PCBs are regulated by the provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2601 et seq. Relevant regulations include labeling and periodic inspection requirements for certain types of PCB-containing equipment and outline highly specific safety procedures for their disposal. The State of California likewise regulates PCB-laden electrical equipment and materials contaminated above a certain threshold as hazardous waste; these regulations require that such materials be treated, transported, and disposed of accordingly. At lower concentrations for nonliquids, the RWQCB may exercise discretion over the classification of such wastes. The following regulations apply to the removal and disposal of PCBs: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: 4 CFR 761; Toxic Substances Control Act: U.S. Code Title 15, Section 2695; and 22 CCR Section 66261.24.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-14 PLNP2018-00284

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
 Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;  Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;  For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area;
 Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
 Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
Expose people within an airport land use area to a safety hazard or excessive noise – Although within Referral Area 2, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be consistent with the requirements of Referral Area 2 because it would not violate FAA height requirements, would not create an electrical or visual hazard to aircraft, and would not create a thermal plume that could affect aircraft (Wood Rodgers 2021). Therefore, although the project is located within an airport land use area, implementation of the proposed UWSP would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the UWSP area and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR.

Expose people or structures a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires – Based on mapping by CAL FIRE, the UWSP area is not within a VHFHSZ in a State Responsibility Area or a Local Responsibility Area. As a result, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not expose people or 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-15 PLNP2018-00284
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Information for this assessment of impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials is based on the Phase I ESA prepared for the UWSP area, a review of literature research (e.g., fire severity zone maps provided by CAL FIRE), and review of the DTSC EnviroStor database and Cortese List, and SWRCB’s GeoTracker database, all of which are discussed in Environmental Setting above. In addition, the Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Department contracted an inundation study in the event of a levee failure on the Sacramento River (MacKay & Somps 2024). This information was used to identify potential impacts to workers, the public, or the environment.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be regulated by the various laws, regulations, and policies summarized in the Regulatory Setting above.

Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in this analysis, and local and state agencies would be expected to continue to enforce applicable requirements to the extent that they do so now. Note that compliance with many of the regulations is a condition of permit approval.

A significant impact would occur if, after considering the features described in Chapter 2, Project Description and the required compliance with regulatory requirements, a significant impact would still occur. For those impacts considered to be significant, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the identified impacts.

IMPACT HAZ-1: ROUTINE TRANSPORT, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

CONSTRUCTION
During the construction phases of individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP, along with the offsite improvements described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and depicted on Plate PD-20, construction equipment and materials would include fuels, oils and lubricants, solvents and cleaners, cements and adhesives, paints and thinners, degreasers, cement and concrete, and asphalt mixtures, which are all commonly used in construction. Routine uses of any of these substances could pose a hazard to people or the environment and would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Construction activities would be required to comply with the numerous hazardous materials regulations listed in the Regulatory Setting above designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials into the environment, including stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. Contractors would be required to prepare and implement HMBPs that would require that hazardous materials used for construction be 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-16 PLNP2018-00284
used properly and stored in appropriate containers with secondary containment to contain a potential release. In Sacramento County, HMBPs are submitted to the local CUPA, SCEMD, for their review for compliance with hazardous materials regulations.

The California Fire Code would also require measures for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials, which are included in the CUPA review of HMBPs.

Construction contractors for individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP, along with the previously noted offsite improvements, would be required to prepare SWPPPs for construction activities in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPPs would list the hazardous materials (including petroleum products) proposed for use during construction; describe spill prevention measures, equipment inspections, equipment and fuel storage; protocols for responding immediately to spills; and describe BMPs for controlling site runoff. The SWPPPs would be submitted to the RWQCB, which would review both the SWPPPs and the required inspection reports for compliance with the CGP.

In addition, the transportation of hazardous materials would be regulated by the USDOT, Caltrans, and the CHP. Together, federal and state agencies determine drivertraining requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications designed to minimize the risk of accidental release. In the event of a spill that releases hazardous materials at an individual project site within the UWSP area, a coordinated response would occur at the federal, state, and local levels. The SCEMD is the local hazardous materials response team. In the event of a hazardous materials spill, the police and fire departments would be simultaneously notified and sent to the scene to respond and assess the situation.

Compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous building materials during construction would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the routine use of hazardous building materials, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

OPERATION
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be primarily residential and commercial in nature; no industrial operations would occur within the UWSP area. Once constructed, residences and commercial operations would use and store small quantities of chemicals typical in residences and commercial uses, such as household cleaning solutions, paints and thinners, and fuel and motor fuel (e.g., vehicles and lawn mowers). Few of the chemicals would be considered hazardous materials (e.g., bleach) and the anticipated volumes would be small (i.e., less than 5 gallons). Proposed projects may include the construction of service stations with fuel USTs. The construction and operation of USTs are regulated under RCRA through the SWRCB, 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-17 PLNP2018-00284
the local RWQCB, and the fire department. The regulations require USTs to have secondary containment and leak detection systems. The offsite improvements would not use hazardous materials.

Compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the routine use of hazardous materials, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT HAZ-2: ACCIDENTAL RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

CONSTRUCTION
Implementation of individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP may include the demolition and removal of existing buildings and structures. Some buildings and structures may include hazardous building materials, such as ACM, LBP, and PCBs. If improperly managed, the demolition activities could result in exposures to construction workers, the public, and the environment. The offsite improvements would not encounter structures with hazardous materials.

Numerous existing regulations require that demolition and renovation activities that may disturb or require the removal of materials that consist of, contain, or are coated with ACM, LBP, and PCBs, and other hazardous materials must be inspected and/or tested for the presence of hazardous materials. If present, the hazardous materials must be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Compliance with existing regulations is a condition of demolition and construction permits.

In the case of ACM and LBP, all work must be conducted by a State-certified professional, which would ensure compliance with all applicable regulations. If ACM and/or LBP are determined to exist onsite, a site-specific hazard control plan must be prepared detailing removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and equipment for abatement personnel. A state-certified LBP and/or ACM removal contractor would be retained to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill permitted to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the contractor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the appropriate regulatory agency documenting that testing and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Equipment and materials with PCBs are managed through the Universal Waste Rule. In the case of PCBs, electrical transformers and older fluorescent light ballasts not previously tested and verified to not contain PCBs must be tested. If PCBs are detected 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-18 PLNP2018-00284
above action levels, the materials must be disposed of at a licensed facility permitted to accept the materials.

Compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the abatement and disposal of ACM, LBP, and PCBs would limit the potential for the accidental release of these materials, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Few of the chemicals would be considered hazardous materials (e.g., bleach) and the anticipated volumes would be small (i.e., less than 5 gallons). Proposed projects may include the construction of service stations with fuel USTs. The construction and operation of USTs are regulated under RCRA through the SWRCB, the local RWQCB, and fire department. The regulations require USTs to have secondary containment and leak detection systems. The offsite improvements would not use hazardous materials.

Compliance with the numerous laws and regulations that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the routine use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT HAZ-3: HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS OR USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

NEAR SCHOOLS
As discussed in the Environmental Setting above, there are three existing schools within

0.25 mile of the UWSP area (Witter Ranch Elementary School, Merryhill Preschool, and Two Rivers Elementary School). In addition, new schools would be constructed within the UWSP area.

Construction activities associated with development allowed under the proposed UWSP, along with the offsite improvements, would include the handling of hazardous materials, as discussed above. The routes to the specific construction sites would depend on the location of new development associated with the proposed UWSP but could pass near schools. The accidental release or spill of hazardous materials transported through the vicinity near a school could expose school children, school staff, 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-19 PLNP2018-00284
and workers to hazardous materials. Further, the prolonged use of construction equipment could produce hazardous emissions, if in proximity to a school.

Although the UWSP area is within 0.25 miles of a school, as discussed above, there are numerous regulations addressing the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities. The required compliance with these regulations would ensure that nearby schools would not be exposed to hazardous materials, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT HAZ-4: KNOWN CONTAMINATED SITES
A review of the SWRCB GeoTracker online database and the DTSC EnviroStor online database revealed that parcels within the UWSP area are not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (SWRCB/DTSC 2021).

As discussed in Environmental Setting above, the Phase I assessment identified four HRECs within the UWSP area; however, there are no identified RECs or CRECs. The HRECs (discussed in Environmental Setting above) are associated with closed LUST cleanup sites where the soil and/or groundwater was contaminated by various TPH and benzene. The closed status of the four HREC cases means that the regulatory agency has concluded that the sites do not pose a risk to people or the environment. While not considered RECs, the Phase I assessment identified potential environmental concerns that were either contained in a database or observed during site reconnaissance; residual pesticides from agricultural land use, lead, arsenic, sumps/tanks, septic systems, ACM, LBP, and PCBs are all potentially present within the UWSP area, although not under any of the offsite improvement locations.

Construction activities associated with individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP would include the excavation of soil and could include the removal of groundwater to dewater excavations and facilitate construction. If the construction of this development involved the excavation of soils or extraction of groundwater from an area with existing contamination, and the contaminated materials are improperly handled, it could expose construction workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials. This would be a potentially significant impact.

As discussed above, there are numerous regulations covering the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities. The required compliance with these regulations would reduce the exposure to hazardous materials.

However, to ensure that future excavations would properly manage existing contamination, if encountered, to prevent exposure to construction personnel, the public, or the environment, Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a, HAZ-4b, and HAZ-4c developed based on the recommendations given in the Phase I assessment would be required and are described below. Implementation of these measures would ensure that 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-20 PLNP2018-00284
hazardous materials encountered during construction would be effectively managed, and any potential impact associated with being a site located on a listed hazardous materials site and/or a site that was previously used for commercial or industrial uses would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
HAZ-4a) Site Investigation
Future entitlement applications on land previously used for industrial and commercial uses, past or current agricultural land uses, as well as listed active1 and closed hazardous materials cleanup sites, shall complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for that property in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E1527 for those active hazardous materials sites to ascertain their current status prior to the application being deemed complete.

If the Phase I assessment identifies any hazardous conditions that may present risks to human health or the environment, prior to start of grounddisturbing activities, including grading, trenching, or excavation, or structure demolition, a subsurface site investigation shall be performed to evaluate for the presence of residual pesticides from agricultural land use, ACM, LBP, PCBs, or any other hazardous building materials. Additionally, near surface soil samples shall be collected to determine if lead, arsenic, or organochlorine pesticides are present.

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

HAZ-4b) Health and Safety Plan
For those properties for which the Phase I assessment identified hazardous materials issues, prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, including grading, trenching, or excavation, or structure demolition, the project applicant shall require that the construction contractor(s) retain a qualified professional to prepare a site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) in accordance with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (29 CFR 1910.120) and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations (8 CCR Section 5192).

1 As noted in the Environmental Setting, there are currently no active hazardous materials sites within the UWSP area.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-21 PLNP2018-00284
The HASP shall be implemented by the construction contractor to protect construction workers, the public, and the environment during all grounddisturbing and structure demolition activities. The HASP shall include designation of a site health and safety officer, a summary of the anticipated risks, a description of personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, and procedures to follow if evidence of potential soil or groundwater contamination is encountered.

HAZ-4c) Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
In support of the HASP described in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b, for any property within the UWSP area that is identified in a Phase I assessment, and for which a HASP has been prepared, the project applicant shall require that its contractor(s) develop and implement a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) for the management of soil and groundwater before any ground-disturbing activity. The SGMP shall describe the hazardous materials that may be encountered, the roles and responsibilities of on-site workers and supervisors, training for site workers focused on the recognition of and response to encountering hazardous materials, and protocols for the materials (soil and/or dewatering effluent) testing, handling, removing, transporting, and disposing of all excavated materials and dewatering effluent in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner.

IMPACT HAZ-5: IMPAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE

WITH AN EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN
As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, there are several roads that make up the existing infrastructure in and around the UWSP area. The Sacramento County EOP Evacuation Functional Annex identifies the major interstate, highway, and prime arterials as primary evacuation routes in Sacramento County.

CONSTRUCTION
The construction of individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP could cause traffic congestion and/or interrupt the flow of traffic through road closures or restrictions.

In addition, the offsite roadway improvements would require lane restrictions during construction. However, encroachment permits are required by Sacramento County when proposed construction encroaches into the public right-of-way, which would include a Traffic Control Plan (TCP). The Sacramento County Department of Transportation Right of Way Management (ROWM) Section is responsible for managing various activities within unincorporated area roadways including the review of construction traffic control plans.

TCPs and/or Detour Plans are reviewed and managed by the ROWM Section and are required for all construction work within the road right of way which modifies vehicular, bicycle and/or pedestrian traffic patterns and are necessary to ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic through construction work zones. 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-22 PLNP2018-00284
Compliance with the Sacramento County encroachment permit and TCP would ensure that roadwork and/or construction activities associated development allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would not result in the interference or impairment of an emergency response or evacuation plan during construction, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

OPERATION
Once constructed, no lane closures or restrictions would be required for operations. No operation-related activities would occur within surrounding rights-of-way or along evacuation routes. The proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would provide additional roadway infrastructure to and through the project area, enhancing the level of emergency access to the area.

The Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Department contracted an inundation study in the event of a levee failure on the Sacramento River (MacKay & Somps 2024)(see Appendix HWQ-2). The study area was the Natomas Basin; the UWSP area is within the southwest portion of the basin. The purpose of the study was to determine if the 2015 City/County of Sacramento Flood Evacuation Plan or the County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, both based on a 2015 modeling effort, would need to be updated. The MacKay & Somps study updated the 2015 modeling using current modeling software, corrected minor modeling errors, and used current topographic mapping information. The modeling output compared the evacuation times between existing conditions and proposed conditions with the development allowed under the proposed UWSP.

The inundation study noted that the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency has been improving levees around and within the Natomas Basin to the 200-year flood level. As previously discussed, the improvements are scheduled to be completed by 2025, which would be before development allowed under the UWSP. The inundation study identified 18 critical locations along 10 regional evacuation routes where flooding of these evacuation routes should be considered to pose an evacuation limitation for the driving public if flooding were more than 1 foot in depth. The inundation study modeled potential breaches at seven locations based on topographic elevation differences between river levels and land levels on the land side of the levee. The model mapped out the areas, depths, and timing of inundation in the event of a levee breach.

The model identified two breach locations that would inundate a portion of the UWSP area. Breach 5 was modeled to occur on the Sacramento River levee about one mile northwest of I-80. Breach 6 was modeled to occur where the American River joins the Sacramento River. Breaches at either location were modeled to inundate two low point elevations on I-80 (I-80 West and I-80 Central). The changes in the amount of time to inundate each of the critical evacuation locations between existing and UWSP developed 12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-23 PLNP2018-00284
conditions for Breaches 5 and 6 are summarized below in Tables HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, respectively.

Table HAZ-1: Breach 5 Effects at Critical Evacuation Route Locations Evacuation
Route Critical
Location
Time to 1-Foot
Depth Inundation
for Existing
Conditions in
Hours
Time to 1-Foot
Depth Inundation
with Development
Allowed under
UWSP in Hours
Improvement or
Increased/Decreased
Delay in Hours
Del Paso Road 19 18 -1
W. El Camino
Avenue 18 16 -2
Elkhorn 36 30 -6
Elkhorn West 25 26 +1
Elverta 46 60 +14
Elverta West 110 113 +3
I-5 Central 96 90 -6
I-5 Junction 30 34 +4
I-5 West 23 25 +2
I-80 Central 8 6 -2
I-80 East 19 18 -1
I-80 West 6 3 -3
Natomas Road 29 27 -2
Power Line 51 55 +4
San Juan Road 18 16 -2
SR 99 83 83 0
SR 99 North 98 102 +4
SR 99 South 99 97 -2
Averages 45 46 +1
NOTES: Negative number means decrease in available evacuation time before reaching a 1-foot inundation; positive number means an increase in available evacuation time before reaching a 1-foot inundation.

SOURCE: MacKay & Somps 2024
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-24 PLNP2018-00284
Table HAZ-2: Breach 6 Effects at Critical Evacuation Route Locations Evacuation
Route Critical
Location
Time to 1-Foot
Depth Inundation for
Existing Conditions
in Hours
Time to 1-Foot Depth
Inundation with
Development Allowed
under UWSP in Hours
Improvement or
Increased Delay
in Hours
Del Paso Road 76 118 +42
W. El Camino
Avenue
32 32 +1
Elkhorn No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
Elkhorn West No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
Elverta No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
Elverta West No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
I-5 Central 143 156 +13
I-5 Junction 40 42 +2
I-5 West 148 162 +14
I-80 Central No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
I-80 East No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
I-80 West No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
Natomas Road No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
Power Line No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
San Juan Road 30 31 +1
SR 99 No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
SR 99 North No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
SR 99 South No Flooding No Flooding No Flooding
Averages 78 90 +12
NOTES: Negative number means decrease in evacuation time; positive number means increase in evacuation time.

SOURCE: MacKay & Somps 2024
The inundation study concluded that, with a few very minor exceptions, the development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not have a material effect on either:

1. The time to inundation of a 1-foot depth of flooding over critical roadway locations along the regional evacuation routes within the Natomas Basin during a catastrophic levee breach, or

2. The maximum depth of flooding within the basin during a catastrophic flooding event.
12 - Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Upper Westside Specific Plan 12-25 PLNP2018-00284
The inundation study concluded that development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not substantially impair emergency response or evacuation for the following reasons:
 As summarized in Table HAZ-1, the modeled changes in inundation times range from a decrease of 6 hours to an increase of 14 hours for Breach 5. However, the range of inundation times varies from 6 to 113 hours, meaning that the change in hours is not substantial when compared to the total amount of hours available to evacuate.
 As summarized on Table HAZ-2, the modeled changes in inundation times range from no flooding at all to an increase of 14 hours to reach 1 foot of inundation for Breach 6. In other words, the development allowed under the UWSP would result in either no change or an increase in the number of hours available to evacuate.  The model identified multiple evacuation routes. Even if I-80 were to be closed, there would be numerous other evacuation routes available by which UWSP occupants could leave the area. The inundation study stated that it is reasonable that a minimum of six alternative local evacuation routes would be sufficient to facilitate a safe and orderly evacuation from areas subject to rapid evacuation.

Based upon these considerations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and the offsite improvements would not interfere or impair an emergency response or evacuation plan during operation, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-1 PLNP2018-00284
13 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential for the proposed UWSP to result in impacts associated with hydrology and water quality. The Environmental Setting portion of this chapter includes descriptions of existing conditions relevant to surface and groundwater resources and quality, groundwater recharge, localized drainage, and flood hazards.

The Regulatory Setting portion of this chapter summarizes plans, policies, and regulations relevant to the implementation of the proposed UWSP. The Impact Discussion portion of this chapter evaluates the potential impacts on hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the proposed UWSP in the context of the existing setting.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received multiple comments pertaining to hydrology and water quality, site drainage, flood risk, stormwater quality and capacity. Caltrans submitted comments concerning site hydraulics with the addition of impervious surfaces likely to generate and increase runoff potentially affecting the state right of way and associated drainage facilities. Accordingly, Caltrans recommended that discharge be minimized through project drainage and mitigation to address cumulative impacts. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) provided specific input on the regulatory context applicable to the UWSP analysis. Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission suggested that the analysis include an evaluation of the County’s and the project’s compliance with the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.

The information and analysis included in this chapter was informed by the 2024 sitespecific drainage study prepared by Wood Rodgers (2024) provided in Appendix HYD-1 of this EIR and an inundation study prepared by MacKay & Somps (2024) provided in Appendix HYD-2 of this EIR. Additional resources used in the preparation of this chapter include the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan; Central Valley RWQCB 2019), the North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GEI Consultants 2021), and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (DWR 2022), among others.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The proposed UWSP would allow proposed development located in the Sacramento River Basin between the City of Sacramento’s North and South Natomas communities (to the North and East) and the Sacramento River (West and South). The Sacramento River Basin is under the water quality jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB.

The Sacramento River Basin encompasses approximately 27,000 square miles bounded by the Cascade Range and Trinity Mountains to the north, the Sacramento- 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-2 PLNP2018-00284
San Joaquin Delta to the southeast, the Sierra Nevada to the east, and the Coast Ranges to the west. This basin captures approximately 22 million acre-feet (AF) of average annual precipitation. Average precipitation in Sacramento County is 18.65 inches annually.

SURFACE WATERS
Principal surface waters in the vicinity of the UWSP area include the Sacramento River along the west side of the area and the Natomas West Canal along the east side of the area (see Figure 1.2 in Appendix HYD-1). The Sacramento River is the largest river in California extending from Mount Shasta through Sacramento to the San Joaquin Delta and ultimately into San Francisco Bay. Beneficial uses for the section of the Sacramento River between Colusa Basin and the I Street Bridge include Municipal, Irrigation, Recreation, Warm and Cold Water Habitat, Spawning, Wildlife, and Navigation (Central Valley RWQCB 2019). The City of Sacramento has water rights to 81,800 acre-feet per year. Various drainage canals are within the UWSP area, as discussed further below.

GROUNDWATER
The UWSP area is in the Sacramento Valley-North American Subbasin (NASb), a highpriority groundwater basin, though not one currently in condition of critical overdraft (GEI Consultants 2021). The NASb is filled largely with sediments derived from the adjacent Sierra Nevada foothills and contain fresh water. Fresh water bearing sediments beneath the NASb are generally thinnest to the east and thicken up to 2,000 feet to the western portion of the subbasin. Although the sediments are not present as continuous layers, they are interconnected. Groundwater levels in the western portion of the subbasin near the UWSP area are generally stable dating back to the early part of the 20th century.

Groundwater contours show a pumping depression in the center of the subbasin currently about 30 feet below sea level. Depth to groundwater ranges between 10 and 20 feet below ground surface, based on well data near the UWSP area.

Groundwater quality is grouped into two basic types based on mineral concentration.

Sodium bicarbonate water predominates near the Sacramento River in the portion of the subbasin proposed for the proposed UWSP. Water supplies in the Sacramento region are derived from groundwater and surface waters in varying proportions in dry and wet years, respectively.

A relatively small portion of land area in Sacramento County is underlain by substrate with sufficient infiltration capability to provide natural recharge to the groundwater table.

Areas of groundwater recharge capability have been mapped within Sacramento County and categorized as either high, medium or low based on the presence of porous soils that allow surface water to infiltrate and recharge the groundwater (County of Sacramento 2010). The UWSP area is in a medium groundwater recharge capability area, due to alluvial soils proximal to the Sacramento River. Additional discussion of groundwater sustainability is provided in the Regulatory Setting below. 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-3 PLNP2018-00284

WATER QUALITY
Surface and groundwater quality is influenced by current and legacy pollution. Upstream of the Sacramento River, small streams and tributaries are impaired to some degree by discharges from agriculture, mines, and urban activities. The Sacramento River from Knights Landing to the Delta is listed on the 303(d) list as impaired for multiple pollutants including mercury, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane), Chlordane, Diedrin, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and toxicity (Central Valley RWQCB 2018).

Water quality objectives for various contaminants (such as salinity, pesticides, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, sediment, and turbidity) have been established for the Sacramento River to protect its beneficial uses (Central Valley RWQCB 2019).

FLOOD PROTECTION
The UWSP area is in the 100-year flood zone, with three designations: Zone A (defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) without a base flood elevation), Zone AE (defined by FEMA as a SFHA with base flood elevations determined), and Zone A99 (defined by FEMA as a SFHA without a base flood elevation and within an area protected by levees from the 100-year flood) (FEMA 2015a, 2015b). A remapping effort is currently underway, which would conditionally remove portions of the site from the SFHA, pending completion of the Natomas Levee Improvement Project, as discussed below.

The Natomas Basin is surrounded by 42 miles of levees that provide protection from the American River, Sacramento River, Natomas Cross Canal and Natomas East Main Drain Canal. Improvements to the levees were constructed in the early 1990s, which consisted of raising levees along the streams and canal systems. Subsequent to this construction, additional flood control projects have been implemented by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) to address existing vulnerabilities. By 2013, SAFCA and the state completed 18.3 of the 42 miles of levee improvements required to meet current flood control standards. In 2019, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began construction on the additional 24 miles of levee improvements necessary to provide a minimum 200-year level of flood protection1to the Natomas Basin. The flood control and levee improvement projects are anticipated to be completed by 2025.

DRAINAGE
The ground surface with the UWSP area is relatively flat, ranging in elevation from approximately 12 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the eastern border of the site to 27 feet above msl along the western border. The UWSP area is underlain with various alluvial deposits, conducive to natural drainage.

1 The “200-year level of flood protection” is also referred to as the urban level of flood protection. The Urban Level of Flood Protection is defined as the “level of protection that is necessary to withstand flooding that has a 1 in 200 chance of occurring in any given year, using criteria consistent with, or developed by, the California Department of Water Resources” per CA Government Code, Section 65007 (k).
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-4 PLNP2018-00284
Onsite flows originating from undeveloped agricultural lands are conveyed via drainage and irrigation canals to various Reclamation District 1000 (RD 1000) ditches that collect field runoff and then convey the water to the West Drainage Canal (see Figure 2.4 in Appendix HYD-1). Runoff is conveyed from the existing UWSP area to the West Drainage Canal by two pump stations operated by RD 1000 and by various gravity systems including field drains, canal drains, and storm drains. The Riverside Pump Station is located just north of the existing development that is situated north of San Juan Road. The San Juan Pump Station is located along San Juan Road adjacent to the West Drainage Canal.

Existing agricultural areas provide some floodplain storage. Agricultural areas are graded relatively flat with typical slopes less than 0.5 percent and are situated adjacent to berms and leveed irrigation canals. Flows in and out of the agricultural fields are typically limited by adjacent berms that usually measure two feet to three feet in height.

Flows are typically controlled by 18-inch or 24-inch corrugated metal pipe or by highdensity polyethylene culverts installed under the berms, which creates some floodplain storage within the fields.

