Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL USE PLAYGROUND AND PLAYING FIELD NOISE Noise from elementary school use playgrounds and playing field noise of outdoor play areas (of 50 children) generates a noise level of approximately 55 dB Leq and 75 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to a proposed elementary school site are residences located approximately 800 feet distant. At this distance, the exposure of noise generated by employment/highway commercial use car wash operations at these residences would be approximately 31 dB L50 and 51 dB Lmax. The noise levels from an elementary school use playground and playing field meet the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-47 PLNP2018-00284
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 elementary school use playground and playing field noise at existing sensitive uses would be less than significant.

HIGH SCHOOL USE SPORTS FIELDS AND STADIUM NOISE
High school use sports fields and stadium noise of a public address (PA) system during a stadium event generate a noise level of approximately 70 dB L50 and 85 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 100 feet. Crowd noise in bleachers during a stadium event generates a noise level of approximately 75 dB L50 and 90 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 100 feet. Less intensive (non-stadium) activities generate a noise level of approximately 55 dB L50 and 75 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses are residences located directly adjacent to the proposed high school site in the River View subdivision. As the design of the high school site is unknown, the noise levels from high school activities may exceed 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.

Further, noise levels from stadium sporting events could potentially exceed existing ambient conditions at nearby residential uses. While it is noted that Section 6.68.090(C) of the County Code specifically exempts 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, this exemption is not identified in the General Plan. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to high school use sports fields and stadium noise at existing sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-4b is prescribed below, which requires the project applicant to submit an acoustical study to the County Building Department that includes an analysis of stadium noise exposure at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50 / 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. However, previous studies have indicated that while available noise control mitigation for noise from stadium events may reduce associated noise levels, given the overall size of crowds and the potential for nighttime events, noise impacts cannot always be mitigated, depending on the proximity of receptors (County of Sacramento 2023). Consequently, the impact of high school use sports fields and stadium noise at existing sensitive uses would be significant and unavoidable.

PARK ACTIVITY NOISE
Park activities (playing fields/playgrounds) generate a noise level of approximately 60 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The nearest existing noise-sensitive land uses to a proposed park are residences located approximately 700 feet to the west of the UWSP area. At this distance, the exposure of 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-48 PLNP2018-00284
noise generated by the proposed park at these residences would be approximately 37 dB L50 and 47 dB Lmax. The noise levels from park components 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.

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

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-4c is prescribed below, and would require the applicant or operator of all amplified music events within the park to prepare and implement a Noise Control Plan for operations at the proposed entertainment venues to reduce the potential for noise impacts from public address and/or amplified music. However, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that noise impacts can always be sufficiently mitigated to achieve noise standards, depending on proximity of receptors and the operational volume of the performer. Consequently, the impact of park activity noise at existing receptors would be significant and unavoidable.

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

NOI-4b During subsequent application review for proposed high school use sports fields and stadium noise uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that includes an analysis of stadium noise exposure at the nearest existing noisesensitive uses (residential) and identifies mitigation measures (as appropriate) to reduce stadium noise levels, including crowd and PA system 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-49 PLNP2018-00284
noise, to a state of compliance with, a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. Available methods of achieving this performance standard include locating sports field as far from noise sensitive receptors as possible, erecting intervening structures between sports fields and existing noise sensitive receptors, and operational limits on amplified sound equipment.

NOI-4c The applicant or operator of all amplified music events within the park shall prepare and implement a Noise Control Plan for operations at the proposed entertainment venues to reduce the potential for noise impacts from public address and/or amplified music. This Noise Control Plan shall contain the following elements:
 The sound generation area of the pavilion shall be located as close as feasible to the eastern park boundary at Bryte Bend Road, and ideally at least 2,500 feet from the nearest residence to the west.  All activities held at the pavilion consisting of amplified speech or music shall be limited to daytime hours of 7 am to 10 pm.
 Amplified speech or music levels shall be maintained at or below a median level of 80 dBA L50 at a distance of 100 feet from the sound source (i.e., speakers).

IMPACT NOI-5: NOISE FROM EXISTING AIRPORT OPERATIONS
The UWSP area is located approximately three miles from the Sacramento International Airport. Pursuant to Policy NO-2 of the Sacramento County General Plan Noise Element, proposals for new development within Sacramento County that may be affected by aircraft noise from Sacramento International Airport shall be 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.