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

CLEAN WATER ACT
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 1251–1387) was enacted in 1948 and expanded in 1972 as a basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating water quality standards for surface waters.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency responsible for water quality management pursuant to the CWA. The purpose of the CWA is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the Nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies. The relevant sections of the CWA are summarized below.

CWA SECTION 401: WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters, including the crossing of rivers or streams during road, pipeline, or transmission line construction, to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates. The certification ensures that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. The state agency responsible for implementing Section 401 of the CWA in California is the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-5 PLNP2018-00284
CWA SECTION 402: NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program under Section 402 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1342) is one of the primary mechanisms for controlling water pollution through the regulation of sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. USEPA has delegated authority of issuing NPDES permits in California to the SWRQB, which has nine RWQCBs. The Central Valley RWQCB regulates water quality in the project area. The NPDES permit program is discussed in detail under State Regulations.

NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
FEMA is responsible for managing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes federally backed flood insurance available for communities that adopt floodplain management ordinances to reduce flood risk and prevent associated flood damage. The NFIP, established in 1968 under the National Flood Insurance Act, requires participating communities to adopt minimum standards for floodplain management, including restricting new development in designated floodways, and requirements that new structures proposed for placement within the 100-year flood zone be elevated to or above the 100-year flood level (or base flood elevation). FEMA determines flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on USACE studies. FEMA also distributes the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) used in the National Flood Insurance Program.

FIRMs identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including 100-year floodplains.

STATE

PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. The Act establishes the authority of the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. The SWRCB administers water rights, sets state policy for water pollution control, and implements various water quality functions throughout the state, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and most enforcement activities. The UWSP area is within the jurisdiction of Region 5, the Central Valley RWQCB. The Porter-Cologne Act requires the SWRCB and/or the RWQCBs to adopt statewide and/or regional water quality control plans, the purpose of which is to establish water quality objectives for specific water bodies.

In Sacramento County, the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan; Central Valley RWQCB 2019) serves as the legal, technical, and programmatic basis of water quality regulation in the region. The Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to implement the NPDES program, which establishes discharge limitations and receiving water quality requirements for discharges to waters of the United States. The Act also authorizes the NPDES program under the CWA, which establishes effluent limitations and water quality requirements for discharges to waters of the state. The Basin Plan and the NPDES permits relevant to development allowed under the proposed UWSP are discussed further below.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-6 PLNP2018-00284
WATER CODE SECTION 10910
Water Code Section 10910 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) requirements apply to certain large development projects (as specifically defined in Section 10912) that a city or county determines are subject to CEQA. Among other requirements, Section 10910 provides that at the time the city or county determines whether an EIR or negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is required under CEQA for a project, the city or county shall identify any water system that is or may become a public water system that may supply the project and request a WSA. The WSA must then generally be provided within 90 days, unless extended by 30 days by agreement between the public water system and the city or county.

Under the statute as revised, in addition to all the previously existing requirements for WSAs, if a proposed project’s water supply includes groundwater, the WSA must now also include as part of its informational content: a description of the groundwater basins that will supply the project; for court- or SWRCB- adjudicated basins, a copy of the order or decree determining legal pumping rights; and, for unadjudicated basins designated as high- or medium-priority pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), whether the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has identified the basin as being subject to critical conditions of overdraft and whether a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) has adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Program (GSP) or approved alternative, and, if so, a copy of the same. As previously discussed in the Environmental Setting, the water supply would include groundwater acquired within a high priority groundwater basin subject to SGMA (described below).

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014, effective January 1, 2015, gives local agencies the authority to manage groundwater in a sustainable manner and allows for limited state intervention when necessary to protect groundwater resources. The SGMA establishes a definition of sustainable groundwater management, establishes a framework for local agencies to develop plans and implement strategies to sustainably manage groundwater resources, prioritizes basins (ranked as high- and medium-priority) and sets a 20-year timeline for implementation. The initial basin prioritization under SGMA uses the prioritization conducted by the DWR in 2014 under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring program. SGMA requires the creation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency that would develop and implement a GSP that would manage and use groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing “undesirable results”, defined as follows:
 Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply;
 Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage;  Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
 Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies;
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-7 PLNP2018-00284
 Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses; or
 Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

As discussed above in the Groundwater subsection, the UWSP area is in the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin, and is defined by DWR as a high priority groundwater basin, though not one in condition of critical overdraft. The subbasin encompasses portions of Sacramento, Sutter, and Placer Counties. There are five GSAs for the North American Subbasin including the Sacramento Groundwater Authority GSA, which has jurisdiction that includes the UWSP area. The established groundwater sustainability goals of the North American Subbasin GSP are as follows (GEI Consultants 2021):

Manage groundwater resources sustainably for beneficial uses and users to support the lasting health of the Subbasin’s community, economy, and environment. This will be achieved through:
 The monitoring and management of established sustainable management criteria;
 Continued expansion of conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water;
 Proactively working with local well permitting and land use planning agencies on effective groundwater policies and practices;
 Continued GSA coordination and stakeholder engagement; and  Continued improvement of our understanding of the Subbasin.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE AND ELIMINATION SYSTEM

CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
Construction associated with projects that would disturbs more than one acre of land surface affecting the quality of stormwater discharges into waters of the United States is subject to the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2022-0057-DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002). The Construction General Permit (CGP) regulates discharges of pollutants in stormwater associated with construction activity to waters of the U.S. from construction sites that disturb one acre or more of land surface, or that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface.

The permit regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction or demolition activities, such as clearing and excavation; construction of buildings; and linear underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines.

The CGP requires that construction sites be assigned a Risk Level of 1 (low), 2 (medium), or 3 (high), based both on the sediment transport risk at the site and the 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-8 PLNP2018-00284
receiving waters risk during periods of soil exposure (e.g., grading and site stabilization). The sediment risk level reflects the relative amount of sediment that could potentially be discharged to receiving water bodies and is based on the nature of the construction activities and the location of the site relative to receiving water bodies. The receiving waters risk level reflects the risk to the receiving waters from the sediment discharge. Depending on the risk level, the construction projects could be subject to the following requirements:
 Effluent standards;
 Good site management “housekeeping;”
 Non-stormwater management;
 Erosion and sediment controls;
 Run-on and runoff controls;
 Inspection, maintenance, and repair; or
 Monitoring and reporting requirements.

The CGP requires the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that includes specific best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwater from moving off site into receiving waters. The BMPs fall into several categories, including erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping, and are intended to protect surface water quality by preventing the off-site migration of eroded soil and construction-related pollutants from the construction area. Routine inspection of all BMPs is required under the provisions of the CGP. In addition, the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

The SWPPP must be prepared before construction begins. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) that delineates the construction work area, existing and proposed buildings, parcel boundaries, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project area. The SWPPP must list BMPs and the placement of those BMPs that the applicant would use to protect stormwater runoff. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction. Non-stormwater management measures include installing specific discharge controls during certain activities, such as paving operations, vehicle and equipment washing and fueling. The CGP also sets post-construction standards (i.e., implementation of BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site following construction).
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-9 PLNP2018-00284
In the UWSP area, the CGP is implemented and enforced by the Central Valley RWQCB, which administers the stormwater permitting program. Dischargers must electronically submit a notice of intent and permit registration documents to obtain coverage under this CGP. Dischargers are to notify the Central Valley RWQCB of violations or incidents of non-compliance and submit annual reports identifying deficiencies in the BMPs and explaining how the deficiencies were corrected. The risk assessment and SWPPP must be prepared by a State Qualified SWPPP Developer, and implementation of the SWPPP must be overseen by a State Qualified SWPPP Practitioner. A legally responsible person, who is legally authorized to sign and certify permit registration documents, is responsible for obtaining coverage under the permit.

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEWATERING AND OTHER LOW THREAT

DISCHARGES TO SURFACE WATERS
Certain categories of dewatering and other low threat discharges to waters of the United States are authorized under General Order R5-2013-0074, NPDES No. CA995001, provided the discharger completes and submits a notice of intent with the local RWQCB and complies with the terms and conditions of the General Order pertaining to pollutant concentration and toxicity.

URBAN LEVEL OF PROTECTION (ULOP)
In 2007, several bills were passed that amended the California Water Code and Government Code to strengthen flood protection and link land use planning to flood planning, including Senate Bill (SB) 5 (2007), as amended by SB 1278 (2012) and Assembly Bill (AB) 1259 (2013). One of the primary purposes of SB-5 and related legislation is to better tie local land use decisions that allow development in floodplains to the potential consequences in the event of a levee break.

A key requirement of SB 5 is that local jurisdictions amend their General Plans and Zoning Code to require 200-year flood protection standard in urban or urbanizing areas, and establish the requirement that when land uses are approved in Flood Hazard Zones, the county must make one of the following findings:

1. The facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control or other flood management facilities protect the property to the Urban Level of Protection (ULOP) in urban and urbanizing areas or the FEMA standard of flood protection in non-urbanized areas.

2. The county has imposed conditions on the entitlement or permit that will protect the property to the ULOP in urban and urbanizing areas or the FEMA standard of flood protection in non-urbanized areas.

3. The local flood management agency has made adequate progress on the construction of a flood protection system that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the ULOP in urban or urbanizing areas by 2025.

4. The property is in an undetermined risk area and has met the ULOP. 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-10 PLNP2018-00284
In most cases, the ULOP is defined as protection against a 200-year flood, although there are exceptions for shallow flooding or flooding from small watersheds. Levee systems in the Sacramento region require major improvements to provide 200-year flood protection.

LOCAL/REGIONAL

SACRAMENTO AREAWIDE MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PERMIT
The Sacramento Areawide NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit (MSP) is a Phase I permit applicable to the County of Sacramento along with cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento (collectively referred to as the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership or SSQP). The region wide Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System2(MS4) permit was issued in 2016 as Order R5-2016- 0040, NPDES Permit No. CAS085324 (Central Valley RWQCB 2016). Development in Sacramento County is conditioned on inclusion of stormwater quality control measures provided in the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Design Manual, discussed below, among other local and regional requirements.

STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGN MANUAL FOR THE SACRAMENTO REGION The County of Sacramento and other regional participants have prepared the Stormwater Quality Design Manual intended to satisfy the requirements of the MSP.

The updated (2018) version of the design manual expands upon the 2007 version to address more prescriptive low-impact development (LID) requirements, new hydromodification management requirements, and full capture trash requirements, as required in the MSP (SSQP 2018).

CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN
The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) was first adopted in 2012 and updated on a five-year cycle, most recently in 2022 (DWR 2022). The CVFPP is a strategic blueprint for Central Valley flood risk management that serves to guide State policies, investments, and partnerships. The CVFPP uses a climate-driven technical foundation for a flood management system that helps protect communities, contribute to species recovery, and is part of California’s integrated water management planning.

Central to the CVFPP is the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA), which includes a broad range of management actions to improve flood management systemwide, in urban areas, rural agricultural, and in small communities. The SSIA includes a 200-year level of protection for urban areas and urbanizing areas (such as those in Natomas), up to 100-year level of protection for small communities, ruralagricultural levee repairs, weir and bypass expansions, flood structure modifications and

2 An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances designed or used to collect or convey stormwater (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, man-made channels, or storm drains) owned by a municipality (city, town, or other public entity) that discharges to the waters of the United States that is not part of a combined sewer or sewage treatment plant. 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-11 PLNP2018-00284
improvements, and ecosystem restoration. The SSIA also includes floodplain transitory storage, groundwater recharge opportunities and reservoir operations and management.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The following goals and policies from the Agricultural, Agriculture, Circulation, Conservation and Safety elements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

AGRICULTURE
AG-29 The County shall minimize flood risks to agricultural lands resulting from new urban developments by
 Requiring such developments incorporate adequate runoff control structures and/or
 Assisting implementing comprehensive drainage management plans to mitigate increased risks of farmland flooding resulting from such developments.

CIRCULATION
CI-65 Incorporate Low Impact Design (LID) techniques to the greatest extent feasible to improve water quality runoff and erosion control, infiltration, groundwater recharge, visual aesthetics, etc. LID techniques may include but are not limited:
 Bioretention techniques, such as filter strips, swales and tree box filters  Permeable hardscape
 Green roofs
 Erosion and sediment controls
 Reduced street lane widths where appropriate.

CONSERVATION
CO-24 Comply with the Sacramento Areawide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES Municipal Permit) or subsequent permits, issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) to the County, and the Cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Galt (collectively known as the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership [SSQP]).

CO-26 Protect areas susceptible to erosion, natural water bodies, and natural drainage systems.

CO-28 Comply with other water quality regulations and NPDES permits as they apply to County projects or activities, such as the State’s Construction General Permit and Aquatic Pesticides Permit.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-12 PLNP2018-00284
CO-30 Require development projects to comply with the County’s stormwater development/design standards, including hydromodification management and low impact development standards, established pursuant to the NPDES Municipal Permit. Low impact development design and associated landscaping may serve multiple purposes including reduction of water demand, retention of runoff, reduced flooding and enhanced groundwater recharge. (Modified 2016) CO-31 Require property owners to maintain all required stormwater measures to ensure proper performance for the life of the project.

CO-34 Development applications shall be subject to compliance with applicable sections of the California Water Code and Government Code to determine the availability of an adequate and reliable water supply through the Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification processes.

CO-35 New development that will generate additional water demand shall not be approved and building permits shall not be issued if sufficient water supply is not available, as demonstrated by Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification processes.

SAFETY
SA-5 A comprehensive drainage plan for major planning efforts shall be prepared for streams and their tributaries prior to any development within the 100-year floodplain and/or the 200-year floodplain in areas subject to the Urban Level of Flood Protection, defined by full watershed development without channel modifications. The plan shall:
a. Determine the elevation of the future 100-year flood and/or the 200-year flood in areas subject to the Urban Level of Flood Protection, associated with planned and full development of the watershed;
b. Determine the boundaries of the future 100-year floodplain and/or the 200-year floodplain in areas subject to the Urban Level of Flood Protection, for both flood elevations (planned and full development) based on minimum 2-foot contour intervals;
c. Assess the feasibility of gravity drainage into the existing flowline of the stream;
d. Assess the feasibility of alternative means of drainage into the stream; e. Identify potential locations for sedimentation ponds and other stormwater treatment facilities;
f. Determine practical channel improvements and/or detention basins to provide the flood control needs of the proposed development; g. Determine the location and extent of marsh, vernal pool and riparian habitat;
h. Develop measures for protecting and mitigating natural habitat; 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-13 PLNP2018-00284
i. Develop measures for protecting and mitigating for federal and state listed endangered species;
j. Develop and ensure implementation of measures that would reduce vector larvae;
k. Identify appropriate plant species to be included as part of the natural features of the comprehensive drainage plan.

SA-14 The County shall require, when deemed to be physically or ecologically necessary, all new urban development and redevelopment projects to incorporate runoff control measures to minimize peak flows of runoff and/or assist in financing or otherwise implementing Comprehensive Drainage Plans.

SA-22 Areas within a 100-year floodplain, or within the 200-year floodplain in areas subject to the Urban Level of Flood Protection, shall not be upzoned to a more intensive use unless and until a Master Drainage Plan is prepared that identifies areas of the floodplain that may be developed. (Modified 2016) SA-22a Sacramento County will evaluate development projects and all new construction located within a defined Flood Hazard Zone (FHZ) to determine whether the 200-year Urban Level of Flood Protection or 100-year FEMA flood protection applies, and whether the proposed development or new construction is consistent with that standard. Prior to approval of development projects or new construction subject to either standard, the appropriate authority must make specific finding(s) related to the following:
a. Urban Level of Flood Protection standard (200-year) applies to projects in a Flood Hazard Zone that meet certain criteria, developed by the State of California Department of Water Resources, related to urbanization, watershed size and potential flood depth.
b. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standard of protection (100-year) applies to projects in a Special Flood Hazard Area that are not subject to the Urban Level of Flood Protection. (Added 2016) SA-22b New development shall be elevated as required by the applicable flood standards (100-year, or 200-year in areas subject to the Urban Level of Flood Protection) and should be constructed to be resistant to flood damage consistent with the Floodplain Management Ordinance. (Added 2016)

SACRAMENTO COUNTY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
Updated in 2017, Sacramento County Municipal Code Title 16, Chapter 16.02, Section 16.02.060 (Ordinance SZC-2016-0023) requires a Floodplain Management Permit for any new construction, substantial improvements, or alteration of land within a special flood hazard area (FEMA Zones A, AO, Al-A30, AE, A99, AH, or AR). These standards control filling, grading, and other development which may increase flood damage; and are intended to prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers that would unnaturally divert flood waters, or which may increase flood hazards in other 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-14 PLNP2018-00284
areas. Per Section 905-01, a project applicant must apply for a development permit for construction in a FEMA flood zone, and approval by the County’s floodplain administrator is required. The permit application must include plans showing elevations of proposed structures and the elevations of areas proposed for materials and equipment storage; the proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor of all structures; the proposed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure will be floodproofed; the location, volume, and depth of proposed fill and excavation within the 100-year floodplain and floodway; and a description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a result of project development.

Per Ordinance Section 906-05, commercial solar power plants are treated as development (governed by Section 906-06), and any structures or electrical panels for such facilities must be elevated or floodproofed at least 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation and designed and anchored in accordance with the standards of Section 906-

06. A declaration of land use restriction in a format approved by County Counsel must be recorded if any part of the commercial solar development will be lower than 1.5 feet above the base flood elevation.

The Ordinance designated the Director of Sacramento County DWR as floodplain administrator and established the floodplain management permit for any new construction, substantial improvement, or other development including alteration of land in a special flood hazard area (County of Sacramento, 2017). All proposed development activity in floodplains -- those areas designated by FEMA on the FIRMs for Sacramento County (Community Number 060262) and other areas subject to flooding -- must be reviewed and permitted by the County’s Floodplain Administrator (County DWR) before construction.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY STORMWATER ORDINANCE
Consistent with the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit (discussed under regional regulations) the County Stormwater Ordinance (Sacramento County Code 15.12) prohibits the discharge of unauthorized non-stormwater to the County’s stormwater conveyance system and local creeks. It applies to all private and public projects in the county, regardless of size or land use type.

SENATE BILL 5
In 2007, the California state legislature passed a series of laws (referred to as SB 5) directing the DWR to prepare flood maps for the Central Valley flood system and the State Plan of Flood Control, which includes the Central Valley system of levees and flood control facilities. This legislation also set specific locations within the area affected by the 200-year flood event as the ULOP for the Central Valley.3

3 The Urban Level of Flood Protection is defined as the “level of protection that is necessary to withstand flooding that has a 1 in 200 chance of occurring in any given year, using criteria consistent with, or developed by, the California Department of Water Resources” per CA Government Code, Section 65007 (k).
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-15 PLNP2018-00284
SB 5 requires all cities and counties within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to make findings related to an ULOP or the FEMA standard of flood protection before: (1) entering into a development agreement for any property that is located within a flood hazard zone; (2) approving a discretionary permit or other discretionary entitlement, or a ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence, for a project that is located within a flood hazard zone; or (3) approving a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, for any subdivision that is located within a flood hazard zone. Sacramento County completed its General Plan and Zoning Code updates in October 2016 to meet the requirements of SB 5. The Sacramento County General Plan has identified the Natomas Basin, including the UWSP area, as within an area subject to the 200-year ULOP requirements.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GRADING PERMIT
Sacramento County Code 16.44 (Land Grading and Erosion Control) requires private construction sites disturbing 1 or more acres or moving 350 cubic yards or more of earthen material to obtain a grading permit. To obtain a grading permit, project proponents must prepare and submit for approval an erosion and sediment control plan describing erosion and sediment control BMPs to be implemented during construction to control erosion and prevent sediment from leaving the site and entering the County’s storm drain system or local receiving waters. The grading permit requires that a copy of the SWPPP be submitted consistent with Sacramento Areawide Municipal Stormwater Permit requirements.

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to hydrology and water quality may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality;  Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin;
 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
 result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site,  substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite,
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-16 PLNP2018-00284
 create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or
 impede or redirect flood flows.
 In flood hazard zone, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation;
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
Risk release of pollutants due to project inundation from tsunami or seiche – The UWSP area is approximately 80 miles west of the Pacific coast, and therefore not located in a region subject to tsunamis. A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed water body, such as a lake or reservoir brought on by changes in atmospheric pressure. Seiches tend to occur in large or isolated water bodies. There are no isolated water bodies large enough to present seiche hazards in the UWSP area.

As the UWSP area is not in a tsunami or seiche zone, there are no risks for release of pollutants associated with such hazards. Therefore, no impact would occur, and this issue is not evaluated further in the EIR.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This impact analysis considers potential impacts on hydrology and water quality associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance phases of individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP. The analysis considers the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on water resources as well as any mitigation measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize such impacts, as appropriate. For the purposes of this analysis, water resources are comprised of surface waters (including overland flow, undirected flow, and deliberately channeled surface water flow), groundwater, and associated water quality considerations.

As described in the Project Description, the infrastructure systems that would serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be designed to incorporate measures that reduce potable water usage, and manage and provide source control for storm water, among other measures. This analysis assumes that the proposed UWSP would incorporate a number of water quality (WQ) policies to capture, absorb, and filter urban runoff and that water conservation measures would also be implemented, as described in Sections 7.6 and 7.7 of the proposed UWSP, the Project Description, and summarized further below. To the extent feasible, these policies would be implemented and would support the beneficial reuse and pretreatment of stormwater. The water conservation policies contain design measures to enable water use efficiency and limit unreasonable use of water resources.

Policies listed in the proposed UWSP to protect water quality include: (1) the installation green roofs on large buildings within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-17 PLNP2018-00284
Employment/Highway Commercial (E/HC) area to capture and store stormwater; (2) the use of porous pavement with the Town Center District and CMU and E/HC areas, where feasible, to allow stormwater to flow into the ground; (3) the installation of rain gardens to encourage percolation and infiltration; (4) the planting of street trees to help with absorption; (5) the use of amended soils to improve percolation rates; (6) the use of minor vegetated swales or bio swales in subdivisions and commercial developments to pre-treat urban runoff; (7) the use of major vegetated swales/channels to absorb and filter pollutants prior to storm water flowing into detention basins; (8) the use of minor basins in subdivisions and commercial developments to capture runoff prior to releasing it into the underground storm drain system; and (9) the use of major basins to allow the settlement and absorption of pollutants prior to release into the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal).

The proposed UWSP also includes a number of policies that would promote water conservation. These policies include; (1) the utilization of low flow fixtures (e.g., faucets, toilets, shower heads, etc.) and water efficient appliances; (2) the requirement that landscaped areas be planted with drought tolerant materials (i.e., groundcovers and shrubs); (3) the consideration of artificial turf for ballfields that must tolerate heavy use and foot traffic (e.g., soccer fields utilized for league play); (4) the use of untreated or reclaimed water, if available; and (5) the encouragement that development with High Density Residential (HDR), Very High Density Residential (VHDR), CMU, and E/HC areas install underground cisterns to capture rainwater so that it can be re-utilized for landscape irrigation or in-building wastewater systems.

The proposed UWSP would be regulated by the various laws, regulations, and policies governing water quality and hydrology as summarized in the Regulatory Setting above.

Ongoing compliance with, and enforcement of applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws and regulations is also assumed in this analysis. In addition to the regulatory compliance, the proposed UWSP includes required specific water quality and water conservation policies aimed at increasing the overall sustainability of the development, while also reducing environmental impacts.

IMPACT HYD-1: VIOLATION OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, WASTE

DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS, OR SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF SURFACE

OR GROUNDWATER QUALITY

CONSTRUCTION
Project construction would involve ground-disturbing earthwork including soil excavation and filling, trenching, grading, and landscaping. These activities could increase the susceptibility of soils on the site to erosion by wind or water. Heavy equipment such as bulldozers, graders, earth movers, heavy trucks, trenching equipment and other 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-18 PLNP2018-00284
machinery would be used during construction. Such machinery could contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff in the form of sediment and other pollutants, such as fuels, oil, lubricants, hydraulic fluid, or other contaminants. Sediment, construction debris, and other pollutants, if mobilized, during construction could be transported to receiving waters such as the Sacramento River or the West Drainage Canal. In addition, during the construction of structures for individual projects, construction equipment and materials would include fuels, oils and lubricants, solvents and cleaners, cements and adhesives, paints and thinners, degreasers, cement and concrete, and asphalt mixtures, which are all commonly used in construction. Finally, given that the UWSP area has historically been used for agriculture, it is possible that residual pesticides, fuel, and oil may also be present in the soil and could be mobilized during construction.

In summary, in the absence of runoff and materials controls, exceedances of water quality standards could result.

As also described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and depicted on Plate PD-20, the proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, including road improvements to El Centro Road, Natomas Central Drive and Arena Boulevard; road improvements to El Centro and San Juan roads; new roadway connections to Garden Highway at Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road; a potential bike trail bridge crossing of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal); stormwater discharge facilities at two potential locations of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal); a new sewer force main from the UWSP area east to the New Natomas Pump Station (NNPS); potential improvements to the I-80/El Camino Avenue interchange; and a new water supply connection to the existing City of Sacramento water distribution system along West River Drive. Similar to projects allowed under the proposed UWSP, the proposed offsite improvements would also involve ground-disturbing earthwork that could increase the susceptibility of soils on offsite areas to erosion by wind or water.

As discussed in the Regulatory Setting above, pursuant to the GSP, projects that disturb at least one acre of soil are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. This NPDES permit applies to construction activities that include clearing, grading, trenching, and other ground disturbances such as stockpiling or excavation. The GSP requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP, which must include BMPs the project would utilize to limit and otherwise control stormwater runoff.

Construction contractors for individual projects allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements would be required to prepare SWPPPs for construction activities in compliance with the GSP requirements. The SWPPPs would describe BMPs to control stormwater runon and runoff such as silt fences and straw wattles. The SWPPPs would also list the hazardous materials (including petroleum products) proposed for use during construction; describe spill prevention measures, equipment inspections, equipment and fuel storage; protocols for responding immediately to spills, among other requirements. The SWPPPs would be submitted to the RWQCB, which would review the SWPPPs and the required inspection reports for compliance with the CGP.

Implementation of such measures would prevent violations of water quality standards and limit potential contamination of water resources.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-19 PLNP2018-00284
It is anticipated that dewatering of groundwater may be required for development proposed under the proposed UWSP, due to the relatively shallow depth to groundwater upon the site. Dewatering may also be needed for offsite improvements such as the stormwater discharge facilities at the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). In the event that subsurface construction is planned, ground disturbance would be required to comply with dewatering provisions for discharges outlined in the CGP or the low-threat discharge permit, as applicable. Compliance with the conditions of the applicable permit would ensure that potential water quality contaminants are intercepted, treated, or otherwise prevented from entering receiving waters.

Projects are assumed to potentially alter drainage patterns, which could cause erosion impacts that would adversely affect water quality through the release of sediment and other pollutants. To ensure project designs include measures to manage stormwater, the Project Applicant or future developer(s) would be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1, described further below. This mitigation measure would require the Project Applicant or future developer(s) to prepare a drainage study in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership’s 2018 Stormwater Quality Design Manual (or subsequent updates). The drainage study would inform the project design for permanent stormwater quality treatment facilities capable of treating stormwater to the satisfaction of County DWR.

As described in Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, individual onsite and offsite projects would be required to comply with existing regulations to maintain appropriate storage, use, transport, and management of hazardous materials, and during construction. Individual projects would maintain and implement a spill prevention and countermeasures control plan as well as a hazardous materials management plan to reduce the risk of release of contaminants. In addition to these regulatory controls, mitigation measures would be implemented to limit the release of potential existing contaminants into ground and surface waters. Specifically, Mitigation Measures HAZ4a, Site Investigation, would require contractors to conduct a Phase 1 environmental site assessment to identify existing contamination prior to initiation of and demolition or ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b Health and Safety Plan, requires that a plan be prepared prior to construction that would contain protocols and procedures for decontamination, in the event that contaminants are found on site.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4c Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, would require a plan for the management of soil and groundwater prior to ground disturbance and would include provisions for training, materials testing, handling, transporting and disposal of soil and/or dewatering effluent. Similarly, offsite improvements would also be required to comply with relevant hazardous materials regulations, along with hazardous materials mitigation measures, if needed to protect people and the environment. These mitigation measures would be implemented to prevent the release of contaminants.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, and existing regulatory controls such as those required under the construction general permit and Sacramento County requirements for grading, drainage, and erosion control, among others, individual projects considered under the proposed UWSP would not result in impacts to water quality or waste discharge requirements, and thus the impact would be less than significant. 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-20 PLNP2018-00284

OPERATION
Stormwater discharge is generated by rainfall that runs off the land and impervious surfaces, such as paved streets, parking lots, and rooftops. Stormwater discharge may include sediments and other pollutants of concern (e.g., fuel and oil leakage from vehicles, pesticide runoff from landscaping), which are expected to be generated by the proposed UWSP that could affect stormwater quality. During project operation, pollutants of concern within stormwater runoff may include, but are not limited to, sediment, silt, nutrients, pesticides, metals, pathogens, oil and grease, and trash. This stormwater runoff can flow directly into storm drains and continue untreated before discharging into surface water. Untreated stormwater runoff degrades water quality in surface waters and groundwater and can affect drinking water, human health, plant and animal habitats, and the water quality in offsite drainages and surface water bodies.

As a permit holder through the SSQP, Sacramento County is required to comply with the terms of the MSP. The MSP contains requirements that the permittee develop and implement a stormwater management program and includes provisions for construction enforcement, municipal operations stormwater runoff control (pollution prevention and good housekeeping), and post-construction maintenance requirements to effectively limit contamination of municipal stormwater and associated receiving waters.

Consistent with this MSP, individual projects considered under the proposed UWSP, as well as offsite improvements, would be required to conform to the standards identified in the SSQP Stormwater Guidance Manual. As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, sustainability measures including LID4 site design measures would be incorporated into the overall design and would effectively serve as source control measures to improve water quality. Treatment control measures are intended to filter and settle pollutants out of runoff before it travels in stormwater off the site. Treatment control measures could include vegetated filter strips, stormwater planters, infiltration basins, etc. to intercept and treat pollutants, and reduce the volume of runoff. Proprietary devices such as stormwater media cartridge systems may also be allowed (as treatment controls) for development considered under the proposed UWSP and would be subject to local permitting agency review and approval. Verification of long-term maintenance is also required by the MSP for projects using stormwater treatment controls measures such as vegetated swales and bioretention planters or other treatment control devices.

Once treated, sediment and other pollutants would be removed from the stormwater runoff. The drainage system would then route stormwater that is not infiltrated into the subsurface to the existing drainage canals, as it does now. With the above-described treatment, the water quality would be suitable for agricultural irrigation use by onsite and

4 LID stands for Low-Impact Development, which is a stormwater management strategy that emphasizes conservation and the use of existing natural site features integrated with distributed small-scale stormwater controls to mimic natural hydrologic patterns in residential, commercial, and industrial settings.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-21 PLNP2018-00284
offsite (downstream) agricultural operations that draw irrigation water from the drainage canals.

With adherence to existing regulatory requirements governing runoff and stormwater along with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4c identified in Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Mitigation Measure HYD-1 below, impacts during construction and operation would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
Implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a, HAZ-4b, and HAZ-4c (see Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials)
HYD-1: Before approval of future tentative maps, the Project Applicant or future developer(s) shall submit a drainage study in accordance with the requirements outlined in the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership’s 2018 Stormwater Quality Design Manual (or subsequent updates). The study shall describe permanent stormwater quality treatment facilities capable of treating stormwater to the satisfaction of County DWR.

IMPACT HYD-2: DECREASE GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES, INTERFERE WITH

RECHARGE, IMPEDE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCTION
As noted in the Environmental Setting above, the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin, is a high-priority subbasin, though not one in a condition of critical overdraft. During construction, it is anticipated that water would be required to control fugitive dust across the site and for concrete batch mixing for projects allowed under the proposed UWSP and offsite improvements. Water for construction use could need to be brought in from offsite sources (e.g., using water trucks) and presumably would be obtained from the local water supplies that consist of a mix of surface water and groundwater, as previously discussed in the Environmental Setting above. Potable water requirements for workers would be brought to the site to meet temporary demands during construction and may also be from local water supplies that use groundwater. However, the volume of water used during construction would not be substantial and would be within the available regional supply, as discussed below under Operation. Therefore, water demand during construction would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or impede sustainable management of groundwater resources. Impacts associated with construction would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-22 PLNP2018-00284

OPERATION
As noted in the Environmental Setting above, the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin, is a high-priority subbasin, though not one in a condition of critical overdraft. A consideration of groundwater sustainability during the operations phase includes both the potential ongoing demand for groundwater and the loss of recharge capability of the groundwater basin associated with placement of impervious surfaces upon the site proposed for development under the proposed UWSP. These two considerations are discussed separately.

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES
The Sacramento region obtains its water supply from both surface supplies and groundwater in varying proportions depending on whether it is a wet or dry rain year.

The City of Sacramento is required to determine whether the projected water demand associated with the proposed UWSP was included as part of the most recently adopted City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, which quantifies and evaluates all of the City’s water supplies, whether imported or from local surface water or groundwater supplies and compares that supply with the existing and anticipated water supply demand. The City of Sacramento processes WSAs upon request to determine if its planned water supplies are sufficient to meet the demands of new areas in addition to its existing and projected water supply obligations, as required by Water Code 10910.

As discussed in Section 20, Utilities, the City of Sacramento prepared a WSA for the proposed UWSP. The area addressed in the City Water Supply Assessment lies within an area contemplated by the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan demand forecast and within the legal boundaries of the City’s water rights entitlements. The City’s analysis concluded that the planned water supplies in their Urban Water Management Plan can meet the water supply demand of the proposed UWSP during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over a 20-year dry period. Note that the offsite improvements would not use groundwater supplies. The impact relative to groundwater supplies would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

RECHARGE
It is anticipated that development considered under the proposed UWSP would add a substantial amount of impervious surface area to an area that is currently sparsely developed and predominantly pervious. The offsite improvements would also add some additional impervious surfaces for the roadway improvements. Under existing conditions, the site has a high capability of recharging the groundwater basin.

Development proposed under the proposed UWSP, along with the offsite improvements, would alter the built environment and change the conditions of the subbasin reducing the overall surface area for groundwater recharge capability.

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and required by the MSP and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual, individual projects considered for development under the proposed UWSP would conform to LID design and sustainability measures, 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-23 PLNP2018-00284
such as the inclusion of project design features such as bioswales, pervious paving, and other LID measures designed to reduce runoff and infiltrate stormwater back into the subsurface. Four onsite detention basins would be constructed with liners and underdrains to manage groundwater infiltration and hydrostatic pressures.

Consequently, these design measures would capture, treat, and return stormwater to the basin, and maintain the existing degree of recharge potential for the groundwater basin, while also controlling site drainage (with respect to flood conditions) during storm events, which complies with the MSP requirements. Note that RD 1000, the operators of the West Drainage Canal, will require that development allowed under the proposed UWSP not discharge stormwater to the West Drainage Canal in excess of current drainage volumes, which complies with the MSP requirements. With the inclusion of these design measures, development within the UWSP area would not substantially interfere with recharge or impede conditions for groundwater sustainability. In addition, the offsite roadway improvements would comply with Caltrans road design requirements that would route stormwater runoff into the existing stormwater drainage system, as it does now for those locations. This impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT HYD-3: SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF DRAINAGE PATTERNS,

ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES RESULTING IN EROSION, SILTATION,

INCREASED RUNOFF, IMPEDANCE OR REDIRECTION OF FLOOD FLOWS The UWSP area is predominantly flat or gently sloping agricultural land with very-low- to low-density residential and commercial land uses under existing conditions. Under existing conditions, the Natomas Basin contains various canals and pump stations that provide irrigation water to agricultural lands and provide flood control for developed lands within the basin, as described in Chapter 20, Utilities.

As previously discussed for projects allowed under the proposed UWSP, stormwater runoff would first be directed into various LID project design features to infiltrate stormwater into the subsurface, such as bioswales, pervious paving, and other LID measures designed to reduce runoff and infiltrate stormwater back into the subsurface.

The remaining stormwater would then be routed by the Westside Canal, drainage channels, and storm drains to one of the four detention basins shown on Plate PD-17 in Chapter 2, Project Description, and Figure 3.3 of the Drainage Study in Appendix HYD-1.

Runoff directed to the West Detention Basin will be detained and pumped into a proposed earthen channel flowing east towards the East Detention Basin. Runoff directed to the South Detention Basin will be detained and pumped into the Central Canal. This canal will be used primarily as a water feature but will have available conveyance capacity to direct flows from the South Detention Basin north to a proposed earthen channel along San Juan Road that will discharge into the East Detention Basin.

The Central Canal will be drained via a 20-foot-wide weir and a low flow outlet, which would allow for a permanent pool in the canal to be used as a water feature. Runoff 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-24 PLNP2018-00284
directed to the North Detention Basin and East Detention Basin will be pumped into the West Drainage Canal via a proposed pump station at each basin.

Note that as allowed by the proposed UWSP,
5 administrative modifications to the land
use plan are allowed to reconfigure or realign land uses, including public facilities such as canals, drainage channels, storm drains, and detention basins. Additionally, the proposed UWSP includes a policy6that permits the County to “allow administratively approved adjustments to the location, alignment, and design of backbone infrastructure and/or in tract infrastructure systems…provided that such adjustments maintain the system’s planned functionality and ability to serve the development area.” This provision allows for some flexibility in the final locations of project components to address site conditions.

Several drainage canals are proposed to be built on the boundary of the proposed development in areas that will not be graded or developed (e.g., remaining agricultural areas). These proposed drainage canals would drain existing irrigation canals located within the remaining agricultural areas during winter months when no irrigation water supply is present in the system. The system configuration would allow for continued agricultural production after development of the UWSP area is completed by maintaining proper drainage. These proposed channels will be sized to convey the 100-year design storm event with one foot of freeboard per Sacramento County standards. They will also be designed to provide enough capacity to reduce increases in peak water surface elevations to no more than 0.1 foot for the remaining agricultural areas as per the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance.

Site hydrology and drainage patterns would be substantially altered by development associated with the proposed UWSP due to the overall alteration of terrain and placement of structures and impervious surfaces upon the site. Design for the proposed UWSP allows for an agricultural open space buffer along the Sacramento River.

However, development associated with the proposed UWSP would be required to conform to regulatory requirements in place in Sacramento County, such as those described in the Regulatory Setting above. As designed, grading for the proposed UWSP would balance cut and fill areas and direct flows toward LID infiltration project design features and then into one of four detention basins proposed to reduce peak flows to at or below existing conditions peak flows. From there, stormwater would be routed to the West Drainage Canal at a rate that would not exceed the current rate. The offsite roadway and bike trail improvements would occur within existing roadways and would not substantially alter drainage patterns. The offsite stormwater pump discharge and bank armoring would not alter the existing drainage pattern except to better manage stormwater runoff and reduce the potential for erosion.

Finally, as discussed in Impact HAZ-5 in Section 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, in the event of a catastrophic breach of the levee along the Sacramento River (see

5 See Section 3.5 and Section 8.8.4 of the proposed UWSP. 6 Policy 5-D.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-25 PLNP2018-00284
Appendix HYD-2), flood flows would be redirected as a result of development allowed under the UWSP. Some low-lying areas could be inundated, depending on water levels in the Sacramento River. However, the inundation study summarized in Impact HAZ-5 concluded that development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not substantially impair emergency response or evacuation because of the numerous alternate evacuation routes and the substantial number of hours that would be available for evacuation before low-lying areas would reach a one-foot of inundation.

With compliance with existing regulations and the use of the project design features to control stormwater, development of the proposed UWSP area would not result in erosion, siltation, increased runoff, or impedance or redirection of flood flows, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT HYD-4: IN A FLOOD HAZARD ZONE, RISK RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS

DUE TO PROJECT INUNDATION
As discussed in the Environmental Setting above, the UWSP area, which includes the proposed offsite improvements, is in the 100-year flood zone with three SHFA designations: Zones A, AE, and A99 within the Natomas Basin. Flood events could inundate the project site and release sediment or other pollutants.

In 2007, SAFCA commenced the Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP) to meet the 200-year flood protection standard. The NLIP project improved levees on the north perimeter and a portion of the west perimeter of the Natomas Basin. SAFCA completed NLIP construction in 2016. The American River Common Features Natomas Basin Project is improving the basin’s remaining west, east and south levees and is expected to be completed by 2025.

The completion of the NLIP project and the progress toward expected completion of the American River Common Features Natomas Basin Project in 2025 will reduce the potential for flooding that will result in flood protection equal to or greater than the ULOP in urban or urbanizing areas by 2025. This also complies with Condition 3 of the ULOP (see Regulatory Setting, State, ULOP). Improvements to the level of protection to the 200-year flood event would be completed before completion of projects allowed under the proposed UWSP. Finally, projects constructed under the proposed UWSP would include drainage improvements to efficiently route stormwater to treatment and infiltration BMPs, which would reduce the potential to release sediment and other pollutants. With this improved level of flood protection, the UWSP area would not be subject to flooding and the impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
13 - Hydrology and Water Quality
Upper Westside Specific Plan 13-26 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT HYD-5: CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF A

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN OR SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
As discussed above in the Regulatory Setting, SGMA identifies the following as undesirable results:

1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply;

2. Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage;

3. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;

4. Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies;

5. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses; or

6. Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

As discussed under the previous impact analysis for groundwater supplies and recharge, the project design would be in compliance with the Regional Municipal Stormwater Permit and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual. Compliance would ensure that recharge of the underlying aquifer and its volume of water in storage would not be changed from existing conditions (undesirable results 1, 2, and 5). Stormwater would be infiltrated into the subsurface or routed to the East Drainage Canal, as it is now (undesirable result 6). As discussed under the previous impact analysis for water quality, stormwater would be captured and treated as part of the infiltration measures to prevent impacts to water quality (undesirable result 4). Construction activities would be covered under the Construction General Permit, which would include measures to control runoff and prevent the release of sediment and other pollutants (undesirable result 4). Existing regulations covering the storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would prevent spillage and require prompt cleanup in the event of spills (undesirable result 4). In summary, compliance with these existing regulations would maintain water quality and groundwater supplies and would be consistent with the Basin Plan and the Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan. This impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-1 PLNP2018-00284
14 LAND USE

INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates effects related to land use and planning that would occur with implementation of the proposed UWSP. It includes the environmental and regulatory setting, the criteria used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts, the methods used in evaluating these impacts, and the results of the impact assessment.

While an EIR may provide information regarding land use and planning issues, CEQA does not consider inconsistency with land use plans and policies to be a physical effect on the environment unless the plan or policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a significant environmental effect. Adverse physical effects on the environment that could result from construction and operation of the proposed UWSP, including the changes to land use addressed in this chapter, are evaluated and disclosed in the appropriate topical sections of this Draft EIR.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received several comments related to land use and planning from local public agencies as well as the general public. Comments included concern that proposed street and block design across the majority of the UWSP area could promote autocentric travel patterns and present a challenge for alternative modes of transportation; concern regarding conversion of agricultural land to urban uses beyond what was analyzed as part of the Sacramento Region Blueprint and Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) prepared by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG); concern that implementation of the proposed UWSP would require new roadways, utilities, and other infrastructure and that those improvements must be properly phased; and a request to consider changing the agricultural land use designations along the western edge of the UWSP area to a designation of open space with agriculture as an allowable use to offer greater protection against potential future conversion of these agricultural areas to non-agricultural uses.

The information and analysis included in this section was developed based on a review of the Draft UWSP, the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, the Sacramento County Zoning Code, and the SACOG MTP/SCS and Sacramento Region Blueprint.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The location of the UWSP area in the context of the Sacramento region is shown in Plate PD-1. Specifically, the UWSP area is located in unincorporated Sacramento County adjacent to the existing city of Sacramento communities of North and South Natomas (see Plate PD-2). The UWSP area is bounded by Fisherman’s Lake Slough to the north, the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) to the east, Interstate 80 (I-80) to the south, and Garden Highway to the west (see Plate PD-3). 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-2 PLNP2018-00284

PARCELS IN THE UWSP AREA
The UWSP area consists of 144 parcels totaling approximately 2,066 acres. Of these, the Project Applicant owns and/or controls approximately 292 acres, or 14 percent of the plan area. Properties not owned by the Project Applicant are included in the proposed UWSP per General Plan requirements and would be the subject of future entitlement applications for rezoning consistent with the County’s adopted Land Use Plan.

EXISTING AND ADJACENT LAND USES
Agriculture is the predominate land use within the UWSP area with large parcels devoted to growing crops. Other existing land uses include agricultural residential, commercial, and recreation. Agricultural residential homes are located within the northeastern portion of the UWSP area near El Centro Road and within the southwestern portion of the plan area along Garden Highway. Commercial land uses are located adjacent to the West El Camino and I-80 interchange and include a truck stop, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, self-storage, construction equipment sales, and union offices. Finally, a radio broadcast tower is located in the northern part of the UWSP area, and a television broadcast tower is located within the agricultural residential area along the southwestern boundary.

Residential uses within the North Natomas community are located to the north and east of the UWSP area, including the Sundance Lake neighborhood north of Fisherman’s Lake Slough, the Gateway West subdivision east of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), and the River View subdivision west of El Centro Road. Similarly, residential uses within the South Natomas community, including the Willow Creek neighborhood, are located to the south of I-80. The Sacramento River and land in agricultural production in Yolo County are located to the west of Garden Highway.

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING
Current General Plan land use designations for the UWSP area include Agricultural Cropland (1,858.3 acres), Agricultural Residential (97.0 acres), Recreation (58.8 acres), and Commercial and Offices (52.2 acres).

The Agricultural Cropland designation represents agricultural lands most suitable for intensive agriculture. The agricultural activities included are row crops, tree crops, irrigated grains, and dairies. The designation is generally limited to areas where soils are rated from Class I to Class IV by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, or are classified Prime, Statewide, or Unique significance by the State of California Conservation Department. These lands have at least some of the following attributes: deep to moderately deep soils, abundant to ample water supply, distinguishable geographic boundaries, absence of incompatible residential uses, absence of topographical constraints, good to excellent crop yields, and large to moderate sized farm units. The Agricultural Cropland designation allows single-family dwelling units at a density no greater than 40 acres per unit. 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-3 PLNP2018-00284
The Agricultural-Residential designation provides for rural residential uses, such as animal husbandry, small-scale agriculture, and other limited agricultural activities. This designation is typical of established rural communities where between 1 and 10 acres per unit is allowed, resulting in a development density of 0.25 to 2.5 persons per acre.

The Recreation designation provides areas for active public recreational uses, including community parks, County parks, and activity areas within the American River Parkway.

The Recreation land use designation may also apply to lands within floodplains in urbanizing areas.

The Commercial and Office designation provides for a full range of neighborhood, community, and regional shopping centers and a variety of business and professional offices. Uses include locally oriented retail, professional offices, and regional commercial operations. The location and size of commercial areas is based upon accessibility, historic development patterns, community and neighborhood needs, and minimization of land use conflicts. Ideally, commercial areas are designed to integrate with the community, including the provision for pedestrian amenities. The standard for commercial Floor Area Ratios is between 0.25 and 2.5.

Current zoning designations for the UWSP area include Agricultural 20 (148.6 acres), Agricultural 40 (1,737.1 acres), Agricultural-Residential 1 (16.7 acres), AgriculturalResidential 2 (108.3 acres), Agricultural-Residential 5 (6.0 acres), General Commercial (17.8 acres), and Highway Travel Commercial (31.8 acres).

Agricultural zoning districts are established, among other objectives, to eliminate the encroachment of land uses incompatible with the long-term agricultural use of land and to preserve the maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land within the County. Agricultural-Residential districts are established, among other objectives, to provide living areas within the County where development is limited to low-density concentrations of single-family dwellings and to limit the number of permitted nonresidential uses so as to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life on parcels of land larger than generally is provided in residential zoning districts.

Each of the agricultural and agricultural-residential zoning districts is distinguished by minimum lot size measured in acres (e.g., Agricultural 20, Agricultural 40, AgriculturalResidential 1, Agricultural-Residential 2, Agricultural-Residential 5).

The General Commercial zoning district permits a broad range of commercial uses, including more intense use such as small warehousing operations, auto repair shops, and truck service stations.

The Highway Travel Commercial zoning district is intended to serve the highway traveler and highway user with uses and services normally associated with tourists and vacationers. It is intended that this zone promote the unified grouping of these uses at locations adjacent to or where access to major through highways or terminal facilities is convenient.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-4 PLNP2018-00284

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
There are no federal regulations that apply to the evaluation of effects related to land use.

STATE

CORTESE-KNOX-HERTZBERG LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT The Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 establishes procedures for local government changes of organization, including annexations to a special district.

CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
Preparation of a specific plan is authorized by Section 65450 et seq. of the Government Code. Government Code Section 65451 mandates that a specific plan include text and diagram(s) that include the following in detail:
1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.
2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.
3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

The specific plan must also contain a statement of relationship of the specific plan to the General Plan.

LOCAL
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The Sacramento County 2030 General Plan (County of Sacramento 2011) provides an inventory of land supply within the County and projects the amount and location of land and development that will be required to accommodate future populations and economic growth through 2030. The land use strategies and policies of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are designed to promote the efficient use of land, encourage economic vitality and job growth, reduce urban sprawl and its impacts, preserve habitat 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-5 PLNP2018-00284
and open space, and protect agricultural and rangeland operations. The following policies from the Land Use and Open Space elements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are applicable to the proposed UWSP. Please note that select policies below have been updated to reflect proposed General Plan Text Amendments requested by the project applicant (see Appendix PD-1). Changes to the text of the policies are shown by either strikethrough where text has been deleted, or double underline where new text has been inserted.

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

LU-3 It is the intent of the County to focus investment of public resources on revitalization efforts within existing communities, especially within commercial corridors, while also allowing planning and development to occur within strategic new growth areas.

LU-15 Planning and development of new growth areas should be consistent with Sacramento County-adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and/or other efforts to preserve and protect natural resources.

LU-113 The County shall work with SACOG to support implementation of Blueprint’s policies and land use objectives.

LU-114 It is the policy of Sacramento County that development and open space preservation in the Natomas Joint Vision Overlay Area occur in a comprehensive, responsible and cohesive manner that best addresses land use, economic development, and environmental opportunities and challenges in Natomas.

LU-120 The County shall only consider approval of a proposed UPA [Urban Policy Area] expansion and/or Master Plan outside of the existing UPA if the Board finds that the proposed project is planned and will be built in a manner that:1  meets all of the requirements per PC-1 through PC-10, and;  meets ONE of two alternative performance metrics:
– Alternative #1- Criteria-Based
– Alternative #2 – VMT [Vehicle Miles Traveled]/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Metric

1 Some areas within a Master Plan may have existing uses that are not likely to change and are appropriate to remain. If the Master Plan designates such areas with a land use category that reflects that existing use, the Board may exclude these areas for purposes of determining consistency with these criteria.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-6 PLNP2018-00284
PC-1. Vision for connection to other adjacent existing and potential future development areas.

Required: Include a vision of how the development will connect to other adjacent existing and potential future development areas within the USB [Urban Services Boundary], including how roadways, transit, sewer, and water could occur within all adjacent areas.

PC-2. Housing choice.