As shown in Plate NOI-2, the UWSP area is well outside of the 60 dB CNEL noise contours for the airport and is not located within the Noise Impact Area. However, as the UWSP area is located within Referral Area 2 of the Airport Influence Area, noise from aircraft overflights does have the potential to be a nuisance and could generate objections by residents and other sensitive receptors (such as schools, churches, theaters, etc.) within the UWSP area. Therefore, consistent with General Plan Policy NO-4, the following conditions would be applicable to all proposed residential uses within the UWSP area:
 Provide minimum noise insulation to 45 dB CNEL within new residential dwellings, including detached single-family dwellings, with windows closed in any habitable room.
 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.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-50 PLNP2018-00284
 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.

These conditions have been placed on the Project as a condition of approval to ensure that they are adhered to. Therefore, impacts related to airport noise levels are less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT NOI-6: INCREASE IN TRAFFIC NOISE AT PROPOSED SENSITIVE

RECEPTORS

FUTURE EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP could expose future occupants of the UWSP area to existing sources of noise. 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 generate new vehicle trips.

The County of Sacramento uses land use compatibility guidelines to determine noiseaffected uses from both transportation noise (refer to Table NOI-7) and nontransportation noise (refer to Table NOI-8). Non-transportation noise impacts of development allowed under the proposed UWSP on proposed residential uses are addressed below in the assessment of non-transportation sources of the proposed UWSP. The following analysis examines the impact of noise from internal roadways on the proposed receptors.

Interior spaces of residential uses share the same noise sensitivity regardless of density. However, the noise sensitivity of exterior areas varies according to the type of proposed residential use. Within single-family residential developments, the County’s exterior noise standards are commonly applied to backyards. Within multi-family residential developments, such as apartments, the County’s exterior noise standards are applied to common outdoor usage areas such as pool or park spaces rather than individual patios or balconies. For mixed-use developments that include a residential component, it is not unusual for no outdoor use areas to be proposed.

Because specific project-level site plans for individual developments have yet to be developed, potential transportation (traffic) noise impacts are assessed through prediction of distances to future traffic noise contours along the roadways that would potentially affect development within the UWSP area. Where noise contours exceeding the General Plan standards of 65 dB DNL for residential uses and 70 dB DNL for parks 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-51 PLNP2018-00284
and playgrounds extend into areas proposed for such uses, potentially significant noise impacts are identified, and consideration of exterior noise mitigation measures would be necessary.

The FHWA Model was used with future plus project traffic data to predict distances to future traffic noise contours for the roadways that would affect development within the UWSP area. Refer to Appendix NOI-1 for more detail on the methodology employed.

Table NOI-14 identifies the predicted future plus project (cumulative) traffic noise exposure at those locations along each roadway segment, a comparison of those predicted levels against the applicable Sacramento County exterior noise standards, and the distances to the future 65 and 70 dB DNL traffic noise contours.

As indicated in Table NOI-14, predicted future traffic noise level exposure could exceed the 65 dBA DNL standard for residential uses at the nearest potential outdoor activity areas along 14 roadway segments7 within the UWSP area. However, no residential uses are proposed along West El Camino Avenue between El Centro Road and I-80, so the actual number of affected segments where projected future traffic noise exposure would exceed 65 dBA DNL at proposed residential uses is 12.

With the exception of I-80, traffic noise attenuation ranging from 1 to 5 dB would be required to reduce future traffic noise levels to a state of compliance with the County’s 65 dBA DNL exterior noise standard. This degree of attenuation is relatively low and could be achieved through a variety of the noise control measures described above with respect to traffic noise impacts on existing receptors.

In summary, although the proposed UWSP contains the general locations of the proposed residential uses, the specific locations of the individual residences and outdoor activity areas are currently unknown. However, as residential outdoor activity areas could be located in areas where future traffic noise exposure is predicted to exceed 65 dBA DNL, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to future exterior traffic noise levels at proposed sensitive receptors would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-6a is prescribed below, and presents a menu of available measures to be implemented to address compliance with General Plan Policy NO-1 which establishes interior and exterior noise standards and guidelines for locating new development. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of future exterior traffic noise levels at proposed sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