Required: A variety of housing types and densities, including singlefamily homes, duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units, townhomes, condominiums, apartments and similar
multi-family units, in a variety of settings including both residential neighborhoods and mixed-use nodes.

PC-3. Quality.

Required: Design guidelines, development standards and/or similar assurances that will require high-quality development
consistent with the vision set forth in the Master Plan.

Discussion: The County’s General Plan contains numerous policies that address quality of new development but does not provide specific details regarding how a particular Master Plan will be planned and built to ensure that quality is achieved. Conversely, many of the County’s tools used implement the General Plan (such as zoning) provide specific details about how land can be used and developed, but do not necessarily address quality. The Master Plan is the bridge between the broad-based General Plan and fine-grained
implementation tools like zoning, making it the ideal context to address the quality of development expected within its boundaries.

Master Plans should provide specific details regarding the quality envisioned for the project and appropriate standards to ensure that it will be built out over time in a manner that achieves the stated vision.

Detailed design guidelines and firm development standards can be excellent tools for creating certainty that quality will be achieved.

Elements of quality to be addressed may include:
 Building form, including architectural styling, materials, articulation, orientation, size, massing, etc.
 “Theming” at the neighborhood or community level, including consistent signage, materials, landscaping, and other elements  Amenities provided beyond those required by law
 The public realm
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-7 PLNP2018-00284
 Relationship between uses
PC-4. Accommodate the percentage of low and very low-income residential units required by state law per the County’s current Housing Element based on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

Required: Accommodate ≥90 percent of the obligation per RHNA (currently ~33% of units accommodated in RD-20 or
higher).

Discussion: State law (California Government Code Section 65583) requires cities and counties to provide “adequate” sites with appropriate zoning, development standards, infrastructure, and public services to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels.

State law requires SACOG to periodically adopt a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNA) for the six-County region. The RHNA determines each jurisdiction’s “fair share” of the region’s housing needs per a methodology established by state law and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The purpose of this is to avoid over-concentration of low-income households in any one community.

As part of periodic Housing Element updates required by state law, the County must create a land inventory that identifies vacant and underutilized land available for residential development within the unincorporated area. This land inventory is used to demonstrate how the County can accommodate its “fair share” of the region’s housing needs as determined by the RHNA, including how it will provide adequate sites for low and very low households. Currently, 37 percent of the units allocated to the County per the RHNA are for low and very low households and must be accommodated on land zoned for 20 dwelling units per net acre (RD-20) or greater.

Requiring Master Plans to be consistent with this criterion ensures that they are contributing their “fair share” of adequate sites toward the County’s overall obligation per state law. It represents the “break even” point where the County’s ability to meet state law neither helped nor hurt by adoption of the Master Plan. If numerous Master Plans were adopted with a considerably lower percentage of its units accommodated on land zoned RD-20 or greater, the County could fall short of adequate sites over time and be forced again to rezone properties in existing communities or planned growth areas, or face other negative consequences such as a moratorium on issuing building permits.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-8 PLNP2018-00284
PC-5. Pedestrian- and transit-oriented design.

Required: Pedestrian- and transit-oriented design, including:
 Sidewalks and bike routes along interconnected streets with short block lengths and a high intersection density.  Prominent pedestrian and bicycle network.
 Few if any cul-de-sacs.
 Pedestrian and bike connections at the ends of all culde-sacs unless infeasible due to topography or similar impediments inherent in the project site.

PC-6. Infrastructure Master Plan and Financing Plan
Required: Inclusion of an Infrastructure Master Plan and Financing Plan that include the following:
 The Infrastructure Master Plan shall identify required public facilities and infrastructure (including roads,
transit, water, sewer, storm drainage, schools, fire,
park, library, and other needed community facilities)
and associated costs for the development of the
proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan;
 The Financing Plan shall:
o Include an infrastructure phasing analysis that
examines development through buildout taking into
consideration potential development activities,
facilities requirements and constraints;
o Identify the phase or timing for when the facilities
are needed;
o Identify the funding mechanisms proposed to pay
for the identified infrastructure and facilities;
o Demonstrate that infrastructure requirements and
the associated costs are reasonably balanced
throughout each development phase and outline
solutions for any potential constraints and/or
shortfalls for any given phase.

PC-7. Services Plan
Required: Inclusion of a Services Plan to demonstrate:
 that provision of services to the proposed UPA
expansion/Master Plan are cost-neutral to the County’s
General Fund and existing ratepayers;
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-9 PLNP2018-00284
 that the operations and maintenance costs stemmed
from the required public facilities and infrastructure for the development of the proposed UPA expansion/
Master Plan are cost-neutral to the County’s General
Fund and existing ratepayers, and;
 that existing levels of municipal services will not be negatively impacted by approval and buildout of the
proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan.

PC-8. Consistency with County-adopted plans.

Required: Consistency with all applicable County adopted plans not sought to be amended by the proposed project.

PC-9. Consideration of regional planning efforts.

Required: Inclusion of a discussion/analysis of how the proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan relates to broad-based and
regional planning efforts, such as SACOG’s adopted
Blueprint Vision and Metropolitan Transportation Plan,
Sacramento County’s Visioning documents created for the Jackson Highway and Grant Line East Areas, any
applicable Habitat Conservation Plan(s), the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s State
Implementation Plan, and Regional Transit’s Master Plan.

PC-10. Consideration of jobs-housing balance.

Required: Inclusion of a discussion/analysis of the proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan’s jobs-housing balance. Master
Plans should provide an internal jobs-housing balance
and/or improve the jobs housing balance within the
project’s vicinity.

Alternative #1 – Criteria-Based
To satisfy this alternative, the Board must find that the proposed project is planned and will be built in a manner that:
 meets all of the requirements per the criteria below, and;  qualifies for a minimum of 18 points (out of a possible 24) per the criteria below
CB-1. Minimum net density.

Required: Minimum density of at least 7 dwelling units per net acre if using “double net” methodology or 9.3 dwelling units per acre if using “triple net” methodology.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-10 PLNP2018-00284
Points:

1. ≥8 dwelling units per acre if using “double net” methodology, or ≥10.6 dwelling units per acre if using “triple net” methodology. 3 points

2. ≥9 dwelling units per net acre if using “double net” methodology, or ≥12 dwelling units per acre if using “triple net” methodology. 4 points

3. ≥10 dwelling units per net acre if using “double net” methodology, or ≥13.3 dwelling units per acre if using “triple net” methodology. 5 points
Discussion and definitions:

Double net density methodology: Double net density shall be calculated by considering land area dedicated exclusively to residential and mixed-use residential areas, including land for streets and alleys internal to the residential and mixed-use residential areas. All other lands are excluded from this calculation, including streets not internal to the residential or mixed-use areas, parks, schools, detention basins, other infrastructure, and services needed to support the development, and non-residential uses such as commercial areas, offices, and open space. This methodology shall be used if the Master Plan does not contain details regarding the location, size and extent of streets internal to residential and mixed-use areas. A graphic representation of this methodology is provided below, with blue shading representing the residential and mixed-use areas included in the calculation.

Triple net density methodology: Triple net density shall be calculated by considering land area dedicated exclusively to residential and mixed-use residential areas, excluding land for streets and alleys internal to the residential and mixed-use residential areas. All other lands are excluded from this calculation, including streets not internal to the residential or mixed-use areas, parks, schools, detention basins, other infrastructure, and services needed to support the development, and non-residential uses such as commercial areas, 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-11 PLNP2018-00284
offices, and open space. This methodology may only be used if the Master Plan contains sufficient details regarding the location, size and extent of streets internal to residential and mixed-use areas. A graphic representation of this methodology is provided above, with blue shading representing the residential and mixed-use areas included in the calculation.

Allowable deviations from density calculations: Certain lands may be excluded from the density calculation to allow for larger lot residential development and/or a transitional zone between urban uses within the USB and rural uses beyond, including:
 Land within ¼ mile of the USB, OR;
 Up to 10% of the net residential acreage.

Definition of “dwelling units”: Dwelling units shall include single family homes, duplex and triplex units, condominium units, townhomes, apartment and multiple-family units, and residential units in mixed use buildings. Residential units in congregate care facilities and in the residential portion of a university may be counted when calculating a master plan’s overall density if the County finds that the Master Plan includes assurances that these units will be built. Each planned accessory unit that is allowed “by right” per the Master Plan’s design guidelines, development standards and zoning will be counted as ½ a dwelling unit. If the County finds that the Master Plan includes assurances that planned accessory dwelling units will be built to habitable standards and rented or sold to people outside the family resident in the primary unit, they will be counted as one dwelling unit.

Hotel rooms and other similar transient housing will not be considered as dwelling units.

CB-2. Proximity of residential units to amenities.

Required: ≥80 percent of all residential units located within one mile of at least three of the following existing or planned
amenity categories:
 Public elementary, middle, or high school
 Park or recreational facility
 Grocery store, drug store or commercial center
 Office or industrial employment center
 Civic use (e.g., library, post office, community garden, urban farm)
 Preschool, childcare or senior care facility
 Medical offices or facilities
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-12 PLNP2018-00284
Points:

1. ≥85 percent of all units located within one mile of at least three of the amenity categories
2 points

2. ≥90 percent of all units located within one mile of at least three of the amenity categories
3 points

3. ≥90 percent of all units located within one mile of at least four of the amenity categories
4 points
CB-3. Mixed use.

Required: Include a mixed-use designation, overlay, and/or zoning category that allows vertical mixed use by right, provides uninterrupted pedestrian connections, and prohibit barriers between different uses.

Points:

1. At least 5 percent of a Master Plan’s developable land zoned for mixed use (horizontal or vertical).
2 points

2. At least 10 percent of a Master Plan’s developable land zoned for mixed use (horizontal or vertical).
3 points

3. At least 15 percent of a Master Plan’s developable land zoned for mixed use (horizontal or vertical) or assurances that at least 5 percent of the residential units will be located and built within vertically integrated mixed-use buildings.
4 points
Discussion: Mixed use shall be defined as “residential uses and at least one or more different use integrated vertically and/or horizontally in conformance with a coherent plan with significant functional, aesthetic, and physical integration of project components including, but not limited to, pedestrian and vehicle circulation, jointly accessible common areas and shared parking, and shared architectural, landscaping, lighting and signage themes.” Mixed use zoning shall allow vertical mixed use by right, provide uninterrupted pedestrian connections, and prohibit barriers between different uses.

CB-4. Transit.

Required: ≥65 percent of all residential units located within ½ mile of existing or planned transit service, which consists of light rail, streetcars, buses, vanpools and/or shuttles that
connects with regional public transit service.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-13 PLNP2018-00284
Points:

Proximity

1. ≥70 percent of residential units located within ½ mile of existing or planned transit service
2 points

2. ≥75 percent of residential units located within ½ mile of existing or planned transit service
3 points

3. ≥80 percent of residential units located within ½ mile of existing or planned transit service
4 points
Headways

1. Transit service with headways of 60 minutes or less during peak hours (Monday through Friday from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) 1 point

2. Transit service with headways of 30 minutes or less during peak hours (Monday through Friday from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) 2 points

3. Transit service with headways of 15 minutes or less during peak hours (Monday through Friday from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) 3 points
Discussion: “Planned transit service” shall be defined as service identified in SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), Regional Transit’s (RT) Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), and/or service to be provided as part of the Master Plan and funded via a secure financial mechanism (example: CSA 10; North Natomas TMA [Transportation Management Association]/developer fees). The MTP has a 20+ year planning horizon and is updated every four years; the SRTP has a 10-year planning horizon and is updated every year.

Both the MTP and SRTP must be “financially constrained” in that only those transportation projects and programs for which funding is reasonably expected to be available may be included in the plan.

Therefore, there is a high likelihood that transit service identified in these plans will ultimately be provided. Service to be provided as part of a Master Plan and funded via a secure financial mechanism would provide similar assurances that identified service will ultimately be provided.

In contrast, transit service envisioned in RT’s long-range TransitAction Plan cannot be implemented until a significant new revenue source is secured, making such service far more speculative.

For example, a new ½ cent sales tax increase would only partially fund transit service envisioned in the TransitAction Plan. Therefore, service(s) identified in the TransitAction Plan and similar visioning documents will not be considered “planned transit service” for purposes of determining consistency with this criterion. 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-14 PLNP2018-00284
CB-5. Proximity to employment.

Required: Analysis of existing employment/jobs within a five-mile radius of the proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan
boundary.

Points:

1. <50,000 existing employees/jobs within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project
2 points

2. Between 50,000-100,000 existing employees/jobs within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project
3 points

3. >100,000 existing employees/jobs within a 5-mile radius of the proposed project
4 points
Alternative #2 – Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Metrics
To satisfy this alternative, the Board must find that the proposed project is planned and will be built in a manner that results in:
 ≤14 vehicle miles travelled (VMT) per resident per day (or the equivalent VMT per household per day);
OR
 ≤Equivalent GHG per capita per day from cars, light trucks, and medium trucks (less than 8,500 Gross Vehicle Weight).

Discussion: While consistency with the criteria in Alternative #1 provides a level of certainty that a proposed project will achieve particular outcomes, measuring the actual projected outcome(s) of the project is a viable alternative. These projected outcomes can be compared against pre-defined metrics to determine the project’s “performance.” VMT and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are logical metrics because a project’s performance in these areas is directly correlated to the project’s ability to achieve the same goals and mandates (relative to air quality, transportation, land use, infrastructure, and GHG emissions) as the criteria in Alternative #1. Additionally, VMT and GHG are very closely related; the mix of vehicles that residents use for their daily travel has a relatively narrow range of GHG emissions per mile traveled. Given the direct correlation between improved VMT and associated reductions in GHG emissions, this alternative directly addresses goals and mandates relative to recent state laws aimed at reducing GHG emissions, including AB [Assembly Bill] 32, SB [Senate Bill] 375 and SB 97.

VMT is easily measured using standard travel demand analysis methods. Multiple traffic models exist for conducting such analysis.

Given the long-range nature of the General Plan and the ever-evolving 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-15 PLNP2018-00284
nature of traffic models, it does not make sense to require use of a specific model to determine compliance with this alternative. However, to ensure that a credible model is employed, the project proponent and County staff (including SACDOT [Sacramento County Department of Transportation], Planning and Environmental Review, etc.) will discuss the merits of available models and determine which will be used to determine compliance with this alternative prior to starting the analysis.

The 14 VMT per capita can be translated into a 13 lbs. [pounds] of GHG per capita by using the same assumptions that SACOG is required to use for calculating SB375 GHG targets. These assumptions are that this travel will use cars, light trucks, and medium trucks (less than 8,500 Gross Vehicle Weight), and that vehicle and fuel improvements are not included. If the technology improvements are included (fuel economy increases and a 10% reduction in the carbon content of gasoline), then the GHG metric would be 8 lbs. of GHG per capita.

OPEN SPACE
OS-1 Actively plan to protect, as open space, areas of natural resource value, which may include but are not limited to wetlands preserves, riparian corridors, woodlands, and floodplains associated with riparian drainages.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY ZONING CODE
The Zoning Code (County of Sacramento 2015) establishes land use zones and standards and regulations for development in those zones within unincorporated Sacramento County. Chapter 2, “Zoning Districts,” establishes the base zoning districts and district-specific regulations. Chapter 3, “Use Regulations,” sets forth the uses and use standards allowed within the districts. Chapter 4, “Special and Combining Zoning Districts,” establishes zoning districts in which additional standards may apply.

Chapter 5, “Development Standards,” contains standards that apply to development in the zoning districts.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY AND SACRAMENTO REGION

BLUEPRINT
SACOG is an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento Region that includes Sacramento County. SACOG’s primary responsibility is the development and implementation of the MTP/SCS. The focus of the MTP/SCS is on the intersection of land use and transportation: it identifies the region’s strategies for meeting the regional GHG emissions reduction target; establishes conformity with state and federal clean air act requirements; provides the foundation for the regional housing needs allocation, or RHNA, and establishes a plan for housing the population of the region; considers the impact of the plan on regional resources, including financial, biological, agricultural and farming resources; and identifies a transportation network to serve the transportation needs of the region, and to reduce VMT to, among other things, support achievement of the region’s GHG emissions reduction target (SACOG 2019). The 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-16 PLNP2018-00284
MTP/SCS provides a 20-year transportation vision and corresponding list of projects and is federally required to be updated every four years. The current 2020 MTP/SCS was adopted by the SACOG board in November 2019.

The foundation for the MTP/SCS land use forecast includes local government general plans, community plans, specific plans, and other local policies and regulations, and the Sacramento Region Blueprint. Adopted by the SACOG Board of Directors in 2004, SACOG’s Blueprint is intended to be advisory and to guide the region’s transportation planning and funding decisions. The Blueprint is based on the following principles.

TRANSPORTATION CHOICE
Developments should encourage people to walk, bike, use public transit, or carpool to their destinations.

COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Creating environments that are more compactly built and use space in an efficient but attractive manner helps to encourage more walking, biking, and transit use and shorter auto trips.

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
Building homes, shops, entertainment, offices, and even light industrial uses near each other can create active, vital neighborhoods. The mix of uses can occur on many different scales and be either vertical (such as a single building with a ground floor business and residences on upper floors) or horizontal (with a combination of uses in close proximity). Mixed use projects function as local activity centers, contributing to a sense of community, where people tend to walk or bike to destinations and interact more with each other.

HOUSING CHOICE AND DIVERSITY
Providing a variety of places where people can live - apartments, townhomes, condominiums and single-family detached homes of varying lot sizes - creates opportunities for the variety of people who need them: families, singles, seniors and people with special needs.

USE OF EXISTING ASSETS
In urbanized areas, development on infill or vacant lands, intensification of the existing use (for example, adding additional buildings to a low-density shopping center), or redevelopment can make better use of existing public infrastructure, including roads.

NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Developments should incorporate public use open space (such as parks, town squares, trails, and greenbelts) to help create a sense of community and attractive neighborhoods. Additionally, conserving natural places and resources including open space, agriculture, and wildlife and habitat areas contributes to improving quality of life by providing cleaner air and outdoor experiences.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-17 PLNP2018-00284

QUALITY DESIGN
The design details of any land development (such as relationship to the street, placement of garages, facades, sidewalks, street widths, landscaping, etc.) are all factors that influence the attractiveness of living in a compact development and facilitate the ease of walking within and in and out of a community.

SACOG staff is currently preparing an update to the MTP/SCS and Blueprint to be finalized and adopted in 2024.

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to land use may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Physically divide an established community; or
 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
All potential issues related to land use identified in the significance criteria above are evaluated below.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The evaluation of the potential land use impacts associated with implementation of the proposed UWSP is based on a review of planning documents, including the various components and policies of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, the Sacramento County Zoning Code, and the SACOG MTP/SCS and Blueprint.

As noted in the introduction to this section, while an EIR may provide information regarding land use and planning issues, CEQA does not consider inconsistency with land use plans and policies to be a physical effect on the environment unless the plan or policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a significant environmental effect. Adverse physical effects on the environment that could result from construction and operation of the proposed UWSP, including the changes to land use addressed in this chapter, are evaluated and disclosed in the appropriate topical chapters of this Draft EIR. This chapter evaluates effects related to land use and planning that would occur with implementation of the proposed UWSP.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-18 PLNP2018-00284

PROPOSED UWSP
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the proposed UWSP would guide development on 2,066 acres of unincorporated land in northwestern Sacramento County. The proposed UWSP would provide a mix of residential and non-residential land uses that accommodate 9,356 housing units with a mixture of densities that supports all population segments, and over three million square feet of commercial, retail, and office uses that serve the community’s needs. Key features of the proposed UWSP include a mixed-use Town Center, eight active parks, and an extensive system of greenbelts and multi-use trails with linkages to downtown Sacramento. Development of residential and non-residential uses would be limited to a 1,532-acre Development Area while the remaining 534 acres would serve as an agricultural buffer (Ag Buffer) along the western edge of the UWSP area. As depicted on Plate PD-20, the proposed UWSP would also include offsite improvements, including roadway and infrastructure improvements, that would occur within existing rights-of-way (ROWs).

The proposed UWSP would require the following entitlements from Sacramento County:

1. A General Plan Amendment to expand the Urban Services Boundary (USB) and the Urban Policy Area (UPA) to include the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area (see Plate PD-6). The 534-acre Ag Buffer Area, located west of the Development Area, which is mostly agricultural-residential homes inside of the southwestern boundary, would remain outside of the UPA and USB, providing a transition to the Garden Highway.

2. A General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Diagram to change the land use designations in the UWSP area from: Agricultural Cropland (1,858.3 acres), Agriculture Residential (97.0 acres), Recreation (58.8 acres), and Commercial and Offices (52.2 acres); to Low Density Residential (1,186.8 acres), Medium Density Residential (48.9 acres), High Density Residential (29.7 acres), Commercial and Office (61.2 acres), Mixed Use (114.6 acres), Public/Quasi‐ Public (100.4 acres), Recreation (18.7 acres), Agricultural Cropland (418.8 acres), and Agricultural Residential (87.2 acres) (see Plate PD-7).

3. A General Plan Amendment to amend the Transportation Plan to include the roadway system as proposed in the UWSP area (see Plate PD-8).

4. An amendment to the Sacramento County Active Transportation Plan, a policy document of the General Plan, to include the bikeway and trail system as proposed in the UWSP area (see Plate PD-9).

5. A General Plan Amendment for text amendments to align County policies in various General Plan Elements regarding development in the Natomas Joint Vision Area.

6. Adopt the Upper Westside Specific Plan document to establish land use, zoning, and development standards for the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) (166.7 acres), Low Density Residential (LDR) (390.8 acres), Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (134.9 acres), Medium Density Residential (MDR) (61.9 acres), High Density Residential (HDR) (36.4 acres), Very High Density 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-19 PLNP2018-00284
Residential (VHDR) (22.6 acres), Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) (83.6 acres), Employment/Highway Commercial (E/HC) (52.9 acres), Schools – K-8, High School, and Community College (124.2 acres); Parks (79.1 acres), Greenbelt/ Urban Farm (44.1 acres); Open Space – Canal (15.0 acres); Open Space – Lake Basins & Other (167.9 acres); Major Roads A (115.9 acres) and Landscapes Corridors (27.8 acres).

7. Adopt an Urban Services Plan that discusses in detail the plan for sheriff, fire, library and other public services. This document may be summarized by the appropriate sections of the Specific Plan.

8. Adopt an Affordable Housing Strategy that discusses the plan for the provision of moderate, low, and very‐low-income housing. This document may be summarized by the appropriate sections of the Specific Plan.

9. Adopt a Water Supply Master Plan for the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

10.Approve a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

11.Adopt a Public Facilities Financing Plan for the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

12.Adopt a Reimbursement Fee so that the applicant is reimbursed for the cost to prepare and process the project, including a Specific Plan and EIR, by non‐ participating property owners when they elect to submit development applications.

13.Adopt a Development Agreement for the applicant’s properties located within the 1,532-acre Development Area within the 2,066‐acre UWSP area.

In addition to the above entitlements, separate Service District Annexation requests to the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for the UWSP area are proposed to include:
 Annexation to County Service Area 10 (CSA‐10) or the creation of a new CSA. (Note: A separate subsequent action may be required by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to establish a Benefit Zone to implement funding and service provision.)
 Annexation to Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer).  Annexation to Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA).

IMPACT LU-1: PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY As discussed in the Environmental Setting above, agriculture is the predominate land use within the UWSP area, with large parcels devoted to growing crops. Agricultural residential homes are located within the northeastern portion of the UWSP area near El Centro Road and within the southwestern portion of the plan area along Garden Highway. Residential uses within the North Natomas community are located to the north 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-20 PLNP2018-00284
and east of the UWSP area, including the Sundance Lake neighborhood north of Fisherman’s Lake Slough, the Gateway West subdivision east of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), and the River View subdivision west of El Centro Road. Similarly, residential uses within the South Natomas community, including the Willow Creek neighborhood, are located to the south of I-80. The Sacramento River and land in agricultural production in Yolo County are located to the west of Garden Highway.

Division of an established community typically involves constructing a physical barrier to neighborhood access, such as a new freeway, or removing a means of access, such as a bridge or a roadway. The proposed UWSP would not include any features that could serve as a barrier to site access, nor would it remove any features that currently provide access to surrounding communities. Accordingly, the impact of proposed UWSP with respect to physically dividing an established community would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT LU-2: CONFLICT WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY’S LAND USE PLANS

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING
The current Sacramento County 2030 General Plan land use designations for the UWSP area include Agricultural Cropland (1,858.3 acres), Agricultural Residential (97.0 acres), Recreation (58.8 acres), and Commercial and Offices (52.2 acres). The current zoning designations for the UWSP area include Agricultural 20 (148.6 acres), Agricultural 40 (1,737.1 acres), Agricultural-Residential 1 (16.7 acres), AgriculturalResidential 2 (108.3 acres), Agricultural-Residential 5 (6.0 acres), General Commercial (17.8 acres), and Highway Travel Commercial (31.8 acres). The entitlements requested as components of the proposed UWSP (identified above under Proposed UWSP) would change the General Plan designations and zoning to make them consistent with the proposed UWSP. The requested entitlements include adoption of the UWSP document, which would establish land use, zoning, and development standards for the UWSP area.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The Sacramento County 2030 General Plan provides an inventory of land supply within the County, and projects the amount and location of land and development that will be required to accommodate future populations and economic growth through 2030. The land use strategies and policies of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are designed to promote the efficient use of land, encourage economic vitality and job growth, reduce urban sprawl and its impacts, preserve habitat and open space, and protect agricultural and rangeland operations. Two growth boundaries are identified to help implement this vision: the USB and the UPA. The USB is the ultimate growth boundary for the unincorporated area. The UPA defines the area within the USB expected to receive urban services in the near term. Together, the UPA and the USB 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-21 PLNP2018-00284
promote orderly growth and the efficient extension of infrastructure and the provision of urban services. They also seek to preserve agriculture and rangelands, critical habitats and natural resources. The Sacramento County 2030 General Plan includes a framework for considering requests to expand the USB and UPA and requires any expansion to meet a series of “smart growth” performance criteria (see in particular Policies LU-1, LU-3, and LU-120 provided below).