7 No residential uses are proposed along West El Camino Avenue between El Centro Road and Interstate 80.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-52 PLNP2018-00284
Table NOI-14: Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels along Proposed Roadways within the Upper Westside Specific Plan Area
Segment Roadway From To
Contour Distance (ft)
1 Distance
2 DNL3
Level
Above
65 DNL?
4 dBA
Above
65 DNL
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
1 Bryte Bend Rd Radio Road San Juan Rd 100 59 No 0 37 17 2 Bryte Bend Rd San Juan Rd Street 7 75 62 No 0 48 22
3 Bryte Bend Rd Street 7 Farm Rd 70 63 No 0 53 24
4 Bryte Bend Rd Farm Rd Street 10 75 59 No 0 29 14
5 Bryte Bend Rd Street 10 W El Camino Ave 75 60 No 0 36 16 6 Bryte Bend Rd W El Camino Ave Street 8 75 58 No 0 27 13 7 Bryte Bend Rd Street 8 Street 2 75 58 No 0 24 11
8 Bryte Bend Rd Street 2 Street 1 70 60 No 0 30 14
9 Bryte Bend Rd Street 1 Garden Highway 70 58 No 0 26 12 10 El Centro Rd Arena Blvd Radio Road 100 67 Yes 2 138 64 11 El Centro Rd Radio Road San Juan Rd 100 67 Yes 2 130 60 12 El Centro Rd San Juan Rd Street 7 80 69 Yes 4 153 71 13 El Centro Rd Street 7 Farm Rd 80 70 Yes 5 162 75
14 El Centro Rd Farm Rd Street 6 90 71 Yes 6 228 106
15 El Centro Rd Street 6 Street 5 90 71 Yes 6 246 114
16 El Centro Rd Street 5 W El Camino Ave 90 72 Yes 7 249 116 17 El Centro Rd W El Camino Ave Street 4 80 66 Yes 1 96 45 18 El Centro Rd Street 4 Street 3 80 65 No 0 83 39
19 El Centro Rd Street 3 Street 2 80 62 No 0 51 24
20 El Centro Rd Street 2 Street 1 80 53 No 0 12 5
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-53 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To
Contour Distance (ft)
1 Distance
2 DNL3
Level
Above
65 DNL?
4 dBA
Above
65 DNL
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
21 Farm Road Street F Bryte Bend Rd 60 60 No 0 27 12
22 Farm Road Bryte Bend Rd Street D 75 61 No 0 43 20
23 Farm Road Street D Street C 65 63 No 0 47 22
24 Farm Road Street C Street B 65 64 No 0 56 26
25 Farm Road Street B Street A 65 65 No 0 64 30
26 Farm Road Street A El Centro Rd 65 66 Yes 1 72 33
27 Farm Road El Centro Rd Street H 80 68 Yes 3 121 56
28 Garden Highway San Juan Rd Street 9 1300 39 No 0 23 11 29 Garden Highway Street 9 Bryte Bend Rd 950 41 No 0 23 11 30 Orchard Lane San Juan Rd Street 7 60 59 No 0 23 11
31 Radio Road Garden Highway Street 12 W 75 60 No 0 33 16 32 Radio Road Street 12 W Bryte Bend Rd 75 53 No 0 13 6 33 Radio Road Bryte Bend Rd Street 12 E 75 60 No 0 33 16 34 Radio Road Street 12 E El Centro Rd 75 66 Yes 1 84 39 35 San Juan Rd Garden Highway Bryte Bend Rd 75 61 No 0 43 20 36 San Juan Rd Bryte Bend Rd El Centro Rd 130 60 No 0 57 27 37 San Juan Rd El Centro Rd Orchard Lane 130 62 No 0 79 37 38 Street 1 Street C Bryte Bend Rd 60 55 No 0 13 6
39 Street 1 Street C Street B 60 54 No 0 12 5
40 Street 1 Street B El Centro Rd 60 54 No 0 12 5
41 Street 2 Bryte Bend Rd Street 3 70 59 No 0 28 13
42 Street 2 Street D Street C 70 60 No 0 32 15
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-54 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To
Contour Distance (ft)
1 Distance
2 DNL3
Level
Above
65 DNL?
4 dBA
Above
65 DNL
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
43 Street 2 Street C Street B 70 61 No 0 37 17
44 Street 2 Street B Street A 70 61 No 0 37 17
45 Street 2 Street A El Centro Rd 70 61 No 0 38 18
46 Street 3 Street 2 Street C 60 45 No 0 3 1
47 Street 3 Street B Street A 60 61 No 0 33 16
48 Street 3 Street A El Centro Rd 60 62 No 0 36 16
49 Street 4 Street E Street D 60 53 No 0 10 5
50 Street 4 Street D Street C 60 55 No 0 13 6
51 Street 4 Street B Street A 60 54 No 0 11 5
52 Street 4 Street A El Centro Rd 60 61 No 0 33 15
53 Street 5 Street E Street D 60 50 No 0 6 3
54 Street 5 Street D Street C 60 63 No 0 44 20
55 Street 5 Street B El Centro Rd 60 59 No 0 24 11
56 Street 6 Street E Street C 60 48 No 0 4 2
57 Street 6 Street D Street C 60 50 No 0 6 3
58 Street 6 Street B Street A 60 57 No 0 19 9
59 Street 6 El Centro Rd Street A 60 57 No 0 17 8
60 Street 7 Bryte Bend Rd Street C 60 45 No 0 3 1
61 Street 7 Street C Street B 60 50 No 0 6 3
62 Street 7 Street B El Centro Rd 60 57 No 0 17 8
63 Street 7 El Centro Rd Orchard Lane 60 60 No 0 29 13
64 Street 7 Orchard Lane Street H 60 55 No 0 13 6