As described in Table LU-1 below, the proposed UWSP would be consistent with General Plan policies related to expansion of the UPA and USB. Please note that a separate policy analysis for General Plan Policy LU-120 is provided below under the analysis of the County’s growth management policies.

Table LU-1: UWSP Consistency with General Plan Policy
Policy Consistency Discussion
OS-1 Actively plan to protect, as open
space, areas of natural resource
value, which may include but are
not limited to wetlands preserves,
riparian corridors, woodlands, and
floodplains associated with
riparian drainages.

Two open space corridors are planned along the edges
of the UWSP area to provide a transitional landscaped
buffer between the Development Area and adjacent
uses. One 250’-wide corridor would be located along the northern edge of the UWSP area to provide a buffer
adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake while another publicly
accessible open space corridor would be located along
the western edge of the UWSP area, between residential
and agricultural uses. The proposed UWSP includes

80.1 acres of Woodland Mitigation within the Agricultural Buffer along the west edge of the UWSP area, more than
offsetting the loss of 34.66 acres of valley oak land cover due to development in the southwestern portion of the
UWSP area. No wetlands preserves, riparian corridors or floodplains associated with riparian drainages are
present in the UWSP area so none will be affected by the project’s development. In addition, as also described in the discussion of Policy LU-15 below, the mitigation
approach for habitat and biological resources present
within the UWSP area is to provide compensatory
mitigation through creation, restoration, or enhancement, and preservation and management, of habitat of higher
ecological value at on-site or off-site locations. For these reasons, the proposed UWSP would be consistent with
this policy.

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

One of the requested entitlements for the proposed
UWSP is an expansion of the UPA. If approved, urban
services would be extended to the 1,532± acre
Development Area, and the proposed UWSP would be
consistent with this policy.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-22 PLNP2018-00284
Policy Consistency Discussion
LU-3 It is the intent of the County to
focus investment of public
resources on revitalization efforts
within existing communities,
especially within commercial
corridors, while also allowing
planning and development to
occur within strategic new growth
areas.

The UWSP area is not located within an existing
community or commercial corridor. However, the UWSP
proposes development that would be consistent with the
County’s growth management policies. Therefore, the
proposed UWSP is consistent with this policy.

LU-15 Planning and development of new
growth areas should be consistent
with Sacramento County-adopted
Habitat Conservation Plans and
other efforts to preserve and
protect natural resources.

The mitigation approach for habitat and biological
resources present within the UWSP area is to avoid and
minimize impacts to biological resources and, if
avoidance and minimization of permanent impacts is not
possible, to provide compensatory mitigation through
creation, restoration, or enhancement, and preservation and management, of habitat of higher ecological value at on-site or off-site locations. The proposed UWSP would
be consistent with this policy.

LU-113 The County shall work with
SACOG to support implementation
of Blueprint’s policies and land use
objectives.

The UWSP area was not anticipated for development in
either the SACOG MTP/SCS or the Blueprint map. See
the “SACOG MTP/SCS and Blueprint” impact analysis
below.

LU-114 It is the policy of Sacramento
County that development and
open space preservation in the
Natomas Joint Vision Overlay
Area occur in a comprehensive,
responsible, and cohesive manner
that best addresses land use,
economic development, and
environmental opportunities and
challenges in Natomas.

Extensive planning efforts for the County lands located near the City of Sacramento’s North Natomas community
have established guiding principles for future master
planning efforts within the Natomas Joint Vision Area.

Section 1.4 of the proposed UWSP demonstrates how
the UWSP’s community form responds to this important
groundwork and the proposed UWSP’s consistency with
this policy.

As previously noted under Methodology and Assumptions, while an EIR may provide information regarding land use and planning issues, CEQA does not consider inconsistency with land use plans and policies to be a physical effect on the environment unless the plan or policy was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a significant environmental effect. Adverse physical effects on the environment that could result from construction and operation of the proposed UWSP or conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are evaluated and disclosed in the appropriate topical sections of this Draft EIR.

SUMMARY
The proposed UWSP establishes a development framework for land use, community design and character, infrastructure improvements, and orderly development that is consistent with the objectives and policies in the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-23 PLNP2018-00284
that guide expansion of the UPA and USB. Therefore, the impact associated with the implementation of the proposed UWSP would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT LU-3: CONFLICT WITH SACRAMENTO COUNTY’S URBAN POLICY

AREA/GENERAL PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY
General Plan Policy LU-120 is intended to reduce impacts of many different types – such as growth inducement, unacceptable operating conditions on roadways, poor air quality, and lack of appropriate infrastructure – by establishing design criteria for all amendments to the UPA. A project must be consistent with the policy before it may be considered for approval. Based on characteristics outlined in the UWSP, the proposed UWSP would meet the requirements of LU-120. The tables below (Table LU-2 and Table LU-3) summarize how the proposed UWSP complies with each performance criteria (PC-1 through PC-10) and performance metric (CB-1 through CB-5) outlined in Policy LU-120. Given that the proposed UWSP has been deemed consistent, impacts related to conflict with growth management policy would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT LU-4: CONFLICT WITH SACOG BLUEPRINT AND MTP/SCS
The following discussion evaluates the proposed UWSP’s consistency with SACOG’s key planning documents.

BLUEPRINT
The Sacramento County General Plan stipulates that the County will support implementation of Blueprint’s policies and land use objectives (Policy LU-113).

However, the County is not obligated to support the land use types proposed in the Blueprint at the parcel level. Therefore, this discussion relies on analysis of the proposed UWSP’s consistency with the principles and overall vision of the Blueprint, rather than conformity to the concept map.

The following discussion evaluates the proposed UWSP’s consistency with each of the seven Blueprint principles.

TRANSPORTATION CHOICE
The roadway system provided by the proposed UWSP would utilize a modified grid to allow efficient distribution and dispersal of traffic. A comprehensive bikeway network would be provided with a “grid” of bike trails and bike lanes that would allow residents to connect neighborhoods and the Town Center District, and from the UWSP area to the rest of North Natomas and points beyond. Class I bike trails would be located within greenbelt and landscape corridors to allow unimpeded travel to the extent possible. 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-24 PLNP2018-00284
Table LU-2: UWSP LU-120 Consistency
Performance Criteria Requirement Consistency
PC-1: Vision for connection to
other adjacent existing and
potential future development
areas.

Include a vision of how the development
will connect to other adjacent existing
and potential future development areas
within the USB, including how roadways,
transit, sewer, and water could occur
within all adjacent areas.

The proposed UWSP and proposed UWSP Development
Standards and Design Guidelines (DSDG) detail how the UWSP would connect with and be integrated with adjacent
development or provide appropriate transitions to allow the continuation of agricultural and mitigation activities within the Ag Buffer to the west and northwest. Chapter 3, Land Use, of the proposed UWSP illustrates the various connections with
adjacent neighborhoods, and Chapter 4, Mobility, of the proposed UWSP provides further details on roadway and
bikeway systems that provide linkages to Garden Highway and across the existing geographic barriers of Fisherman’s Lake Slough, the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), and I-80.

PC-2: Housing Choice A variety of housing types and densities, including single-family homes, duplexes,
triplexes, accessory dwelling units,
townhomes, condominiums, apartments
and similar multi-family units, in a variety
of settings including both residential
neighborhoods and mixed-use nodes.

The proposed UWSP includes a variety of housing types and densities, ranging from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) and Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). More than 50 percent of the units within the UWSP area are proposed to be high-density residential within the HDR, VHDR, and CMU designations, allowing for the inclusion of a wide range of socio-economic groups.

In addition, as described in Chapter 3, Land Use, of the proposed UWSP, in order to facilitate construction of a diverse array of housing types (e.g., duplex, triplex, fourplex), the proposed UWSP includes a “Missing Middle Housing Incentive” program, which is intended to encourage construction of attached, “missing middle” housing units. To achieve this intent, the proposed UWSP includes a residential allocation of 300 Missing Middle reserve units, which have not been allocated to any Specific Plan parcel. This unit reserve can be used to maximize the unit allocation of any LDR, LMDR, and MDR
parcel outside the Town Center, provided that the density bonus is used for the construction of attached, missing middle housing units.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-25 PLNP2018-00284
Performance Criteria Requirement Consistency
PC-3: Quality Design guidelines, development
standards and/or similar assurances that
will require high-quality development
consistent with the vision set forth in the
Master Plan.

The proposed UWSP and DSDG provide detailed policies,
standards, and guidelines to ensure a high-quality development.

The DSDG provides direction on building form and prototypes, styling, materials, articulation, size, and massing.

Neighborhoods are identified and configured so that they contribute to a strong sense of community. Chapter 2,
Community Framework, of the DSDG discusses the
comprehensive program of community amenities, many of
which are beyond those normally provided (e.g., the Westside Canal, the West El Camino Avenue Median Park, the Town
Center Park and roundabout, and the extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails).

PC-4: Accommodate the
percentage of low and very lowincome residential units required by state law per the County’s
current Housing Element based
on the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA).

Accommodate ≥90 percent of the
obligation per RHNA.

The land use plan provided in the proposed UWSP identifies multi-family housing sites that will serve to meet the RHNA goals, and over 50 percent of the project’s units are proposed to be multi-family attached housing within the CMU, VHDR, and HDR designations to allow the incorporation of Affordable Housing projects. The proposed UWSP is consistent with
Program A4 of the Housing Element updated in March 2022.

It calls for new master plans to designate at least 30 percent of the units at 30 du/ac on parcels 3 to 10 acres in size, contribute on a fair share basis toward adequate sites, and provide a variety of housing types. The VHDR and CMU propose 3,951 units, or 42.3 percent of the total 9,356 units, at an anticipated density at or above 35 du/ac. The land use plan in the proposed UWSP also proposes 36.4 acres of HDR, or 910 units, targeted at 25.0 du/ac without consideration of density bonuses allowed when providing affordable housing, and has a range of 20.0 –

40.0 du/ac.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-26 PLNP2018-00284
Performance Criteria Requirement Consistency
PC-5: Pedestrian- and transitoriented design.Pedestrian- and transit-oriented design, including:
 Sidewalks and bike routes along
interconnected streets with short
block lengths and a high intersection
density.
 Prominent pedestrian and bicycle
network.
 Few if any cul-de-sacs.
 Pedestrian and bike connections at
the ends of all cul-de-sacs unless
infeasible due to topography or similar
impediments inherent in the project
site.

Chapter 4, Mobility, of the proposed UWSP, describes the grid street system and extensive pedestrian, bike and transit system that will allow a high degree of connectivity. Section 4.4 discusses the road network, and roadway sections illustrate that separated sidewalks are proposed on all streets to provide a positive pedestrian experience. Section 4.5 illustrates bike trails within landscaped corridors and bike lanes providing a very well-connected bicycle network. Section 4.7 illustrates the proposed Transit route that locates stops within 88 percent of the future residential units. Chapter 3, Town Center, of the DSDG provides further guidance with regards to block length and architectural orientation to enhance the pedestrian experience within the Town Center, and Chapter 4, Residential Neighborhoods, of the DSDG provides guidance on the design of residential subdivisions so that there is excellent connectivity to schools, parks, and amenities.

PC-6: Infrastructure Master Plan
and Financing Plan.

Inclusion of an Infrastructure Master Plan
and Financing Plan that include the
following:
 The Infrastructure Master Plan shall
identify required public facilities and
infrastructure (including roads, transit,
water, sewer, storm drainage,
schools, fire, park, library, and other
needed community facilities) and
associated costs for the development
of the proposed UPA
expansion/Master Plan;
 The Financing Plan shall:
o Include an infrastructure phasing
analysis that examines
development through buildout
taking into consideration potential
development activities, facilities
requirements and constraints;
The required documents have been prepared in support of the proposed UWSP to identify backbone infrastructure systems, costs, and funding mechanisms. Chapter 4, Mobility, of the proposed UWSP discusses the circulation master plan which is based on separate more detailed studies (e.g., Fehr & Peers Traffic Impact Analysis). Chapter 5, Infrastructure, of the proposed UWSP provides a summary for the separate Sewer, Water, and Drainage Master Plans and discusses dry utilities and solid waste. Chapter 6, Public Spaces, of the proposed UWSP discusses parks, open space, law enforcement, fire and emergency services, and libraries. Chapter 8, Implementation, of the proposed UWSP summarizes the separately prepared Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), identifies a reasonable phasing plan, and discusses the funding and construction of backbone facilities.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-27 PLNP2018-00284
Performance Criteria Requirement Consistency
o Identify the phase or timing for
when the facilities are needed;
o Identify the funding mechanisms
proposed to pay for the identified
infrastructure and facilities;
o Demonstrate that infrastructure
requirements and the associated
costs are reasonably balanced
throughout each development
phase and outline solutions for any
potential constraints and/or
shortfalls for any given phase.

PC-7: Services Plan. Inclusion of a Services Plan to
demonstrate:
 that provision of services to the
proposed UPA expansion/Master
Plan are cost-neutral to the County’s
General Fund and existing
ratepayers;
 that the operations and maintenance
costs stemmed from the required
public facilities and infrastructure for
the development of the proposed
UPA expansion/Master Plan are costneutral to the County’s General Fund and existing ratepayers, and;
 that existing levels of municipal
services will not be negatively
impacted by approval and buildout of
the proposed UPA expansion/Master
Plan.

The proposed UWSP includes an Urban Services Plan that
describes how ongoing maintenance and services would be provided and discusses how the provision of services would be cost neutral to the County’s General Plan and existing rate payers to ensure the proposed UPA expansion would not
negatively impact existing levels of municipal service.

PC-8: Consistency with County
adopted plans.

Consistency with all applicable County
adopted plans not sought to be amended
by the proposed project.

Section 1.7 of the proposed UWSP discusses how the project was formulated in consideration of existing County Plans, and County Planning staff prepared a Consistency Analysis of the applicable plans and policies.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-28 PLNP2018-00284
Performance Criteria Requirement Consistency
PC-9: Consideration of regional
planning efforts.

Inclusion of a discussion/analysis of how
the proposed UPA expansion/Master
Plan relates to broad-based and regional
planning efforts, such as SACOG’s
adopted Blueprint Vision and
Metropolitan Transportation Plan,
applicable Habitat Conservation Plan(s),
the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District’s State
Implementation Plan, and Regional
Transit’s Master Plan.

Sections 1.4 and 1.6 of the proposed UWSP discuss how the UWSP relates to the Natomas Joint Vision Plan, the SACOG Blueprint Vision Plan, and other regional planning documents.

See also discussion of the proposed UWSP’s consistency with SACOG’s key planning documents under Impact LU-4 in this chapter. Impact BIO-12 in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR discusses the proposed UWSP’s consistency with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (MAP HCP). Impact AQ-1 in Chapter 6, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR discusses the proposed UWSP’s consistency with the current State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Impact TR-1 in Chapter 18,
Transportation, of this Draft EIR discusses the proposed UWSP’s consistency with SACOG’s MTP/SCS and other
applicable plans and polices that address transit.

PC-10: Consideration of jobshousing balance.Inclusion of a discussion/analysis of the proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan’s
jobs-housing balance. Master Plans
should provide an internal jobs-housing
balance and/or improve the jobs housing
balance within the project’s vicinity.

The proposed UWSP is configured to add to the region’s jobshousing balance and significantly exceeds County Criterion CB5 because of its strategic location relative to existing employment centers. The upper threshold of Criterion CB-5 (see Table LU-3 below) grants a maximum of 4 points if there are over 100,000 existing jobs within a 5-mile radius of the site.

SACOG data estimate there are over 200,000 existing jobs within 5 miles of the site.

Source: Wood Rodgers, October 2023.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-29 PLNP2018-00284
Table LU-3: Criteria-Based Standards Determination for Proposed UWSP Criteria Requirement Point Allocation Evaluation
Points
Achieved
CB-1: Minimum net
density
Minimum density of at least 7
dwelling units per net acre if
using “double net”
methodology or 9.3 dwelling
units per acre if using “triple
net” methodology.
> 8 dwelling units per acre if using
“double net” methodology, or > 10.6
dwelling units per acre if using “triple
net” methodology = 3 points
> 9 dwelling units per acre if using
“double net” methodology, or > 12
dwelling units per acre if using “triple
net” methodology= 4 points
> 10 dwelling units per acre if using
“double net” methodology, or > 13.3
dwelling units per acre if using “triple
net” methodology= 5 points
The UWSP proposes a “doublenet” density over 10 du/ac.5 CB-2: Proximity of
residential units to
amenities
≥80 percent of all residential
units located within 1 mile of at
least three of the following
existing or planned amenity
categories:
 Public elementary, middle,
or high school
 Park or recreational facility
 Grocery store, drug store,
or commercial center
 Office or industrial
employment center
 Civic use (e.g., library, post
office, community garden,
urban farm)
 Preschool, childcare, or
senior care facility
 Medical offices or facilities
> 85% of all units located within 1
mile of at least three amenity
categories = 2 points
> 90% of all units located within 1
mile of at least three amenity
categories = 3 points
> 90% of all units located within 1
mile of at least four amenity
categories = 4 points
More than 90 percent of the
proposed UWSP residential
units would be within a 0.5 mile
of four amenities. The four
amenities measured are: 1)
public schools, 2) parks, 3)
commercial mixed use, and 4)
civic uses (e.g., urban farm
nodes within greenbelts).
4 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-30 PLNP2018-00284
Criteria Requirement Point Allocation Evaluation
Points
Achieved
CB-3: Mixed use Include a mixed-use
designation, overlay, and/or
zoning category that allows
vertical mixed use by right,
provides uninterrupted
pedestrian connections, and
prohibit barriers between
different uses.

At least 5% of a Master Plan’s
developable land zoned for mixed use
(horizontal and vertical) = 2 points
At least 10% of a Master Plan’s
developable land zoned for mixed use
(horizontal and vertical) = 3 points
At least 15% of a Master Plan’s
developable land zoned for mixed use
(horizontal and vertical) or
assurances that at least 5 % of the
residential units will be located and
built within vertically integrated mixeduse buildings = 4 points The land use plan provided in
the proposed UWSP designates
more than 5 percent of the
Development Area’s acreage for
CMU and also commits to 484
(5.2 percent) of vertically
integrated units within the
proposed Town Center District
CMU adjacent to West El
Camino Avenue. This
requirement is found in DSDG
Section 3.3, Design Standard
#4.
4 CB-4a: Transit
Proximity
≥65 percent of all residential
units located within ½ mile of
existing or planned transit
service, which consists of light
rail, streetcars, buses,
vanpools, and/or shuttles that
connects with regional public
transit service.
> 70% of residential units located
within 0.5 mile of existing or planned
transit service = 2 points
> 75% of residential units located
within 0.5 mile of existing or planned
transit service = 3 points
> 80% of residential units located
within 0.5 mile of existing or planned
transit service = 4 points
The proponents of the proposed
UWSP have coordinated with
Sacramento Regional Transit
(SacRT) to designate a
preliminary alignment for intracity bus service as well as conceptual bus stop locations.

This route would travel from
El Centro Road east on Radio
Road past the proposed High
School site and northerly CMU
village, south on Bryte Bend
Road to the proposed
Community College site and
continue south to the Town
Center Park roundabout before
heading east through the Town
Center on West El Camino
Avenue. Based on this
configuration, more than 88
percent of residential units with
the UWSP area would be within

0.5 mile of public transit.
4 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-31 PLNP2018-00284
Criteria Requirement Point Allocation Evaluation
Points
Achieved
A Transit Hub is proposed on
West El Camino Avenue within
the Town Center to allow the
transfer to other modes of
transportation such as express
buses or bikes.

CB-4b: Transit
Headway
Transit service with headways of 60
minutes or less during peak hours
(Monday through Friday from 7:00 –
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.) = 1
point
Transit service with headways of 30
minutes or less during peak hours
(Monday through Friday from 7:00 –
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.) = 2
points
Transit service with headways of 15
minutes or less during peak hours
(Monday through Friday from 7:00 –
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.) =
3 points
The proponents of the proposed
UWSP have agreed to meet the
more recent and higher SacRT
standard of 30-minute headways
during non-peak hours, and
have proposed 15-minute
headways during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours, which achieves
the maximum 3 points. This
frequency of service may also
be met by an equivalent transit
service such as SacRT “SmaRT
Ride” on-demand service, which
provides door-to-door service, or
the Plan Area could contract
with Jibe, Uber, or some other
transit service.
3 CB-5: Proximity to
employment
Analysis of existing
employment/jobs within a 5-
mile radius of the proposed
UPA expansion/Master Plan
boundary.
< 50,000 existing employees/jobs
within a 5-mile radius of the proposed
Project = 2 points
Between 50,000 and 100,000 existing
employees/jobs within a 5-mile radius
of the proposed Project = 3 points
> 100,000 existing employees/jobs
within a 5-mile radius of the proposed
Project = 4 points
The UWSP area is within
5 miles of over 200,000 existing
jobs, or twice the upper
threshold.
4 TOTAL POINTS 24
Source: Wood Rodgers, October 2023.
14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-32 PLNP2018-00284
Four north-south Class I bike trails and four east-west Class I bike trails would be provided, providing over 13.9± miles of Class I trails within the plan area. The trails would be spaced approximately a quarter mile apart. Major streets within the UWSP area would also provide 17.8± miles of Class II on-street bike lanes. A highly connected pedestrian system would be provided to allow residents to conveniently walk to neighborhood schools, parks, and open spaces, and travel between neighborhoods and commercial centers. All major streets would provide separated sidewalks or Class I bike/pedestrian trails. Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) would provide “cross-town” or large bus transit service to the UWSP area. It is anticipated that a large bus route would travel from the intersection at El Centro Road and Arena Boulevard south to Radio Road, then west and south on Bryte Bend Road, and then east via West El Camino Avenue.

COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed UWSP has been configured to provide a relatively dense and compact development form, which will help to support transit ridership. The average residential density is over 10.0 du/ac. Additionally, density is focused around two nodes, the Town Center District within the heart of the community and the Educational Node located in the northerly portion of the UWSP area. These two nodes are located approximately

1.3 miles apart and include higher density residential uses to support the use of transit.

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
The Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) land use designation within the proposed UWSP would allow both residential and commercial uses. Within the Town Center District, the portion of CMU-designated land located directly adjacent to the West El Camino Avenue “main street” is envisioned to include vertically integrated buildings (e.g., 3 over 1) with residential, office, hotel, or other uses over ground floor commercial (e.g., food shops, services, entertainment). The anticipated residential density would allow fourstory apartments while the anticipated commercial intensity would allow four- or fivestory mid-rise office or hotel buildings.

HOUSING CHOICE AND DIVERSITY
The proposed UWSP includes a wide variety of residential designations, ranging from Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) at the north end of the UWSP area to Very High Density Residential (VHDR) and CMU Residential within the Town Center District. This approach allows a diverse range of lifestyles to all be included within one community and housing types to meet a variety of income levels.

USE OF EXISTING ASSETS
Although the proposed UWSP would create a development outside of an existing community, it would also serve existing residents of the area, including the North Natomas and South Natomas communities.

NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION
Two open space corridors are planned along the edges of the UWSP area to provide a transitional landscaped buffer between the Development Area and adjacent uses. One 14 - Land Use
Upper Westside Specific Plan 14-33 PLNP2018-00284
250-foot-wide corridor would be located along the northern edge of the UWSP area to provide a buffer adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake while another publicly accessible open space corridor would be located along the western edge of the UWSP area, between residential and agricultural uses. In addition, as also described in the discussion of Policy LU-15 above, the mitigation approach for habitat and biological resources present within the UWSP area is to provide compensatory mitigation through creation, restoration, or enhancement, and preservation and management, of habitat of higher ecological value at on-site or off-site locations.

QUALITY DESIGN
The proposed UWSP includes Development Standards and Design Guidelines to ensure high-quality design and visual cohesion and consistency. The UWSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines are based on the Countywide Design Guidelines but enable varied development and a distinctive character specific to the UWSP area. Where the UWSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines are silent on a topic, the standard would default to the requirements of the Countywide Design Guidelines.

MTP/SCS
The focus of the MTP/SCS is on the intersection of land use and transportation: it identifies the region’s strategies for meeting the regional GHG emissions reduction target; establishes conformity with state and federal clean air act requirements; provides the foundation for the regional housing needs allocation and establishes a plan for housing the population of the region; considers the impact of the plan on regional resources, including financial, biological, agricultural and farming resources; and identifies a transportation network to serve the transportation needs of the region, and to reduce VMT to, among other things, support achievement of the region’s GHG emissions reduction target. The current 2020 MTP/SCS was adopted by the SACOG board in November 2019. SACOG staff is currently preparing an update to the MTP/SCS and Blueprint to be finalized and adopted in 2024.

SUMMARY
The UWSP area and the proposed UWSP are not anticipated for development in either the Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS. However, as demonstrated above, the proposed UWSP aligns with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint and the County’s smart growth policy LU-120.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-1 PLNP2018-00284
15 NOISE

INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential effects on noise and vibration levels in the UWSP area associated with the development and operation of the proposed UWSP. This section describes the existing noise and vibration conditions around the UWSP area; outlines applicable federal, state, and regional regulations pertaining to noise and vibration; and identifies potential project-specific impacts on noise and measures to minimize these impacts.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received several comments related to public services and recreation from state and local public agencies. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended that the analysis address the potential impact of project-generated noise on biological resources, nesting birds in particular, and that avoidance and minimization measures such as construction phasing and timing adjustments, monitoring of project-related noise, and the provision of sound walls and buffers be considered. The potential for project-generated noise to adversely affect biological resources is assessed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources. In addition, the Natomas Unified School District expressed concern regarding the potential for noise generated by the proposed residential development to negatively affect school uses while the Sacramento County Department of Airports advised that the UWSP area lies within the Airport Planning Policy Area for the Sacramento International Airport, and that based on local zoning, conditions found in General Plan Policy NO-4 apply to proposed residential development. Potential impacts associated with noise generated by residential uses on schools and an assessment of how the proposed residential development would adhere to conditions listed in Policy NO-4 are discussed below. No comments were received related to vibration.

The information and analysis included in this chapter was adapted from a noise and vibration study prepared by Bollard Acoustical Consultants in December 2022 and provided in Appendix NOI-1 of this EIR. Additional resources used in the preparation of this chapter include the Sacramento County General Plan, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (FHWA 2006) and algorithms of the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA 1977) used to estimate project noise emissions, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans 2013), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018).
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-2 PLNP2018-00284

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that include the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the “loudness” of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.

Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of decibels (dBA).1 Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements.

Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Table NOI-1.

NOISE EXPOSURE AND COMMUNITY NOISE
An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of the noise experienced by the individual over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. The noise levels presented in Table NOI-1 represent noise measured at a given instant in time; however, noise levels rarely persist consistently over a long period of time. Rather, community noise varies continuously over time because of the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and wind. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual.

1 All noise levels reported herein reflect A-weighted decibels unless otherwise stated. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-3 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-1: Typical Noise Levels
Noise Level
(dBA) Outdoor Activity Indoor Activity
90+ Gas lawn mower at 3 feet, jet flyover
at 1,000 feet
Rock band
80-90 Diesel truck at 50 feet Loud television at 3 feet 70-80 Gas lawn mower at 100 feet, noisy
urban area
Garbage disposal at 3 feet, vacuum cleaner
at 10 feet
60-70 Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
40-60 Quiet urban daytime, traffic at 300 feet Large business office, dishwasher next room 20-40 Quiet rural, suburban nighttime Concert hall (background), library, bedroom at night
10-20 Remote open space Broadcast/recording studio
0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Lowest threshold of human hearing SOURCE: Modified from Caltrans 2013
These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment varies the community noise level from instant to instant requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to accurately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below:

Leq: The equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq is the constant sound level, which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period).

Lmax: The instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time.

L50: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of the specified time. This is the median noise level during the specified time. So an L50 represents the noise level exceeding 30 minutes in a given hour. The numerical subscript may be changed to reflect other percentages. For example, a noise level exceeded for 5 minutes in a given hour would be the noise level exceeded 8.3 percent of the time or the L8.3.

L90: The noise level that is equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the specified time. The L90 is often considered the background noise level averaged over the specified time.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-4 PLNP2018-00284
DNL: The Day/Night Average Sound Level is the 24-hour day and night A-weighed noise exposure level, which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night. Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dBA to take into account the greater annoyance from nighttime noise. (Also referred to as “Ldn.”) CNEL:Similar to the DNL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) adds a 5-dBA “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in addition to a 10-dBA penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction;  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and  Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants generally experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation exists in the individual thresholds of annoyance, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. Regarding increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
 Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dBA;  Outside these controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dBA in normal environmental noise;
 It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive changes in the noise level of 3 dBA;
 A change in level of 5 dBA is a readily perceptible increase in noise level; and  A 10 dBA change is recognized as twice as loud as the original source (Caltrans 2013).

These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-5 PLNP2018-00284
example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.

NOISE ATTENUATION
Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on the topography of the area and environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and noise barriers, vegetative or manufactured, etc.).

Widely distributed noise, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles (known as a “line” source), would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 3 to 4.5 dBA each time the distance doubles from the source, which also depends on environmental conditions (Caltrans 2009). Noise from large construction sites would exhibit characteristics of both “point” and “line” sources, and attenuation will therefore generally range between 4.5 and 7.5 dBA each time the distance doubles.

VIBRATION BACKGROUND
Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe physical vibration impacts on buildings. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors to vibration include people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick people), structures (especially older masonry structures), and vibration-sensitive equipment.

Another useful vibration descriptor is known as vibration decibels or VdB. This measure is generally used when evaluating human response to vibration, as opposed to structural damage (for which PPV is the more commonly used descriptor). Vibration decibels are established relative to a reference quantity, typically 1 x 10-6inches per second (FTA 2018).

HEALTH EFFECTS OF NOISE
The consequences of exposure of people to excessive noise can include annoyance and disturbance of human activities, as well as effects on human health. The following discussion is provided so that the health implications of noise exposure are fully understood.

Exposure to high levels of noise can cause permanent hearing impairment. The levels at which noise exposure can lead to hearing loss (140 dB) or pain (120 dB) is a common method of measuring health effects or impacts of noise. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established an occupational noise exposure program that includes hearing conservation standards for long-term noise exposure. Employers are required to measure noise levels; provide free annual 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-6 PLNP2018-00284
hearing exams, hearing protection, and training; and conduct evaluations of the adequacy of the hearing protection in use where noise environments exceed 85 dBA for an eight-hour daily exposure.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is a noted source of current knowledge regarding the health effects of noise impacts because European nations have continued to study noise and its health effects, while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency all but eliminated its noise investigation and control program in the 1970s. According to WHO, sleep disturbance can occur when intermittent interior noise levels reach 45 dBA, particularly if background noise is low. WHO also notes that maintaining noise levels within the recommended levels during the first part of the night is believed to be effective for the ability of people to initially fall asleep (WHO 1999). Excessive noise during sleep periods can result in difficulty falling asleep, awakenings, and alterations in sleep stages and depth (e.g., a reduction in proportion of REM-sleep [REM = rapid eye movement]). Exposure to high levels of noise during sleep can also result in increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increased finger pulse amplitude, vasoconstriction, changes in respiration, cardiac arrhythmia, and an increase in body movements. Secondary physiological effects of exposure to excessive noise during sleep can occur the following day, including reduced perception of quality sleep, increased fatigue, depressed mood or well-being, and decreased performance of cognitive tasks.

The County of Sacramento has an interior noise level standard of 45 dBA (County of Sacramento 2017). Additionally, this interior noise level is used in the development of exterior noise standards within the General Plan Noise Element Guidelines published by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research for the purposes of land use compatibility assessment.

Other potential health effects of noise identified by WHO include decreased performance for complex cognitive tasks, such as reading, attention span, problem solving, and memorization; physiological effects such as hypertension and heart disease (after many years of constant exposure, often by workers, to high noise levels); and hearing impairment (again, generally after long-term occupational exposure, although shorter-term exposure to very high noise levels, for example, exposure several times a year to concert noise at 100 dBA, can also damage hearing). Finally, noise can cause annoyance and can trigger emotional reactions like anger, depression, and anxiety. WHO reports that, during daytime hours, few people are seriously annoyed by activities with noise levels below 55 dBA.

Vehicle traffic and continuous sources of machinery and mechanical noise contribute to ambient noise levels. Short-term noise sources, such as truck backup beepers, the crashing of material being loaded or unloaded onto trucks, contribute very little to 24-hour noise levels but can cause sleep disturbance and annoyance. The importance of noise to receptors depends on both time and context. For example, long-term high noise levels from large traffic volumes can make conversation at a normal voice level difficult or impossible, while short-term peak noise levels, if they occur at night, can disturb sleep.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-7 PLNP2018-00284

EXISTING CONDITIONS

NOISE SOURCES AND LEVELS
Transportation sources, such as automobiles, trucks, trains, and aircraft, are the principal sources of noise in the urban environment. Along major transportation corridors, noise levels can reach 80 DNL, while along arterial streets, noise levels typically range from 65 to 70 DNL. However, noise levels on roadways, like all areas, can be affected by intervening development, topography, or landscaping. Industrial and commercial equipment and operations also contribute to the ambient noise environment in their vicinities.

Primary noise sources in the vicinity of the UWSP area primarily include vehicle traffic along Interstate 80 (I-80), El Centro Road, and San Juan Road. Aircraft operations associated with Sacramento International Airport also contribute to the ambient noise environment within the UWSP area, but on a more intermittent basis than the more continuous traffic noise environment. Noise generated at the 49er Travel Center, located at the interchange of West El Camino Boulevard and I-80, also contributes to the ambient noise environment in the immediate vicinity of that use but has little effect on the majority of the UWSP area. Finally, the UWSP area is not appreciably affected by railroad noise, as the nearest rail line is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west across the Sacramento River.

AMBIENT NOISE
To characterize the noise environment within the UWSP area and surrounding area, 15 long-term (24 hours) noise measurements were conducted and resulting data are presented in Appendix NOI-1. The 15 long-term noise monitoring locations surrounding the UWSP area were selected on the basis of their proximity to existing residential receptors. Table NOI-2 presents a summary of the noise data collected during the noise monitoring effort. Long-term noise monitoring locations were selected based on representation of the closest noise-sensitive receptors (residences) to the UWSP area and are indicated in Plate NOI-1.

TRAFFIC NOISE
In addition to monitored noise levels, existing roadside noise levels along roadway segments near the UWSP area were modeled to provide estimates of existing weekday noise levels along the roadway segments near the UWSP area. Table NOI-3 presents existing roadside noise levels during the weekday a.m. peak commute hour. These modeled noise levels reflect only the noise generated by traffic on the identified roadway segments; they do not include other sources in the area, such as rail and highway noise where these other sources are nearby.

AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT NOISE
The Sacramento International Airport is approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the UWSP area. As shown in Plate NOI-2, the UWSP area is outside of the 60 CNEL noise contours for the airport and is not located within the Noise Impact Area but is located within a specially designated portion of the Airport Influence Area (Referral Area 2), where 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-8 PLNP2018-00284
airspace protection (other than wildlife hazards) and/or overflight are compatibility concerns, but not noise or safety concerns (County of Sacramento 2013). However, the UWSP area is located within the Airport Planning Policy Area for the Sacramento International Airport, and based on local zoning, conditions found in General Plan Policy NO-4 (discussed in the Regulatory Setting below) apply to proposed residential development.

Table NOI-2: Summary of Long-Term Ambient Noise Level Measurement Results Site2 Date DNL
Average Measured Hourly Noise
Levels (dBA)
Daytime3 Nighttime4
L50 Lmax L50 Lmax
1 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 69 63 73 61 70
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 70 63 74 61 71
Thursday, September 23, 2021 68 61 71 60 69
2 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 64 55 66 57 66
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 64 56 67 56 65
Thursday, September 23, 2021 62 51 63 54 62
7 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 70 60 70 63 72
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 71 62 71 62 72
Thursday, September 23, 2021 70 57 66 62 72
8 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 71 61 72 63 75
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 72 65 80 63 72
Thursday, September 23, 2021 70 56 68 62 72
9 Tuesday, September 28, 2021 55 50 66 40 57
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 60 48 72 40 56
Thursday, September 30, 2021 68 47 74 45 57
10 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 67 59 76 58 73
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 66 59 78 57 73
Thursday, September 23, 2021 66 59 78 56 72
11 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 68 62 77 61 70
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 67 61 75 60 68
Thursday, September 23, 2021 67 61 74 59 68
12 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 76 69 80 67 80
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 76 71 83 67 79
Thursday, September 23, 2021 75 65 79 67 78
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-9 PLNP2018-00284
Site2 Date DNL
Average Measured Hourly Noise
Levels (dBA)
Daytime3 Nighttime4
L50 Lmax L50 Lmax
13 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 74 67 76 66 77
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 74 68 79 65 76
Thursday, September 23, 2021 74 65 78 65 76
14 Tuesday, September 21, 2021 70 63 86 48 81
Wednesday, September 22, 2021 69 62 82 47 82
Thursday, September 23, 2021 66 57 79 51 77
15 Tuesday, September 28, 2021 55 50 64 42 56
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 50 44 58 40 54
Thursday, September 30, 2021 53 41 61 43 56
16 Tuesday, September 28, 2021 71 62 86 44 82
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 70 61 84 45 82
Thursday, September 30, 2021 71 60 86 46 82
17 Tuesday, September 28, 2021 69 63 84 58 80
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 70 62 85 58 84
Thursday, September 30, 2021 69 62 85 56 79
18 Wednesday, September 29, 2021 57 50 71 39 52
Thursday, September 30, 2021 52 37 63 40 57
19 Tuesday, September 28, 2021 68 64 79 50 77
Wednesday, September 29, 2021 67 63 78 50 73
Thursday, September 30, 2021 68 63 79 54 75
NOTES:
1 Detailed summaries of the noise monitoring results are provided in graphically in Appendix NOI-1. 2 Long-term ambient noise monitoring locations are identified on Plate NOI-1. 3 Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
4 Nighttime hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

SOURCE: BAC 2022.

6FDOH
)HHW

)LJXUH
Legend 8SSHU:HVWVLGH6SHFLILF3ODQ
6DFUDPHQWR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
$PELHQW1RLVH0RQLWRULQJ6LWHV
6SHFLILF3ODQ$UHD%RXQGDU\
$SSUR[LPDWH

/RQJ7HUP$PELHQW1RLVH0HDVXUHPHQW6LWHV
6KRUW7HUP$PELHQW1RLVH0HDVXUHPHQW6LWHV

6KRUW7HUP$PELHQW9LEUDWLRQ0HDVXUHPHQW6LWHV

:(O&DPLQR$YH
6DQ-XDQ5G
(O&HQWUR5G
$UHQD%OYG

Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate NOI-1
Ambient Noise Monitoring Sites
SOURCE: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-11 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-3: Existing Traffic Noise along Roads in the Project Vicinity # Roadway From To
DNL at
Nearest
Sensitive
Receptor
Distance to Contour
(ft)
70 dB
DNL
65 dB
DNL
60 dB
DNL
1 Arena Blvd El Centro Rd Stemmler Dr 64 34 73 157
2 Arena Blvd Stemmler Dr Duckhorn Dr 66 43 92 197
3 Arena Blvd Duckhorn Dr Interstate 5 68 79 169 365
4 Arena Blvd Interstate 5 E Commerce
Way
68 73 158 341
5 Arena Blvd E Commerce
Way
Truxel Rd 69 66 143 307
6 Azevedo Dr West El
Camino Ave
San Juan Rd 66 39 85 183
7 Del Paso Rd Power Line Rd Hovnanian Dr 58 11 24 52
8 Del Paso Rd Hovnanian Dr Natomas
Central Dr
61 17 37 80
9 Del Paso Rd Natomas
Central Dr
El Centro Rd 67 42 90 195
10 Del Paso Rd El Centro Rd Interstate 5 63 33 70 152
11 Del Paso Rd Interstate 5 E Commerce
Way
68 108 232 500
12 Del Paso Rd E Commerce
Way
Truxel Rd 70
91 196 421
13 El Centro Rd Del Paso Rd Duckhorn Dr 65 44 96 206
14 El Centro Rd Duckhorn Dr Manera Rica Dr 58 17 36 78
15 El Centro Rd Manera Rica Dr Arena Blvd 62 20 42 91
16 El Centro Rd Arena Blvd San Juan Rd 61 19 41 89
17 El Centro Rd San Juan Rd W El Camino
Ave
68 69 149 321
18 El Centro Rd West El
Camino
South Terminus 59
19 42 90
19 Garden Highway Truxel Road Natomas Park
Dr
60 58 125 270
20 Garden Highway Natomas Park
Dr
Interstate 5 65
66 143 308
21 Garden Highway Interstate 5 Gateway Oaks
Dr
62 56 121 261
22 Garden Highway Gateway Oaks
Dr
Orchard Lane 63
20 42 92
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-12 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway From To
DNL at
Nearest
Sensitive
Receptor
Distance to Contour
(ft)
70 dB
DNL
65 dB
DNL
60 dB
DNL
23 Garden Highway Orchard Ln Interstate 80 57 16 34 74
24 Garden Highway Interstate 80 San Juan Rd 61 15 33 72 25 Garden Highway San Juan Rd Powerline Road 62 18 39 84 26 Natomas Central Del Paso Rd El Centro Rd 61 14 31 67 27 Power Line Rd Garden Hwy Del Paso Rd 61 26 56 122
28 Power Line Rd Del Paso Rd Interstate 5 62 29 62 134
29 San Juan Rd Garden Hwy El Centro Rd 64 25 53 115
30 San Juan Rd El Centro Rd 80/I-5
Interchange
64 31 66 143
31 San Juan Rd 80/I-5
Interchange
Truxel Rd 69
59 127 273
32 W El Camino Ave El Centro Rd Interstate 80 65 75 162 350 33 W El Camino Ave Interstate 80 Orchard Lane 67 66 143 308 34 W El Camino Ave Orchard Ln Gateway Oaks
Dr
68 61 132 285
35 W El Camino Ave Gateway Oaks
Dr
Interstate 5 67
67 144 310
36 W El Camino Ave Interstate 5 Azevedo Dr 68 76 165 355 37 W El Camino Ave Azevedo Dr Truxel Rd 66 51 110 236
38 I-80 Yolo County W El Camino
Ave
67 88 190 410
39 I-80 West El
Camino Ave
I-5 65
85 184 396
40 I-5
I-80 Arena
Boulevard
74 581 1,251 2,695
41 I-5 Arena Blvd Del Paso Rd 73 538 1,158 2,695
42 I-5 Del Paso Hwy 99 70 229 494 1,065
43 I-5 Hwy 99 Airport Blvd 69 164 353 761
SOURCE: FHWA-RD-77-108 with inputs from project traffic impact study. Appendix NOI-1 contains FHWA model inputs.
8SSHU:HVWVLGH6SHFLILF3ODQ
6DFUDPHQWR&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD
6DFUDPHQWR,QWHUQDWLRQDO$LUSRUW
1RLVH&RQWRXUV
6FDOH
)HHW

Legend
G%/GQ1RLVH&RQWRXU
$SSUR[LPDWH

G%/GQ1RLVH&RQWRXU
$SSUR[LPDWH

)LJXUH
6SHFLILF3ODQ$UHD%RXQGDU\
$SSUR[LPDWH

Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate NOI-2
Sacramento International Airport Noise Contours
SOURCE: Bollard Acoustical Consultants, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-14 PLNP2018-00284

VIBRATION SOURCES AND LEVELS
Short-term (10-minute) vibration measurements were conducted at six locations within the UWSP area. The locations are Sites 1, 9, 10, 12, 18 and 19 shown on Plate NOI-1.

A Larson-Davis Laboratories Model LxT precision integrating sound level meter equipped with a vibration transducer was used to measure vibration levels. The system was calibrated in the field prior to use to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The ambient vibration monitoring results are summarized in Table NOI-4, below. The data in Table NOI-4 indicate that measured average vibration levels within the UWSP area were below the 65 VdB threshold of perception.

Table NOI-4: Summary of Ambient Vibration Monitoring Results for the Plan Area Site1 Time
Average Measured
Vibration Level, VdB1
1 12:44 PM 49
9 1:17 PM 35
10 2:52 PM 49
12 2:03 PM 52
18 2:28 PM 32
19 1:41 PM 54
NOTE:
1 Vibration measurement sites are the same sites used for the ambient noise surveys shown in Plate NOI-1.

SOURCE: BAC 2022.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Some land uses include populations that are more sensitive to noise than others.

Consistent with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's General Plan Guidelines 2017, noise sensitive receptors are defined in this document as residences, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches, and sensitive wildlife habitat (e.g., nesting birds, marine mammals, protected fish species [for projects that generate underwater noise such as in-water pile driving and the habitat of rare, threatened, or endangered species). As discussed above, the potential for noise-related impacts on biological resources is assessed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources. In addition, hotels and motels may be considered as noise sensitive receptors during nighttime hours.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the UWSP area consist primarily of residential uses to the north, east, and south. However, with the exception of the existing residential development located at the intersection of San Juan and El Centro roads (River View Subdivision), the UWSP area is generally insulated from those areas by agricultural setbacks, I-80, canals/waterways, and open space. Plate NOI-1 illustrates the relationship of the UWSP area to existing residential developments. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-15 PLNP2018-00284

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

FEDERAL NOISE STANDARDS
The primary federal noise standards that directly regulate noise related to the operation of development allowed under the proposed UWSP pertain to noise exposure and workers. OSHA enforces regulations to safeguard the hearing of workers exposed to occupational noise. OHSA has established worker noise exposure limits that vary with the duration of the exposure and require that a hearing conservation program be implemented if employees are exposed to noise levels in excess of 85 dBA.

Federal regulations also establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than

4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dBA at 15 meters from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory controls on truck manufacturers.

FEDERAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY VIBRATION STANDARDS
FTA has adopted vibration standards that are used to evaluate potential building damage impacts from construction activities. Table NOI-5 shows FTA’s vibration damage criteria.

Table NOI-5: Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building Category
PPV
(in/sec)
Vibration Decibels
(VdB)
I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 NOTES: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity SOURCE: FTA 2018.

In addition, FTA has adopted standards related to human annoyance for groundborne vibration impacts for the following three land use categories: Vibration Category 1, High Sensitivity; Vibration Category 2, Residential; and Vibration Category 3, Institutional.

FTA defines these categories as follows:
 Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including vibration-sensitive research and manufacturing facilities, hospitals with vibration-sensitive equipment, and university research operations. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-16 PLNP2018-00284
Vibration-sensitive equipment includes, but is not limited to, electron microscopes, high-resolution lithographic equipment, and normal optical microscopes.
 Category 2: All residential land uses and any buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals.
 Category 3: Institutional land uses such as schools, churches, other institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have the potential for activity interference.

These human annoyance standards are presented in Table NOI-6 below.

Table NOI-6: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration
Vibration
Velocity Level
(1 microinch/s
econd)
Noise Level
Human Response
Low
Frequency1
Mid
Frequency2
65 VdB 25 dBA 40 dBA
Approximate threshold of perception for many
humans.

Low-frequency sound usually inaudible, midfrequency sound excessive for quiet sleeping areas. 75 VdB 35 dBA 50 dBA Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find transit
vibration at this level annoying. Low-frequency noise
acceptable for sleeping areas, mid-frequency noise
annoying in most quiet occupied areas.
85 VdB 45 dBA 60 dBA Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Low-frequency noise
annoying for sleeping areas, mid-frequency noise
annoying even for infrequent events with institutional
land uses such as schools and churches.

NOTES:
1 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 30 hertz (Hz). 2 Approximate noise level when vibration spectrum peak is near 60 Hz.

STATE
CALIFORNIA NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1973
Sections 46000 through 46080 of the California Health and Safety Code, known as the California Noise Control Act of 1973, declares that excessive noise is a serious hazard to the public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. It also identifies a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in the urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-17 PLNP2018-00284
protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the state to provide an environment for all Californians free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
The California Building Code requires that walls and floor/ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units from each other, or from public or service areas, have a sound transmission class2 of 50 dB for all common interior walls and floor/ceiling assemblies between adjacent dwelling units, or between dwelling units and adjacent public areas for multifamily units and transient lodging. The code specifies a maximum interior performance standard of 45 dBA.

The State of California has also established noise insulation standards for new multifamily residential units, hotels, and motels that would be subject to relatively high levels of transportation-related noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The noise insulation standards set forth an interior standard of 45 dBA CNEL in any habitable room. They require an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA CNEL. Title 24 standards are typically enforced by local jurisdictions through the building permit application process.

LOCAL
Noise levels within the UWSP area are subject to the County’s noise standards.

Therefore, noise generated by the project and experienced at nearby residential properties would be subject to the County Code noise limits as well as policies of the General Plan Noise Element.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The following policies from the Noise Element of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan (County of Sacramento 2011, 2017) are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

TRAFFIC AND RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES
NO-1 The noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas of new uses affected by traffic or railroad noise sources in Sacramento County are shown by Table 1 (Table NOI-7 of this Draft EIR). Where the noise level standards of Table 1 are predicted to be exceeded at new uses proposed within Sacramento County which are affected by traffic or railroad noise, appropriate noise mitigation measures shall be included in the project design to reduce projected noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 1 standards.

2 The sound transmission class is used as a measure of a materials ability to reduce sound. The sound transmission class is equal to the number of decibels a sound is reduced as it passes through a material.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-18 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-7: Noise Standards for New Uses Affected by Traffic and Railroad Noise Sacramento County Noise Element
New Land Use
Sensitive1
Outdoor Area – Ldn
Sensitive
Interior2 Area – Ldn Notes
All Residential 65 45 5
Transient Lodging 65 45 3,5
Hospitals & Nursing Homes 65 45 3,4,5
Theaters & Auditoriums -- 35 3
Churches, Meeting Halls, 65 40 3
Schools, Libraries, etc. 65 40 3
Office Buildings 65 45 3
Commercial Buildings -- 50 3
Playground, Parks, etc. 70 --
Industry 65 50 3
NOTES:
1 Sensitive areas are defined in acoustic terminology section. 2 Interior noise level standards are applied within noise-sensitive areas of the various land uses, with windows and doors in the closed positions.
3 Where there are no sensitive exterior spaces proposed for these uses, only the interior noise level standard shall apply.
4 Hospitals are often noise-generating uses. The exterior noise level standards for hospitals are applicable only at clearly identified areas designated for outdoor relaxation by either hospital staff or patients.
5 If this use is affected by railroad noise, a maximum (Lmax) noise level standard of 70 dB shall be applied to all sleeping rooms to reduce the potential for sleep disturbance during nighttime train passages.

SOURCE: County of Sacramento 2017: Table 1.

AIRCRAFT NOISE SOURCES
NO-2 Proposals for new development within Sacramento County which may be affected by aircraft noise shall be evaluated relative to General Plan Noise Element Table 4 (Land Use Compatibility for Aircraft Noise) except in the following case. Development proposals which may be affected by aircraft noise from Sacramento International Airport shall be evaluated relative to the Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared for Sacramento International Airport dated December 12, 2013.