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-55 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To
Contour Distance (ft)
1 Distance
2 DNL3
Level
Above
65 DNL?
4 dBA
Above
65 DNL
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
65 Street 8 Street F Bryte Bend Rd 50 56 No 0 12 5
66 Street 8 Street F Street G 50 56 No 0 13 6
67 Street 8 Street G Bryte Bend Rd 50 56 No 0 13 6
68 Street 10 Bryte Bend Rd Street F 50 55 No 0 11 5
69 Street 10 Street F Street G 50 46 No 0 3 1
70 Street A Farm Rd Street 6 60 59 No 0 23 11
71 Street A Street 6 Street 5 60 60 No 0 26 12
72 Street A Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 63 No 0 47 22
73 Street A W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 61 No 0 31 15
74 Street A Street 4 Street 3 60 50 No 0 6 3
75 Street A Street 3 Street 2 60 50 No 0 6 3
76 Street B Street 7 Farm Rd 60 57 No 0 18 8
77 Street B Farm Rd Street 6 60 58 No 0 21 10
78 Street B Street 6 Street 5 60 58 No 0 21 10
79 Street B Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 55 No 0 13 6
80 Street B W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 56 No 0 14 7
81 Street B Street 4 Street 3 60 54 No 0 11 5
82 Street B Street 3 Street 2 60 45 No 0 3 1
83 Street B Street 2 Street 1 60 50 No 0 6 3
84 Street C Street 7 Farm Rd 60 54 No 0 11 5
85 Street C Farm Rd Street 6 60 58 No 0 22 10
86 Street C Street 6 Street 5 60 57 No 0 17 8
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-56 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To
Contour Distance (ft)
1 Distance
2 DNL3
Level
Above
65 DNL?
4 dBA
Above
65 DNL
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
87 Street C Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 57 No 0 17 8
88 Street C W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 60 No 0 27 13
89 Street C Street 4 Street 3 60 54 No 0 11 5
90 Street C Street 3 Street 2 60 51 No 0 7 3
91 Street C Street 2 Street 1 60 56 No 0 14 7
92 Street D Farm Rd Street 6 60 56 No 0 15 7
93 Street D Street 6 Street 5 60 56 No 0 16 7
94 Street D Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 56 No 0 14 7
95 Street D W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 59 No 0 26 12
96 Street D Street 4 Street 3 60 48 No 0 4 2
97 Street D Street 3 Street 2 60 45 No 0 3 1
98 Street E Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 45 No 0 3 1
99 Street E W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 56 No 0 16 7
100 Street E Street 4 Street 3 60 48 No 0 4 2
101 Street F Street 8 Bryte Bend Rd 60 55 No 0 13 6
102 Street F Farm Rd Street 10 60 56 No 0 14 7
103 Street G Street 9 Street 10 100 42 No 0 3 1
104 Street H Street 7 Farm Rd 60 54 No 0 12 5
105 W El Camino Ave Bryte Bend Rd Street E 105 58 No 0 36 16 106 W El Camino Ave Street E Street D 105 56 No 0 25 11 107 W El Camino Ave Street D Street C 105 59 No 0 44 20 108 W El Camino Ave Street C Street B 105 62 No 0 65 30 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-57 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To
Contour Distance (ft)
1 Distance
2 DNL3
Level
Above
65 DNL?
4 dBA
Above
65 DNL
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
109 W El Camino Ave Street B Street A 105 62 No 0 63 29 110 W El Camino Ave Street A El Centro Rd 105 64 No 0 89 42 111 W El Camino Ave El Centro Rd Interstate 80 90 72 Yes 7 252 117 112 I-80 Yolo County W El Camino Ave 220 76 Yes 11 1,270 590 113 I-80 W El Camino Ave I-5 220 76 Yes 11 1,236 574
NOTES:
1 The contour distances represent the distance from the roadway segment centerline to the indicated contours. 2 The distance from the roadway segment centerline to the nearest potential location for an outdoor activity area based on proposed roadway cross-sections.
3 The Day/Night Average Level (DNL) computed at the distance cited in the “Distance” column. 4 If the predicted DNL at the nearest potential outdoor activity areas exceeds the County’s 65 dBA exterior noise level standard, this column is flagged as “Yes.”
5 The level above 65 dBA DNL represents the degree of sound attenuation that would be required to reduce traffic noise levels to 65 dBA DNL if the outdoor activity area were located at the distance from the centerline shown under the “Distance” column. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-58 PLNP2018-00284

FUTURE INTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Standard building construction typically results in an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of at least 25 dBA with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open (USEPA 1974). Therefore, provided predicted future traffic noise exposure at residential building facades does not exceed 70 dBA DNL, standard construction would be adequate to reduce interior noise levels to a state of compliance with the County’s 45 dBA DNL interior noise level standard.

As indicated in Table NOI-14, future traffic noise levels are not predicted to exceed 70 dBA DNL adjacent to the majority of the project-area roadways where residential and other noise-sensitive land uses are proposed. However, at residential uses proposed adjacent to El Centro Road and in the vicinity of I-80, it is probable that future traffic noise exposure would exceed the County’s 45 dBA DNL interior noise level standard without mitigation, particularly at upper floor locations, which would not likely be shielded from view of roadways by sound walls. As a result, this impact is identified as being potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-6b is prescribed below, and requires that project plans be reviewed to ensure that appropriate construction upgrades (typically higher-rated Sound Transmission Class values for windows) are specified to ensure compliance with the County’s interior noise standard at locations where residential building facades are proposed in future noise environments exceeding 70 dBA DNL. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of future interior traffic noise levels at proposed sensitive receptors would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
NOI-6a To satisfy the Sacramento County General Plan 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard at the outdoor activity areas of future residential uses proposed within the plan area, the following noise mitigation measures shall be implemented either singularly or in combination during project design as part of subsequent application review, depending on the level of sound attenuation required for the proposed location of residential uses.  Residential outdoor activity areas may be located beyond the 65 dBA DNL noise contour distances shown in Table NOI-14. This includes individual backyards of single-family residences and common outdoor use areas of multi-family residences.

OR
 Residential outdoor activity areas proposed within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour distances shown in Table NOI-14 may be screened from view of the roadway by intervening structures or sound barriers. If sound barriers are proposed, project-specific grading plans need to be considered to determine the location and heights of barrier necessary to achieve compliance with the County’s noise standards. With the exception of residences proposed in proximity to I-80, noise barriers along other 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-59 PLNP2018-00284
roadways would not need to exceed 6 feet in height to provide the required traffic noise attenuation. For residential uses located within 500 feet of I-80, a potential barrier height would need to be determined based on a detailed site plan.

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

OR
 Single-family residences may be oriented such that the front of the residence faces the roadway segment where levels exceeding 65 dBA DNL would occur, thereby using the residence to shield the backyard from the roadway and creating a larger setback between the roadway centerline and backyard outdoor activity area.

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

Project plans and the acoustical report shall be provided to the Planning Department during subsequent application review.

IMPACT NOI-7: INCREASE IN STATIONARY NOISE FROM PLAN COMPONENTS

AT PROPOSED SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Stationary sources of noise associated with implementation of the UWSP would include mechanical equipment such as HVAC systems or car wash systems, and vehicle noise from parking lot 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 lots have been documented to generate a noise exposure of 49 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

Given that the nearest proposed residential receptors located within proximity to commercial mixed-use components are unknown, the noise levels from commercial mixed-use components may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest existing 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-60 PLNP2018-00284
noise-sensitive (residential) uses. Therefore, the project’s impact with respect to commercial mixed-use parking noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7a is prescribed below, and 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 commercial mixed-use component parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses, and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50 / 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. Available methods of achieving this performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 50 feet or more between parking areas and exterior building locations, or erection of a sound wall between along the parking area perimeter shielding the noise-sensitive land use.

With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of commercial mixed-use parking noise at proposed sensitive uses would be less than significant.

COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE DELIVERY TRUCK NOISE
As discussed above for delivery truck impacts at existing uses, noise exposure from commercial delivery truck activities was calculated to be 46 dB L50 and 74 dB Lmax at a distance of 100 feet from the unloading area.

The nearest proposed sensitive uses (residential) would be located within the commercial mixed-use components themselves. However, future locations of delivery unloading areas and related distances to residential uses within those components are currently not known at this time. Thus, it is possible that commercial mixed-use delivery truck activity noise exposure could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime and nighttime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. As a result, this impact is identified as being potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7b is prescribed below, and would require that truck delivery unloading areas within commercial components be located 150 feet from proposed residential uses, or alternatively, that specific measures be designed to shield noise and/or that restrictions be placed on the hours for commercial deliveries. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of commercial mixed-use delivery truck activity noise at proposed sensitive uses within commercial mixed-use area would be less than significant.

COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE HVAC EQUIPMENT NOISE
As discussed above for commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment impacts at existing uses, noise exposure from commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment was calculated to be 45 dB L50 at a distance of 100 feet from the building facade.