NO-3 New residential development within the 60 CNEL noise contours adopted by the County for land use planning purposes at any airport or Helipad within Sacramento County shall be prohibited. This policy is not applicable to Executive Airport.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-19 PLNP2018-00284
NO-4 New residential development within adopted Airport Policy Area boundaries, but outside the 60 CNEL, shall be subject to the following conditions:

A. Provide minimum noise insulation to 45 dB CNEL within new residential dwellings, including detached single-family dwellings, with windows closed in any habitable room.

B. Notification in the Public Report prepared by the California Department of Real Estate disclosing the fact to prospective buyers that the parcel is located within an Airport Policy Area.

C. An Avigation Easement prepared by the Sacramento County Counsel’s Office granted to the County of Sacramento, recorded with the Sacramento County Recorder, and filed with Department of Airports. Such Avigation Easement shall acknowledge the property location within an Airport Planning Policy Area and shall grant the right of flight and unobstructed passage of all aircraft into and out of the subject Airport.

D. Exceptions: New accessory residential dwellings on parcels zoned Agricultural, Agricultural Residential, Interim Agricultural, Interim General Agricultural, or Interim Limited Agricultural and between the 60 and 65 CNEL contours, shall be permitted within adopted Airport Policy Area boundaries, but would be subject to the conditions listed above.

NON-TRANSPORTATION NOISE SOURCES
NO-5 The interior and exterior noise level standards for noise-sensitive areas of new uses affected by existing non-transportation noise sources in Sacramento County are shown by Table 2 (Table NOI-8 of this Draft EIR).

Where the noise level standards of Table 2 are predicted to be exceeded at a proposed noise-sensitive area due to existing non-transportation noise sources, appropriate noise mitigation measures shall be included in the project design to reduce projected noise levels to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards within sensitive areas.

NO-6 Where a project would consist of or include non-transportation noise sources, the noise generation of those sources shall be mitigated so as not exceed the interior and exterior noise level standards of Table 2 at existing noisesensitive areas in the project vicinity.

NO-7 The “last use there” shall be responsible for noise mitigation. However, if a noise generating use is proposed adjacent to lands zoned for uses which may have sensitivity to noise, then the noise generating use shall be responsible for mitigating its noise generation to a state of compliance with the Table 2 standards at the property line of the generating use in anticipation of the future neighboring development.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-20 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-8: Non-Transportation Noise Standards Sacramento County Noise Element Median (L50) / Maximum (Lmax)
1 Outdoor Area2
Interior3
Day or
Receiving Land Use Daytime Nighttime Night Notes
All Residential 55 / 75 50 / 70 35 / 55
Transient Lodging 55 / 75 -- 35 / 55 4
Hospitals & Nursing Homes 55 / 75 -- 35 / 55 5,6
Theaters & Auditoriums -- -- 30 / 50 6
Churches, Meeting Halls, Schools, Libraries, etc. 55 / 75 -- 35 / 60 6 Office Buildings 60 / 75 -- 45 / 65 6
Commercial Buildings --- -- 45 / 65 6
Playground, Parks, etc. 65 / 75 -- -- 6
Industry 60 / 80 -- 50 / 70 6
NOTES:
1 The standards in this table shall be reduced by 5 dB for sounds consisting primarily of speech or music, and for recurring impulsive sounds. If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards of this table, then the noise level standards shall be increased at 5 dB increments to encompass the ambient.
2 Sensitive areas are defined in the acoustic terminology section. 3 Interior noise level standards are applied within noise-sensitive areas of the various land uses, with windows and doors in the closed positions.
4 Outdoor activity areas of transient lodging facilities are not commonly used during nighttime hours. 5 Hospitals are often noise-generating uses. The exterior noise level standards for hospitals are applicable only at clearly identified areas designated for outdoor relaxation by either hospital staff or patients.
6 The outdoor activity areas of these uses (if any), are not typically utilized during nighttime hours. 7 Where median (L50) noise level data is not available for a particular noise source, average (Leq) values may be substituted for the standards of this table provided the noise source in question operates for at least 30 minutes of an hour. If the source in question operates less than 30 minutes per hour, then the maximum noise level standards shown would apply.

SOURCE: County of Sacramento 2017: Table 2.

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
NO-8 Noise associated with construction activities shall adhere to the County Code requirements. Specifically, Section 6.68.090(e) addresses construction noise within the County.

GENERAL NOISE POLICY
NO-12 All noise analyses prepared to determine compliance with the noise level standards contained within this Noise Element shall be prepared in accordance with Table 3 (Table NOI-9 of this Draft EIR). 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-21 PLNP2018-00284
NO-13 Where noise mitigation measures are required to satisfy the noise level standards of this Noise Element, emphasis shall be placed on the use of setbacks and site design to the extent feasible, prior to consideration of the use of noise barriers.

NO-14 Noise analyses prepared for multi-family residential projects, town homes, mixed-use, condominiums, or other residential projects where floor ceiling assemblies or party-walls shall be common to different owners/occupants, shall be consistent with the State of California Noise Insulation standards.

NO-15 The County shall have the flexibility to consider the application of 5 dB less restrictive exterior noise standards than those prescribed in Tables 1 and 2 in cases where it is impractical or infeasible to reduce exterior noise levels within infill projects to a state of compliance with the Table 1 or 2 standards.

In such cases, the rational for such consideration shall be clearly presented and disclosure statements and noise easements shall be included as conditions of project approval. The interior noise level standards of Tables 1 and 2 would still apply. The maximum allowable long-term noise exposure permissible for non-industrial uses is 75 dB.

Table NOI-9: Requirements for Acoustical Analyses Prepared in Sacramento County
An acoustical analysis prepared pursuant to the Noise Element shall:

1. Be the responsibility of the applicant.

2. Be prepared by qualified persons experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.

3. Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions.

4. Estimate projected future (20 year) noise levels in terms of the Standards of Tables 1 and 2 and compare those levels to the adopted policies of the Noise Element.

5. Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element.

6. Estimate interior and exterior noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.

SOURCE: County of Sacramento 2017: Table 3.

EXEMPTIONS
NO-16 The following sources of noise shall be exempt from the provisions of this Noise Element:

A. Emergency warning devices and equipment operated in conjunction with emergency situations, such as sirens and generators which are activated during power outages. The routine testing of such warning devices and equipment shall also be exempt provided such testing occurs during daytime hours.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-22 PLNP2018-00284
B. Activities associated with events for which a permit has been obtained from the County.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY CODE - CHAPTER 6.68 NOISE CONTROL
Noise generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP and experienced at nearby residential properties would be subject to the County Code noise limits. The following text presents the Sacramento County Code noise level limits as defined in County Code Chapter 6.68 Noise Control (County of Sacramento 2024).

CHAPTER 6.68.070 NOISE CONTROL
a. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated in this chapter, shall apply to all properties within a designated noise area.

Noise
Area County Zoning Districts Time Period
Exterior Noise
Standard
1 RE-1, RD-1, RE-2, RD-2, RE-3, RD-3, RD-4,
R-1-A, RD-5, R-2, RD-10, R-2A, RD-20, R-3,
R-D-30, RD-40, RM-1, RM-2, A-1-B, AR-1, A-2,
AR-2, A-5, AR-5
7 a.m.—10 p.m. 55 dBA
10 p.m.—7 a.m. 50 dBA
b. It is unlawful for any person at any location within the County to create any noise which causes the noise levels on an affected property, when measured in the designated noise area, to exceed for the duration of time set forth following, the specified exterior noise standards in any one hour by:

Cumulative Duration of the Intrusive Sound Allowance Decibels

1. Cumulative period of 30 minutes per hour 0

2. Cumulative period of 15 minutes per hour +5

3. Cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour +10

4. Cumulative period of 1 minute per hour +15

5. Level not to be exceeded for any time per hour +20
c. Each of the noise limits specified in subdivision (b) of this section shall be reduced by five dBA for impulsive or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music.
d. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the first four noise-limit categories specified in subdivision (b), the allowable noise limit shall be increased in five dBA increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise level category, the maximum ambient noise level shall be the noise limit for that category. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-23 PLNP2018-00284
CHAPTER 6.68.090 NOISE CONTROL
The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
a. School bands, school athletic and school entertainment events; b. Outdoor gatherings, public dances, shows and sporting and entertainment events, provided said events are conducted pursuant to a license or permit by the County; c. Activities conducted on parks, public playgrounds and school grounds, provided such parks, playgrounds and school grounds are owned and operated by a public entity or private school;
d. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment related to or connected with emergency activities or emergency work;
e. Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and six a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at eight p.m. through and including seven a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at eight p.m. through and including seven a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of eight p.m. Provided, however, when an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a construction project and the nature of the project necessitates that work in process be continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed to continue work after eight p.m. and to operate machinery and equipment necessary until completion of the specific work in progress can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner;
f. Noise sources associated with agricultural operations, provided such operations do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and six a.m.; g. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of adverse weather conditions or when the use of mobile noise sources is necessary for pest control; h. Noise sources associated with maintenance of residential area property, provided said activities take place between the hours of six a.m. and eight p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or between the hours of seven a.m. and eight p.m. on Saturday or Sunday
CHAPTER 6.68.110 SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS AND CHURCHES
It is unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or church, while the same is in use, to exceed the noise standards specified in Section 6.68.070 or to create any noise which unreasonably interferes with the use of such institution or unreasonably disturbs or annoys patients in the hospital. In any disputed case, interfering noise which is ten dBA or more, greater than the ambient noise level at the building, shall be deemed excessive and unlawful. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-24 PLNP2018-00284
CHAPTER 6.68.120 MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT, FANS AND AIR CONDITIONING a. It is unlawful for any person to operate any mechanical equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, stationary pumps, stationary cooling towers, stationary compressors, similar mechanical devices, or any combination thereof installed after July 1, 1976, in any manner so as to create any noise which would cause the maximum noise level to exceed:

1. Sixty dBA at any point at least one foot inside the property line of the affected residential property and three to five feet above ground level;

2. Fifty-five dBA in the center of a neighboring patio three to five feet above ground level;

3. Fifty-five dBA outside of the neighboring living area window nearest the equipment location. Measurements shall be taken with the microphone not more than three feet from the window opening but at least three feet from any other surface. b. Equipment installed five years after July 1, 1976, must comply with a maximum limit of fifty-five dBA at any point at least one foot inside the property line of the affected residential property and three to five feet above ground level. c. Equipment installed before December 17, 1970, must comply with a limit of sixty-five dBA maximum in sound level at any point at least one foot inside the affected property line and three to five feet above ground level by January 1, 1977.

Equipment installed between December 16, 1970, and July 1, 1976, must comply with a limit of sixty-five dBA maximum sound level at any point at least one foot inside the property line of the affected residential property and three to five feet above ground level.

IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to noise may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;  Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or  For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-25 PLNP2018-00284

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED IN IMPACTS
Groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (operation) – While the analysis below addresses the potential vibration impacts associated with construction activities, there are no proposed land uses that would be considered likely to generate substantial vibration during operation. Furthermore, there are no existing vibration sources that would affect the proposed residential or school land uses, as the nearest rail line is located approximately 1,000 feet to the west across the Sacramento River.

Additionally, as indicated in Table NOI-4, measured average vibration levels within the UWSP area were below the 65 VdB threshold of perception. Therefore, no impact would occur, and this issue is not evaluated further in this EIR.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The following is a description of the methodology used to evaluate the impacts of development allowed under the proposed UWSP relative to each of the significance thresholds cited above. For each of the potential impact sources relative to noise and vibration, below, impacts are first addressed for existing noise and vibration-sensitive receptors. Subsequently, potential noise and vibration impacts are addressed for noise and vibration-sensitive receptors that would be added to the UWSP area by development allowed under the proposed UWSP using the same sequence of analysis.

Cumulative impacts that consider the noise sources and receptors from other foreseeable future projects are addressed in Chapter 22, Cumulative Impacts.

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN NOISE
Construction and/or operation of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate noise in excess of established noise standards, which are different for construction, mobile, and station noise sources. The UWSP area is north and west of the communities of North and South Natomas located within Sacramento County, California. Therefore, noise generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP and experienced at existing nearby residential properties would be subject to the County Code noise limits and policies of the County’s General Plan Noise Element.

The evaluation of impacts due to an increase in noise from development allowed under the proposed UWSP focuses first on construction-related noise and was evaluated based on construction noise criteria of the FTA, in lieu of any applicable construction noise standards of the Sacramento County’s General Plan or Municipal Code. Next, localized increases in traffic-generated noise along roadways were considered relative to published measures of substantial increase in transportation noise, as discussed below. Finally, the increase in ambient noise levels from stationary sources during project operation was compared to standards found in General Plan policies and Municipal Code noise limits (see Regulatory Setting above).

Each of these approaches is described further below.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-26 PLNP2018-00284

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
The Sacramento County Municipal Code does establish quantitative noise standards for construction noise, specifically, Section 6.68.090(e). Section 6.68.090(e) exempts all construction noise activity during specified hours of the week.

In lieu of a specified criterion for assessing the magnitude of a construction noise impact in local regulations, the analysis below compares resultant noise levels to construction noise impact criteria developed by the FTA. While the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA 2018) was developed for determining significant noise and vibration impacts for transit projects and is not a regulation, it is one of the few federal sources that suggest both a methodology and criteria for assessing construction noise impacts. The FTA noise impact criteria used to assess construction noise impacts on residential uses are 90 dBA during daytime hours and 80 dBA during nighttime hours. These criteria are absolute contribution values from construction activity and are independent of existing background noise levels. If the FTA criteria are exceeded, there could be adverse community reaction.

In addition to the assessment of construction noise relative to the FTA’s 90 dBA Leq daytime standard at residential uses, this analysis applies an increase of 10 dBA or more over existing noise levels at sensitive receptor locations to warrant the implementation of construction noise control measures. Such an increase is a perceived doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013).

For the following analysis, construction noise levels were estimated for construction equipment identified in the analysis for Chapter 6, Air Quality.

PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC NOISE
Guidance on the significance of transportation-related changes to ambient noise levels is provided by the 1992 findings of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), which assessed the annoyance effects of changes in ambient noise levels caused by aircraft operations (FICON 1992). The recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, they apply to all sources of transportation noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the DNL.

Table NOI-10 presents criteria based on the FICON findings, which show that as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in decibel levels is sufficient to cause significant annoyance. In other words, the quieter the ambient noise level, the more the noise can increase (in decibels) before it causes significant annoyance. The 5 dBA and 3 dBA noise level increases listed in Table NOI-10 also correlate directly with noise level increases that Caltrans considers to represent “readily perceivable” and “barely perceivable,” respectively, for short-term noise increases. Thus, the significance of permanent increases in transportation noise levels is evaluated based on the increases identified in Table NOI-10.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-27 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-10: Measures of a Substantial Increase in
Transportation Noise Exposure
Ambient Noise Level
without Project (DNL)
Significant Impact Assumed to Occur if UWSP Area
Development Increases Ambient Noise Levels by:
<60 dB + 5.0 dB or more
60–65 dB + 3.0 dB or more
>65 dB + 1.5 dB or more1
NOTES: dB = decibels; DNL = day-night average noise level; UWSP = Upper Westside Specific Plan 1 According to the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise report, the 1.5 A-weighted decibel (dBA) increase in environments that exceed 65 dBA is not necessarily a significant increase but, rather, an increase warranting further investigation.

SOURCE: FICON 1992.

Traffic noise levels were modeled using the algorithms of the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model for the existing and existing plus project scenarios. The resulting noise levels were then compared to existing modeled conditions (Table NOI-3), depending on the contribution of other noise sources in the local environment, to determine significance.

Where significant impacts may occur, mitigation addressing sensitive receptors may also consider the County’s standard of 45 dBA DNL for interior noise levels for residences, hotels, motels, residential care facilities, and hospitals.

STATIONARY-SOURCE NOISE
Office, commercial, retail, or other noise-generating uses developed under the proposed UWSP could substantially increase noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses if they would expose sensitive receptors to noise levels exceeding standards established by the Sacramento County’s General Plan Policies NO-5 and NO-6, which require all development projects to mitigate all significant noise impacts as a condition of project approval for sensitive land uses.

Operations at proposed noise-producing land uses would be dependent on many variables. The following analysis considers the potential for noise from sources such as mechanical equipment, outdoor maintenance areas, truck loading docks and delivery activities, and parking lots by describing reference noise levels that are documented to be associated with these sources. Existing General Plan policies that address such sources are identified. Finally, mitigation measures with performance standards to address the potential impacts are identified.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Impacts from groundborne vibration during construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP are assessed using vibration-damage threshold criteria expressed in PPV for architectural damage. Equipment or activities that typically generate continuous vibration include but are not limited to excavation equipment, static 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-28 PLNP2018-00284
compaction equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment. Caltrans’s measure of the threshold for architectural damage to conventional sensitive structures is 0.5 inch per second (in/sec) PPV for new residential structures and modern commercial buildings and 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and older buildings (Caltrans 2013).

Vibration impacts were estimated using reference vibration levels for construction equipment in concert with the vibration propagation equations published by FTA and estimating the potential for resultant vibration levels in excess of Caltrans standards.

AIRPORT/AIRCRAFT NOISE
Development under the proposed UWSP is evaluated relative to the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) dated December 12, 2013 (SACOG 2013).

NON-CEQA PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Exposure of development allowed under the proposed UWSP to noise and vibration within the existing environment, such as existing roadway noise, and existing noisegenerating land uses are not considered CEQA impacts. However, as discussed in the Regulatory Setting above, General Plan Policy NO-1 establishes interior and exterior noise standards and guidelines for locating new development that address existing conditions affecting a proposed project. Therefore, the analysis of noise exposure of development allowed under the proposed UWSP is discussed in the context of consistency with relevant policies and regulations.

IMPACT NOI-1: GENERATE CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Construction of the proposed buildings, street network, and infrastructure associated with the proposed UWSP would occur in four phases. Construction would take approximately 20 years in response to market-based demand for housing, with a target completion date by 2044. As a result, the construction schedule is subject to economic fluctuations related to the housing market, and modeling construction of the entire UWSP area in one phase would not represent a realistic analysis.

As also described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and depicted on Plate PD-20, the proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements, including road improvements to El Centro Road, Natomas Central Drive, Arena Boulevard, and San Juan Road; new roadway connections to Garden Highway at Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road; a potential bike trail bridge crossing of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal); stormwater discharge facilities at two potential locations of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal); a new sewer force main from the UWSP area east to the New Natomas Pump Station; potential improvements to the I-80/El Camino Avenue interchange; and a new water supply connection to the existing City of Sacramento water distribution system along West River Drive. The proposed offsite improvements would occur within existing rights-of-way (ROWs), except for Garden Highway, where all improvements would require roadway widening on the landside of the Sacramento River levee. Potential jack-and-bore methods of extending water lines 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-29 PLNP2018-00284
beneath I-80 may require installation of sheet piles using vibratory techniques at entry and exit pits.

Construction, though typically temporary, short-term, and/or intermittent, can be a substantial source of noise. Construction noise is of greatest concern where it takes place near noise-sensitive land uses, or if it occurs at night or in the early morning hours; however, it can also affect commercial uses and other receptors. Local governments typically regulate noise from construction equipment and activities by enforcing noise ordinance standards, implementing general plan policies, and/or imposing conditions of approval for building or grading permits. The following analysis addresses potential construction impacts on off-site receptors with respect to standards established in applicable noise ordinances and General Plan policies identified in the Regulatory Setting above and also considers the relative increase in noise over existing conditions.

Given that development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be constructed in phases, the potential exists for occupants of earlier phases of the project to also be impacted by construction activities associated with latter phases of construction.

Major noise-generating construction activities associated with the proposed UWSP would include site grading and excavation; installation of utilities; construction of building foundations, cores, and shells; paving; and landscaping. Site grading and excavation would also generate high noise levels, as these phases often require the simultaneous use of multiple pieces of heavy equipment such as dozers, excavators, scrapers, and loaders. Vertical construction would involve the operation of cranes, forklifts, and pneumatic hand tools. Noise levels are lower when building construction activities move indoors and require less heavy equipment to complete tasks.

Construction equipment would typically include, but would not be limited to, earthmoving equipment and trucks; mobile cranes; compressors; pumps; generators; paving equipment; and pneumatic, hydraulic, and electric tools.

The nearest exiting residential receptors (River View Subdivision) are located approximately 25 feet away from the area of proposed construction activity, which would also be inclusive of off-site improvements. This distance is also a reasonable worstcase approximation for future occupants within the UWSP area that may be impacted by construction activities conducted during later phases. Table NOI-11 shows typical maximum noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet, and predicted noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet (based on an assumption that a standard spherical spreading loses 6 dB per doubling of distance). The equipment in this table were identified in the modeling output for the Air Quality Impact and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis (Raney 2024). These criteria are absolute contribution values from construction activity and are independent of existing background noise levels and do not account for the percentage of usage throughout a given workday. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-30 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-11: Typical Maximum Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Construction Equipment
Noise Level
(dBA, Lmax at 50 feet)
Noise Level
(dBA, Lmax at 25 feet)
Backhoe 78 84
Excavator 81 87
Compactor 83 89
Scraper 84 90
Air Compressor 78 84
Pumps 77 83
Dozer 82 88
Crane 81 87
Grader 85 91
Paver 77 83
Roller 80 86
Forklift (gradall) 84 90
Generator 82 88
Front-End Loader 79 85
Truck 76 82
Welder 74 80
Vibratory Pile Driver 101 107
NOTES: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum, instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time
These are maximum field measured values at 50 feet as reported from multiple samples.

SOURCE: FHWA 2006, Roadway Construction Noise Model Handbook As shown in Table NOI-11, noise levels from project construction equipment at the closest residential receptors located approximately 25 feet away would range from approximately 82 to 91 dB.
3 Thus, it is possible that a portion of the construction equipment used within the UWSP area could result in substantial short-term increases over ambient maximum noise levels at the nearest existing sensitive uses.

Policy NO-8 of the Sacramento County General Plan states that noise associated with construction activities shall adhere to the requirements established in Municipal Code Section 6.68.090(e), which offers an exemption for construction noise provided that the

3 While vibratory pile driving for potential jack-and-bore installations beneath I-80 as part of off-site water improvements would generate higher noise levels, entry and exit pits would likely not be located within such proximity to sensitive receptors, given the proximity to the freeway. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-31 PLNP2018-00284
activities occur between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at 8 p.m. through and including 7 a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at 8 p.m. through and including 7 a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of 8 p.m.

The Code further stipulates that, if an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a construction project and the nature of the project necessitates that work in process be continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed to continue work after 8 p.m. and to operate machinery and equipment necessary until completion of the specific work in progress can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner during specified hours and days of the week. This allowance provides for such activity as nighttime concrete pours which sometimes must occur for a 24- to 48-hour period to allow for proper curing.

Given that average monitored daytime noise levels in Table NOI-3 vary from 37 to 71 dBA, occasional construction noise levels of 91 dBA would be more than 10 dBA over existing conditions, which is an increase that is associated with a perceived doubling of loudness (Caltrans 2013) and may, therefore, be interpreted as a substantial temporary increase in noise levels warranting mitigation measures. Additionally, the potential exists for noise levels from the noisiest construction activities immediately adjacent to residential uses to exceed the 90 dBA daytime criterion, albeit for short periods of time. Additionally, nighttime construction noise levels may exceed the 80 dBA nighttime criterion for residential uses. For these reasons, the impact with respect to construction noise to both existing receptors and future on-site occupants of early construction phases is considered potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 is prescribed below, which would ensure that all feasible noise reduction strategies for noise-generating construction activity would be applied. These strategies would ensure, to the extent possible, that construction activities comply with the County’s noise standards, minimize localized increases to 10 dBA or less compared to existing daytime ambient noise levels at sensitive receptor locations, and prohibit construction work during nighttime hours. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact with respect to construction noise would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
NOI-1 Prior to the approval of any grading or site-improvement plans for new construction within the UWSP area, the project applicant shall prepare a Master Construction Noise Reduction Plan, to be implemented as development occurs throughout the UWSP area to address demolition and construction of buildings within 500 feet of residential uses. The primary purpose of the Plan is to establish a performance standard that limits localized increases in daytime construction noise levels to 10 dBA or less over existing ambient noise at noise-sensitive land uses. The baseline noise levels for this standard may be adapted using the daytime and nighttime L50 values presented in Table NOI-2 based on generalized proximity. The plan 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-32 PLNP2018-00284
shall be submitted to the Director of Planning or the Director’s designee for review and approval, and implementation of the identified measures shall be required as a condition of each grading or site-improvement plan approval.

This Master Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall consider the following noise reduction measures:
 Schedule: Loud activities such as rock breaking and pile driving shall occur only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., every day (with pile driving and rock breaking to start no earlier than 9:00 a.m. on weekends).

Similarly, other activities with the potential to create extreme noise levels exceeding 90 dBA shall be avoided where possible. Where such activities cannot be avoided, they shall also occur only between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Any proposed nighttime construction activities, such as nighttime concrete pours or other nighttime work necessary to achieve satisfactory results or to avoid traffic impacts, shall undergo review and approval by the Director of Planning or the Director’s designee.  Site Perimeter Barrier: To reduce noise levels for work occurring adjacent to residences, schools, or other noise-sensitive land uses, a noise barrier(s) shall be constructed on the edge of the work site facing the receptor(s). Barriers shall be constructed either with two layers of 0.5-inchthick plywood (joints staggered) and K-rail or other support, or with a limp mass barrier material weighing 2 pounds per square foot. If commercial barriers are employed, such barriers shall be constructed of materials with a Sound Transmission Class rating of 25 or greater.
 Stationary-Source Equipment Placement: Stationary noise sources, such as generators and air compressors, shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible. These noise sources shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, shall incorporate insulation barriers, or shall use other measures as determined by the Director of Planning, Building or the Director’s designee, to provide noise reduction from stationary noise sources.
 Stationary-Source Equipment Local Barriers: For stationary equipment, such as generators and air compressors, that will operate for more than one week within 500 feet of a noise-sensitive land use, the project contractor shall provide additional localized barriers around such stationary equipment that break the line of sight4to neighboring properties.  Temporary Power: The project applicant shall use temporary power poles instead of generators, where feasible.
 Construction Equipment: Exhaust mufflers shall be provided on pneumatic tools when in operation for more than one week within 500 feet of a noisesensitive land use. All equipment shall be properly maintained.