The nearest proposed sensitive uses (residential) would be located within the Commercial Mixed-Use components themselves. However, future locations of buildings and related distances to residential uses within those components are currently not 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-61 PLNP2018-00284
known at this time. Thus, it is possible that commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment noise exposure could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime and nighttime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. As a result, this impact is identified as being potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7c is prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to ensure that all mechanical equipment is selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses by meeting a project-specific exterior nighttime noise performance standard of 50 dB L50, and an interior (anytime) noise level standard of 35 dB L50, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of commercial mixed-use HVAC equipment noise at proposed sensitive uses within commercial mixed-use area would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PARKING NOISE
The acoustical analysis indicates that 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 proposed sensitive uses.

The nearest proposed residential receptors located within proximity to employment/ highway commercial components are unknown; therefore, the noise levels from employment/highway commercial components may exceed 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. Therefore, the project’s impact with respect to employment/highway commercial use parking noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7d is prescribed below, and 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 employment/highway commercial parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls, necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50 / 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of employment/highway commercial parking noise at proposed sensitive uses near employment/highway commercial components would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DELIVERY TRUCK NOISE
As discussed above for employment/highway commercial delivery truck impacts at existing uses, noise exposure from employment/highway commercial delivery trucks was calculated to be 46 dB L50 and 74 dB Lmax at a distance of 100 feet from the unloading area.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-62 PLNP2018-00284
The nearest proposed residential receptors located within proximity to employment/ highway commercial components are unknown; therefore, the noise levels from employment/highway commercial components may exceed 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. Therefore, the project’s impact with respect to employment/highway commercial delivery truck noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7e is prescribed below, and would require that truck delivery unloading areas within employment/highway commercial components be located 150 feet from proposed residential uses. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of employment/highway commercial delivery truck noise at proposed sensitive uses near employment/highway commercial components would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL HVAC EQUIPMENT NOISE
As discussed above, noise exposure from commercial HVAC equipment is calculated to be 45 dB L50 at a distance of 100 feet from the building façade.

The nearest proposed sensitive uses (residential) are located adjacent to an Employment/Highway Commercial component. However, future locations of buildings and related distances to adjacent residential uses are currently not known at this time.

Thus, it is possible that employment/highway commercial HVAC equipment noise exposure could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime and nighttime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. As a result, the project’s impact with respect to employment/highway commercial HVAC equipment noise at proposed sensitive use would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7c is again prescribed, and would require the project applicant to ensure that all mechanical equipment is selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses by meeting a project-specific exterior nighttime noise performance standard of 50 dB L50, and an interior (anytime) noise level standard of 35 dB L50, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of employment/highway commercial HVAC equipment noise at proposed sensitive uses near employment/ highway commercial components would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 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. 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-63 PLNP2018-00284
The nearest proposed residential receptors would be located adjacent to an employment/highway commercial component. Because the related distances are unknown, the noise levels from employment/highway commercial drive-through operation components may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive (residential) uses. Therefore, the project’s impact with respect to employment/highway commercial drive-through restaurant noise at proposed sensitive uses is potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7f is prescribed below, and would require that restaurant drive-through lanes be 85 feet from proposed residences, which would be sufficient distance to meet the County’s exterior nighttime noise level standards of 45 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax; and if restaurant drive-through lanes are less than 85 feet from proposed residences, would require that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by drive-through operations at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) and identify any necessary noise controls needed to meet County requirements. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of employment/highway commercial drive-through restaurant noise at proposed sensitive uses near employment/highway commercial components would be less than significant.

EMPLOYMENT/HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL 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 proposed residential receptors would be located within the proximity to employment/highway commercial components; however, the related distances are unknown. Therefore, the noise levels from car wash drying assembly and vacuum equipment components may exceed the conditions of the Sacramento County General Plan daytime and nighttime exterior and interior noise level limits at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive (residential) uses and the project’s impact with respect to car wash operations noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7g is prescribed below, and would require that a site-specific acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by car wash drying assembly and vacuum equipment at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) and to provide an analysis to identify the necessary noise controls necessary to meet the County’s exterior nighttime noise level standards of 45 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax. This acoustical study and the final plans for car wash facilities shall be submitted to the Planning Department as part of subsequent application review. With the implementation of this mitigation 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-64 PLNP2018-00284
measure, the impact of employment/highway commercial car wash operations noise at proposed sensitive uses near employment/highway commercial components would be less than significant.

SCHOOL PARKING NOISE
The acoustical analysis indicates that 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 school parking noise at proposed sensitive uses.

The nearest proposed residential receptors are located adjacent to school components.

However, the related distances are unknown; therefore, the noise levels from School components may exceed 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. Therefore, the project’s impact with respect to school parking noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7h is prescribed below, and would require that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school component parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/ 75 dB Lmax. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of school parking noise at proposed sensitive uses near school components would be less than significant.

SCHOOL PLAYGROUND NOISE
Noise from elementary school use playgrounds and playing field noise of outdoor play areas (of 50 children) generates a noise level of approximately 55 dB Leq and 75 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The nearest proposed sensitive uses (residential) are located adjacent to school components. Because future locations, sizes, and distances to adjacent proposed residential uses within the UWSP area are currently not known at this time, it is possible that school playground activity noise exposure could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. While it is noted that Section 6.68.090 (C) of the County Code specifically exempts 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, this exemption is not identified in the General Plan. As a result, the project’s impact with respect to school playground noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7i is prescribed below, and would require that future school components maintain a minimum setback of 90 feet of play area centroids from proposed residential boundaries within the UWSP area. With the 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-65 PLNP2018-00284
implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of school playground noise at proposed sensitive uses near school components would be less than significant.

SCHOOL SPORTS STADIUM NOISE
The acoustical analysis indicates that high school use sports fields and stadium noise of a PA system during a stadium event generate a noise level of approximately 70 dB L50 and 85 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 100 feet. Crowd noise in bleachers during a stadium event generates a noise level of approximately 75 dB L50 and 90 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 100 feet. Less intensive (non-stadium) activities generate a noise level of approximately 70 dB L50 and 85 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The nearest proposed sensitive uses (residential) are located adjacent to a school component. However, future locations and sizes of outdoor playing fields/sports stadiums, PA system configurations, and associated distances to adjacent residential uses are currently not known at this time. Thus, it is possible that noise from events at school sports stadiums could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. As a result, the project’s impact with respect to school sports stadium noise at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7j is prescribed below, and would require that an acoustical study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by school stadium and sports field activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax. However, previous studies have indicated that while available noise control mitigation for noise from stadium events may reduce associated noise levels, given the overall size of crowds and the potential for nighttime evets, noise impacts cannot always be mitigated, depending on proximity of receptors (County of Sacramento 2023). Consequently, with the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of school sports stadium noise at proposed sensitive uses near school components would be significant and unavoidable.

PARK ACTIVITY NOISE
Park activities (playing fields/playgrounds) generate a noise level of approximately 60 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 50 feet.

The nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) are located adjacent to park components. However, future locations of playing fields/playgrounds and associated distances to adjacent residential uses are currently not known at this time. Thus, it is possible that noise from park activities could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. As a result, the project’s impact with respect to noise from park activities at proposed sensitive uses would be potentially significant.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-66 PLNP2018-00284
To address this impact, Mitigation Measure NOI-7k is prescribed below, and would require that active park components be designed to be 150 feet from proposed residences, which would be sufficient distance to meet the County’s exterior daytime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of park activity noise at proposed sensitive uses near park components would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
NOI-7a As part of the subsequent application review process and prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed commercial mixed-use land uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by commercial mixed-use component parking activities at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. Available methods of achieving this performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 150 feet or more between parking areas and exterior building locations, or erection of a sound wall along the parking area perimeter shielding the adjacent residential uses.

NOI-7b Truck delivery unloading areas within commercial components shall be 150 feet from proposed residential boundaries. The combined commercial delivery truck activities would result in an exposure of 42 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 150 feet. This would ensure compliance with the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and would satisfy the County’s requirement of interior (anytime) noise level standards of 35 dB L50 and 55 dB Lmax with standard residential building construction.
8 Alternatively, specific design measures could be implemented that may include but are not limited to shielding from features integrated into site design, and/or restrictions on hours for commercial deliveries within the Commercial Mixed-Use areas. Such measures shall be determined by a sitespecific noise impact study that addresses Commercial Mixed-Use truck delivery activities to be completed by a qualified noise consultant once sitespecific development plans are completed but must be designed to sufficiently achieve the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax.

8 Standard residential building construction would result in a noise reduction of approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-67 PLNP2018-00284
NOI-7c As part of the subsequent application review process and prior to the issuance of any building permit for commercial mixed use and employment/ highway commercial uses within 100 feet of noise-sensitive land uses, the project applicant shall ensure that all mechanical equipment is selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses by meeting a projectspecific exterior nighttime noise performance standard of 50 dB L50, and an interior (anytime) noise level standard of 35 dB L50, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. Methods of achieving these standards include using low-noise-emitting HVAC equipment, locating HVAC and other mechanical equipment within a rooftop mechanical penthouse, and using shields and parapets to reduce noise levels to adjacent land uses.