4 If a barrier does not block the line of sight between the source and the observer, the barrier will provide little or no attenuation (HUD 2009:24).
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-33 PLNP2018-00284
 Truck Traffic: The project applicant shall restrict individual truck idling to no more than two consecutive minutes per trip end. Trucks shall load and unload materials in the construction areas, rather than idling on local streets. If truck staging is required, the staging area shall be located along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noisesensitive receivers, where such locations are available.  Methods: The construction contractor(s) shall consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools, such as pile driving, and shall locate these activities away from the property line, as practicable. Alternative methods of pile installation, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. Piles could be pre-drilled, as practicable, and a wood block placed between the hammer and pile to reduce metal-to-metal contact noise and “ringing” of the pile.
 Noise Complaint Liaison: A noise complaint liaison shall be identified to field complaints regarding construction noise and interface with the project construction team. Contact information shall be distributed to nearby noise-sensitive receivers. Signs that include contact information shall be posted at the construction site.
 Notification and Confirmation: Residents within 500 feet shall be notified by certified mail at least one month before the start of extreme noisegenerating activities (to be defined in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan). The notification shall include, at a minimum, the estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information.  Nighttime Construction: If monitoring confirms that nighttime construction activities substantially exceed the ambient noise level (to be defined for receptors near each nighttime construction area in the site-wide Master Construction Noise Reduction Plan) and complaints occur regularly (generally considered to be two or more per week), additional methods shall be implemented, such as installing additional storm windows in specific residences and/or constructing additional local barriers. The specific approach shall be refined as the construction activities and noise levels are refined.
 Complaint Protocol: Protocols shall be implemented for receiving, responding to, and tracking received complaints. A noise complaint liaison shall be designated by the applicant and shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The community liaison shall determine the cause of the noise complaint and require that measures to correct the problem be implemented. Signage that includes the community liaison’s telephone number shall be posted at the construction site and the liaison’s contact information shall be included in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-34 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT NOI-2: GENERATE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION
This analysis addresses vibration impacts generated by construction activities at existing off-site buildings and at buildings constructed during the early phases of construction. Equipment or activities that typically generate continuous vibration include but are not limited to excavation equipment, drilling, static compaction equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment. The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would occur during grading, placement of underground utilities, and construction of foundations.

The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements as previously described. The proposed offsite improvements would occur within existing ROWs (e.g., within existing roadway corridors, facility footprints, and/or underground). The proposed offsite improvements would occur within existing ROWs. Potential jack-and-bore methods of extending water lines beneath I-80 may require installation of sheet piles using vibratory techniques at entry and exit pits.

Activities that would potentially generate excessive vibration, such as blasting or impact pile driving, would not be expected to occur from project development, as such activities would typically be associated with high-rise development that is not envisioned.

However, potential jack-and-bore methods of extending water lines beneath I-80 may require installation of sheet piles using vibratory techniques at entry and exit pits.

Receptors sensitive to vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), residences or other uses where people would normally be expected to sleep during nighttime hours, and vibration-sensitive equipment (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging equipment, high resolution lithographic, optical and electron microscopes). Regarding the potential effects of groundborne vibration to people, except for long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health.

The nearest residential buildings to active work areas are located as close as 25 feet west from proposed development and off-site improvements. Vibration-generating equipment that may potentially be used for project construction are listed in Table NOI-12, as are the vibration levels associated at a distance of 25 feet (the distance to the nearest residential structure) as well as at 50, 75, and 100 feet. The nearest residential buildings would be exposed to a vibration level of 94 VdB or less for all equipment except pile driving, which is below FTA’s human response threshold of 98 VdB. Consequently, existing sensitive structures near the UWSP area would not be affected by substantial ground-borne vibration during project construction.

Offsite improvements associated with jack-and-bore methods of extending water lines beneath I-80 may require installation of sheet piles using vibratory pile driving. Such activity can generate vibration levels of up to 104 VdB at 25 feet, which would exceed the FTA’s human response threshold of 98 VdB. However, entry and exit pits would likely not be located within such proximity to sensitive receptors, given the proximity to the freeway. Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 is identified below to ensure that jack-and bore pits, if required, are located sufficiently distant from receptors and 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-35 PLNP2018-00284
structures to avoid vibration-related construction impacts. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to generation of excessive groundborne vibration from onsite construction would also be less than significant.

Table NOI-12: Vibration Levels for Construction Activity Equipment
Estimated Vibration Decibels (VdB)
At 25 Feet
(reference)
At 50
Feet
At 75
Feet
At 100
Feet
At 170
Feet
Jackhammer 79 70 65 61 54
Loaded Trucks 86 77 72 68 61
Caisson Drilling 87 78 73 69 62
Large Bulldozer 87 78 73 69 62
Vibratory Roller 94 85 79 76 69
Vibratory Pile Driver 104 95 90 86 79
SOURCE: FTA 2018.

MITIGATION MEASURES
NOI-2 All entry and receiving pits for jack-and-bore or horizontal directional drilling activities requiring the installation of sheet piles shall be located by project engineers at a distance of 50 feet or more from the nearest residential use or modern structure to avoid annoyance and damage impacts. Additionally, a distance of 65 feet from historic structures shall be maintained.

IMPACT NOI-3: INCREASE IN TRAFFIC NOISE AT EXISTING SENSITIVE

RECEPTORS
Vehicle trips generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate roadway noise in the UWSP area and surrounding environment. Increases in traffic noise gradually degrade the environment in noise-sensitive areas. The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements as previously described.

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

The significance of traffic noise levels was determined by comparing the increase in noise levels (from the traffic contribution only) to increments recognized by Sacramento County General Plan Policy NO-1, as significant.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-36 PLNP2018-00284
Traffic noise was developed for the transportation analysis, 5 and assessed in the
acoustical analysis for the following scenarios:

1. Existing traffic conditions during the weekday peak commute hour, (using data generated for the Transportation Analysis); and

2. Existing plus proposed full buildout of project mixed uses during the weekday peak commute hour.

All traffic volumes provided in the Local Transportation Analysis (Appendix TR-2) and used in the analysis of roadway noise reflect internal trip reduction resulting from the proposed mix of uses. Modeled estimates of weekday noise levels for the most highly affected roadway segments near the UWSP area are presented in Table NOI-13 for full buildout of the mix of uses contained in the proposed UWSP by the using the DNL noise descriptor. Initial modeling of traffic noise increases along these roadway segments indicated that 12 of the 43 analyzed roadway segments could experience roadside noise increases that would be considered potentially significant. Each of these locations was examined to determine whether it includes existing sensitive receptors, or whether there are other factors relevant to identifying whether exceedances would be potential significant impacts. For this latter condition, a significant impact is not identified if the existing monitored condition exceeds the modeled noise level due to the presence of I-80 or I-5. When a receptor is within close proximity of either of these freeways, the contribution of noise from the freeway renders the modeled increase along the roadway segment unnoticeable. This assertion is supported by the existing DNL monitoring data for locations 12 and 13 in Table NOI-3. Of these impacted roadways, six of them have noise-sensitive land uses that would be potentially impacted by project traffic noise and are listed below.
 Arena Blvd. from El Centro Road to Stemmler Drive
 Arena Blvd. from Stemmler Drive to Duckhorn Drive
 El Centro Road from Arena Blvd. to San Juan Road
 San Juan Road from Garden Hwy. to El Centro Road
 San Juan Road from El Centro Road to the I-80/I-5 interchange  W. El Camino Avenue from Orchard Lane to Gateway Oaks Drive Therefore, noise increases along these roadway segments would be considered a significant roadway noise impact. As shown in Table NOI-13, the increase in traffic noise between existing and exiting plus project would be significant at six analyzed roadway segments where sensitive receptors are located. Therefore, the impact with respect to traffic noise at nearby existing receptors is considered potentially significant.

5 Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants; other inputs were obtained from published Caltrans traffic counts, SACOG, and observations and file data from Bollard Acoustical Consultants. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-37 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-13: Predicted Traffic Noise Level Increases at Existing Sensitive Receptors – Existing vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions
# Roadway From To
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Threshold
Exceeded?
Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Significant
Impact
Identified?
3 Existing
Existing +
Project Increase
1 Arena Blvd El Centro Rd Stemmler Dr 64.4 68.0 3.6 3 Yes Yes Yes 2 Arena Blvd Stemmler Dr Duckhorn Dr 65.9 68.6 2.7 1.5 Yes Yes Yes 3 Arena Blvd Duckhorn Dr Interstate 5 68.4 69.6 1.2 1.5 No No No 4 Arena Blvd
Interstate 5 E Commerce
Way

68.0 68.2 0.2 1.5 No No No
5 Arena Blvd
E Commerce
Way
Truxel Rd 68.8 69.1 0.3 1.5 No Yes No
6 Azevedo Dr
West El Camino
Ave
San Juan Rd 66.3 66.2 -0.1 1.5 No Yes No
7 Del Paso Rd Power Line Rd Hovnanian Dr 58.0 58.0 0.0 5 No Yes No 8 Del Paso Rd Hovnanian Dr Natomas Central
Dr

61.3 61.3 0.0 3 No Yes No
9 Del Paso Rd Natomas
Central Dr
El Centro Rd 67.2 67.5 0.4 1.5 No Yes No
10 Del Paso Rd El Centro Rd Interstate 5 63.0 64.4 1.3 3 No Yes No 11 Del Paso Rd Interstate 5 E Commerce
Way

67.8 68.2 0.4 1.5 No Yes No
12 Del Paso Rd E Commerce
Way
Truxel Rd 70.4 70.7 0.3 1.5 No Yes No
13 El Centro Rd Del Paso Rd Duckhorn Dr 65.4 67.4 2.0 1.5 Yes No No 14 El Centro Rd Duckhorn Dr Manera Rica Dr 58.4 61.3 2.9 5 No Yes No 15 El Centro Rd Manera Rica Dr Arena Blvd 62.2 64.3 2.2 3 No Yes No 16 El Centro Rd Arena Blvd San Juan Rd 60.7 66.0 5.3 3 Yes Yes Yes 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-38 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway From To
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Threshold
Exceeded?
Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Significant
Impact
Identified?
3 Existing
Existing +
Project Increase
17 El Centro Rd San Juan Rd W El Camino
Ave

67.6 71.5 3.9 1.5 Yes No No
18 El Centro Rd West El Camino
Ave
South Terminus 59.3 68.8 9.5 5 Yes No No
19 Garden Highway Truxel Road Natomas Park
Dr

60.5 60.5 0.0 3 No No No
20 Garden Highway Natomas Park
Dr
Interstate 5 64.7 64.8 0.1 3 No Yes No
21 Garden Highway Interstate 5 Gateway Oaks
Dr

61.7 62.5 0.7 3 No Yes No
22 Garden Highway Gateway Oaks
Dr
Orchard Lane 62.8 64.9 2.2 3 No Yes No
23 Garden Highway Orchard Ln Interstate 80 56.6 60.0 3.4 5 No Yes No 24 Garden Highway Interstate 80 San Juan Rd 61.2 62.4 1.2 3 No Yes No 25 Garden Highway San Juan Rd Powerline Road 62.2 64.8 2.6 3 No Yes No 26 Natomas Central Del Paso Rd El Centro Rd 60.7 61.9 1.2 3 No Yes No 27 Power Line Rd Garden Hwy Del Paso Rd 61.3 63.7 2.5 3 No No No 28 Power Line Rd Del Paso Rd Interstate 5 61.9 64.1 2.2 3 No No No 29 San Juan Rd Garden Hwy El Centro Rd 64.2 67.3 3.1 3 Yes Yes Yes 30 San Juan Rd El Centro Rd 80/5 Interchange 64.2 67.6 3.4 3 Yes Yes Yes 31 San Juan Rd 80/5 Interchange Truxel Rd 68.9 69.7 0.8 1.5 No Yes No 32 W El Camino Ave El Centro Rd Interstate 80 64.9 72.6 7.7 3 Yes Yes No 4 33 W El Camino Ave Interstate 80 Orchard Lane 67.3 70.5 3.2 1.5 Yes No No 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-39 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway From To
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Threshold
Exceeded?
Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Significant
Impact
Identified?
3 Existing
Existing +
Project Increase
34 W El Camino Ave Orchard Ln Gateway Oaks
Dr

68.3 71.5 3.3 1.5 Yes Yes Yes
35 W El Camino Ave Gateway Oaks
Dr
Interstate 5 67.4 70.2 2.8 1.5 Yes Yes Yes
36 W El Camino Ave Interstate 5 Azevedo Dr 68.2 68.8 0.6 1.5 No Yes No 37 W El Camino Ave Azevedo Dr Truxel Rd 66.3 67.3 1.0 1.5 No Yes No 38 Interstate 80 Yolo County W El Camino
Ave

66.6 67.4 0.9 1.5 No Yes No
39 Interstate 80 West El Camino Interstate 5 65.3 66.3 0.9 1.5 No Yes No 40 Interstate 5 Interstate 80 Arena Boulevard 74.3 74.7 0.4 1.5 No Yes No 41 Interstate 5 Arena Blvd Del Paso Rd 72.8 73.1 0.3 1.5 No Yes No 42 Interstate 5 Del Paso Rd Hwy 99 69.8 69.8 0.0 1.5 No Yes No 43 Interstate 5 Hwy 99 Airport Blvd 69.4 69.4 0.0 1.5 No Yes No NOTES:
1 Significance threshold derived from Table NOI-10.
2 Sensitive receptors were considered to be residences of all densities, schools, & transient lodging facilities. 3 A significant impact is identified only along segments where the project-related traffic noise level increase would exceed the significance threshold AND where sensitive receptors are present along the roadway segment. 4 Significant impacts are not identified for the transient lodging facilities along these roadways because existing noise from I-80 would render the increase unnoticeable.

SOURCE: FHWA-RD-77-108 with inputs from project traffic impact study. Appendix NOI-1 contains FHWA Model inputs. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-40 PLNP2018-00284
There are several methods that could be employed to reduce these projected roadway noise increases. A discussion of each method along with its feasibility is provided below.  Reduction in Traffic Volumes: Because one of the primary components of traffic noise generation is daily vehicle volume, a reduction in traffic noise levels can be realized by reducing the overall volume of traffic which would be generated by the project. However, to achieve a 3 dB reduction in traffic noise levels would require a 50 percent reduction in projected traffic volumes.

As discussed in Chapter 18, Transportation, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements and Mitigation Measure TR-2 would provide additional transit facilities; however, the reduction in traffic volumes associated with these measures would be marginal and would not result in a meaningful reduction in the predicted noise level increases. As discussed in Chapter 6, Air Quality, an Air Quality Mitigation Plan has also been prepared for the proposed UWSP, which includes trip reduction measures such as membership in a transportation management association (TMA). It is conservatively estimated that membership in a TMA would result in a 3.8 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled, which, even if directly applied to the noiseimpacted roadway segments, would not reduce the traffic noise level increase by 1 dBA. Therefore, because all feasible trip reduction measures have been identified to reduce the significant and unavoidable air quality impact, there are no further trip volume reduction measures available.
 Reduction in Vehicle Speeds: Another factor in the generation of traffic noise is vehicle speed. Higher speeds translate to higher traffic noise levels. Each 5 miles per hour (mph) reduction in average speed provides approximately 1.4 dBA of noise reduction on an average basis (Leq/DNL). Traffic calming measures that regulate speed improve the noise environment by smoothing out noise levels. To achieve the 2.4 dBA reduction, vehicle speeds along El Centro Road would need to be reduced from the existing 50 mph to 40 mph. It is noted that the portion of El Centro Road north of Arena Boulevard is currently posted at 45 mph.

However, vehicle speed limits are set based on speed surveys, safety considerations, and other factors, and cannot be arbitrarily reduced to achieve lower traffic noise levels. As a result, this measure is a potentially available method of mitigating this noise impact along El Centro Road and coordination with the Sacramento County Department of Transportation (SACDOT) would be required to determine feasibility.
 Construction of Noise Barriers: Reductions in traffic noise levels can be achieved through the construction of traffic noise barriers. However, at locations where openings or gaps in the barriers would be required for driveway openings or to maintain safe sight distances, the effectiveness of noise barriers is severely compromised. In addition, this measure would typically require construction of noise barriers on the property of the impacted receptor, rather than within a public right-of-way, so there is no guarantee the impacted receptor would agree to the construction of such barriers. Furthermore, the construction of off-site traffic noise barriers could be extremely costly per benefitted receptor, potentially 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-41 PLNP2018-00284
rendering this measure infeasible. Finally, barriers already exist for impacted receptors along San Juan Road, El Centro Road, and West El Camino Avenue, the most impacted roadways, and are therefore not an available means of mitigation. However, barriers to protect impacted receptors along Arena Boulevard may be feasible.
 Use of Setbacks: A 4.5 dB decrease in traffic noise levels can be achieved for each doubling of distance between the roadway centerline and affected residences. However, because the locations of existing residences that would be impacted by project-generated increases in traffic noise are fixed, as are the roadways of concern, this measure is not viable for the existing impacted residences.
 Engineered Asphalt: Noise-reducing pavement types, such as rubberized asphalt, have been shown to provide an appreciable noise level reduction relative to other pavement types. Studies have demonstrated these measures help to reduce traffic noise levels along local roadways by 3 to 5 dBA DNL.

Engineered asphalt intended to reduce tire-pavement noise could potentially reduce noise levels along impacted roadways. This approach would consist of the replacement of dense grade asphalt with open-grade or rubberized asphalt.

While the FHWA currently does not endorse the use of quiet asphalt as a noise abatement measure,
6 SACDOT has indicated that use of engineered asphalt is standard practice for higher volume roadways.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3a is prescribed below and would require that that speed reductions be considered along El Centro Road with coordination with SACDOT to determine feasibility and that a cost-benefit analysis be performed to determine the feasibility of barriers along Arena Boulevard. Mitigation Measure NOI-3b is also prescribed below and would require the use of rubberized asphalt on noise impacted roadways, consistent with existing SACDOT practice for arterial roadways. As discussed above, studies have demonstrated these measures help to reduce traffic noise levels along local roadways by 3 to 5 dBA DNL. Given that the necessary decrease needed for the most impacted roadway (El Centro Road) would be 2.3 DNL, availability of feasible mitigation along many offsite segments is limited and largely unavailable. Because such measures may be infeasible from a cost, engineering, or safety standpoint, NOI-3a and NOI-3b may not fully mitigate noise impacts, or could require the consent of the impacted receptor, the successful implementation of these

6 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not recognize special wearing surfaces as a noise abatement measure under 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The noise reduction properties degrade as traffic loads wear it out over time, resulting in the abatement measure no longer fulfilling its intended abatement commitment and requiring replacement, and replacement with standard pavement would in turn be a potentially substantial adverse environmental effect. Assuring similar continuing performance for a quiet pavement abatement technique, requires regular testing, because the acoustical benefits may deteriorate; also required is the highway agency’s commitment, backed by funding, to maintain the acoustical properties of the pavement in perpetuity (FHWA 2017).
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-42 PLNP2018-00284
measures cannot be guaranteed. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

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

IMPACT NOI-4: INCREASE IN STATIONARY NOISE FROM PLAN COMPONENTS

AT EXISTING RECEPTORS
Stationary sources of noise associated with implementation of the UWSP would include mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems or car wash systems, and vehicle noise from parking lots or commercial delivery docks. The proposed UWSP would also include a variety of offsite improvements as previously described. The proposed offsite improvements would occur within existing ROWs (e.g., within existing roadway corridors, facility footprints, and/or underground) and would not include new stationary noise sources.

COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE PARKING NOISE
Commercial mixed-use parking noise activities of multiple vehicle types arriving and departing a parking area (of 300 vehicle stalls), including engines starting and stopping, car doors opening and closing, and persons conversing as they enter and exit vehicles, have been documented to result in an exposure of 49 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The Sacramento County General Plan establishes exterior noise level standards of 55 dB L50 / 75 dB Lmax (daytime) and 50 dB L50 / 70 dB Lmax (nighttime) for residential uses. The Sacramento County Municipal Code also establishes acceptable exterior noise level limits for residential uses. However, the relevant Municipal Code noise level criteria are consistent with that established in the General Plan. As a result, compliance 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-43 PLNP2018-00284
with the General Plan’s exterior noise level criteria would ensure compliance with Municipal Code’s exterior noise level limits.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed commercial mixed-use components are residences located approximately 800 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by commercial mixed-use parking at these residences would be approximately 25 dB L50 and 41 dB Lmax. The predicted noise levels from the proposed commercial mixed-use parking meet the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to commercial mixeduse parking noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DELIVERY TRUCK NOISE
Commercial heavy/medium-duty truck delivery truck noise activities are documented to generate a sound exposure level (SEL) of approximately 85 dB at a distance of 100 feet. Assuming loading movements of one semi-trailer delivery and three medium duty truck deliveries during any given hour, the predicted noise exposure of would be 46 dB L50 and 74 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 100 feet.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed commercial mixed-use components are residences located approximately 800 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by commercial mixed-use delivery trucks at these residences would be approximately 28 dB L50 and 56 dB Lmax. The noise levels from commercial mixed-use delivery truck operations would be consistent with the restrictions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to commercial mixed-use delivery truck noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE HVAC EQUIPMENT NOISE
A typical commercial mixed-use rooftop HVAC unit generates a noise level of approximately 45 dB Leq/L50 at a reference distance of 100 feet from a building facade, including shielding by the building parapet (estimated to provide approximately 10 dB of noise level reduction).

The noise levels from a commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment meet the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-44 PLNP2018-00284
ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE PARKING NOISE
As discussed above, a commercial mixed-use parking noise would result in an exposure of 49 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet, which is used for the analysis of employment/highway commercial use parking noise at existing sensitive uses.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed employment/highway commercial components are residences located approximately 400 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by employment/highway commercial use parking at these residences would be approximately 31 dB L50 and 47 dB Lmax. The noise levels from an employment/highway commercial use parking meet the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to employment/highway commercial use parking noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE DELIVERY TRUCK NOISE
Commercial mixed-use delivery truck noise is documented to result in an exposure of 46 dB L50 and 74 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 100 feet, which is used for the analysis of employment/highway commercial use delivery truck noise at existing sensitive uses.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed employment/highway commercial components are residences located approximately 400 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by employment/highway commercial use delivery trucks at these residences would be approximately 34 dB L50 and 62 dB Lmax. The noise levels from an employment/highway commercial use delivery truck would be consistent with the restrictions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to employment/highway commercial use delivery truck noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE HVAC EQUIPMENT NOISE
A typical commercial mixed-use rooftop HVAC unit generates a noise level of approximately 45 dB Leq/L50 at a reference distance of 100 feet from a building facade, including shielding by the building parapet (estimated to provide approximately 10 dB of noise level reduction).
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-45 PLNP2018-00284
The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed employment/highway commercial components are residences located approximately 400 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by employment/highway commercial use HVAC equipment at these residences would be approximately 33 dB L50. The noise levels from an employment/highway commercial HVAC equipment would be consistent with the restrictions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to employment/highway commercial use HVAC equipment noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT NOISE Drive-through restaurant noise of menu speaker boards generates a noise level of approximately 63 dB L50 and 67 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 10 feet, and vehicle passbys at drive-throughs generate a noise level of approximately 60 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 5 feet, assuming a single speaker board. If two speaker board lanes were to be installed, the potential for an aggregate increase in noise levels would be minimal, because of the low potential for simultaneous operation.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed employment/highway commercial components are residences located approximately 400 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by employment/highway commercial use drive through restaurants at these residences would be approximately 31 dB L50 and 37 dB Lmax. The noise levels from an employment/ highway commercial use drive-through would meet the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and are below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to employment/highway commercial use drive-through restaurant noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE CAR WASH OPERATIONS NOISE Many gas stations include car washes, which, if developed in the Employment/Highway Commercial areas, would also introduce noise associated with car wash dryers and vacuums. Noise levels generated by car washes are primarily due to the drying portion of the operation. The acoustical study estimated car wash operation noise levels based on equipment commonly used in gas station/car wash tunnels (Ryko 3-Fan Slimline Drying System and JE Adams Super Vac (2-motor) Model 9200 series vacuum system).

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to the proposed employment/highway commercial components are residences located approximately 400 feet to the south of the UWSP area across I-80. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by employment/highway commercial use car wash operations at these residences would be approximately 54 dB L50. The noise levels from this use would meet the restrictions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-46 PLNP2018-00284
noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses and is below the ambient noise level conditions at the nearest existing residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to employment/highway commercial use car wash operations noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

SCHOOL USE PARKING NOISE
As discussed above, commercial mixed-use parking noise has been documented to result in an exposure of 49 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet and these reference values are used for the analysis of school use parking noise at existing sensitive uses.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to a proposed school use are residences located approximately 50 feet distant. However, due to typical spatial requirements of typical parking areas, it is unlikely that a parking area would have an effective noise center 50 feet from its edge. A more conservative estimate would be 200 feet. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by school use parking at these residences would be approximately 37 dB L50 and 53 dB Lmax. Given that the parking lots within the school use areas are currently unknown, the noise levels from a school use parking may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime noise level limits at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses.

Further, noise levels from school parking areas could potentially exceed existing ambient conditions at nearby residential uses. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to school use parking noise at existing sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-4a is prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to submit an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant to the County Planning Department that evaluates the potential noise generated by school component parking activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a projectspecific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50 / 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of school use parking noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

Sacramento City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025