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

NOI-7d To address the project’s impact with respect to employment/highway commercial use parking noise at proposed sensitive uses, prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed Employment/Highway Commercial land uses, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Building Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by Employment/Highway Commercial land uses at the nearest existing noisesensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/ 75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements. Available methods of achieving this performance standard include provision of a buffer distance of 150 feet or more between parking areas and exterior building locations, or erection of a sound wall between along the parking area perimeter shielding the nearest proposed residential uses.

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

Alternatively, if delivery unloading areas of employment/highway commercial components are proposed within 150 feet from residential boundaries within the plan area, a noise impact study that addresses parking activities shall be 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-68 PLNP2018-00284
completed by a qualified noise consultant once site-specific development plans are completed. The noise impact study shall include an analysis of Employment/Highway Commercial parking area noise exposure at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential). The analysis shall include associated mitigation measures (as appropriate) to reduce Employment/Highway Commercial parking noise levels to ensure compliance with the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level standards of 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax.

NOI-7f Restaurant drive-through lanes within employment/highway commercial components shall be 85 feet from proposed residential boundaries, which would be sufficient distance to meet the County’s requirement of exterior nighttime noise level standards of 45 dB L50 and 65 dB Lmax, and interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax.

If employment/highway commercial components are proposed within 85 feet from residential boundaries, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by employment/highway commercial drive-through operations at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses (residential) and to provide an analysis to identify the necessary noise controls that are included in the design to meet the County’s requirements. Available methods of achieving the performance standard include site design so the menu board/speaker post and ordering patron windows are located on the building side away from receptor locations such that the building acts as a sound barrier or provision of a sound wall between ordering areas and sensitive receptors.

NOI-7g As part of the subsequent application review process and prior to issuance of a building permit for any proposed car wash uses proposed within Employment/Highway Commercial components, when specific development plans are completed, the project applicant shall submit to the County Planning Department an acoustical study prepared by a qualified noise consultant that evaluates the potential noise generated by car wash activities at the nearest existing noise-sensitive uses and identifies, as warranted, any noise controls necessary to meet a project-specific exterior noise performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements.

The noise impact study shall include an analysis of Employment/Highway Commercial car wash drying assembly and vacuum equipment operations noise exposure at the nearest proposed noise-sensitive uses. The analysis shall include associated mitigation measures necessary to reduce Employment/Highway Commercial car wash and vacuum system operations noise levels to a state of compliance with applicable Sacramento County General Plan exterior and interior noise level limits at nearby proposed sensitive receptors.

After construction but prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a second acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant that 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-69 PLNP2018-00284
shall monitor operational noise levels of the car wash facility demonstrating the operational noise of equipment with recommended design measures achieves the performance standard of 55 dB L50/75 dB Lmax, consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements.

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

NOI-7i Development Plans for future school components under the Specific Plan shall maintain a minimum setback of 90 feet of play area centroids from proposed residential boundaries within the plan area. When projected to a distance of 90 feet, playground activity noise levels are calculated to be 50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, which would meet the General Plan’s downward-adjusted exterior daytime noise level standards. After consideration of the exterior-tointerior noise reduction provided by standard residential construction (approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open), predicted playground activity noise levels at a distance of 90 feet would also satisfy the General Plan’s downward adjusted interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax.

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

NOI-7k Active uses within park components shall designed to be 150 feet from proposed residential boundaries. Park activity would result in an exposure of 50 dB L50 and 60 dB Lmax at a reference distance of 150 feet. This would satisfy the County’s requirement of exterior daytime noise level standards of 15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-70 PLNP2018-00284
50 dB L50 and 70 dB Lmax, and would satisfy the County’s requirement of interior (anytime) noise level standards of 30 dB L50 and 50 dB Lmax with standard residential building construction. Such construction would result in a noise reduction of approximately 25 dB with windows closed and approximately 15 dB with windows open.

Alternatively, when site-specific development plans are completed, an acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant to evaluate the potential noise generated by park activity at the nearest noise-sensitive uses (residential) and to provide an analysis to identify the necessary noise controls that are included in the design to meet the County’s requirements.

Available methods of achieving this performance standard include locating play areas as far from noise sensitive receptors as possible, erecting intervening structures between sports fields and proposed noise sensitive receptors, and operational limits on amplified sound equipment.

IMPACT NOI-8: INCREASE IN STATIONARY NOISE FROM EXISTING

COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS AT PROPOSED SENSITIVE USES (NON-CEQA

ASSESSMENT)
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP could expose future occupants of the UWSP area to existing sources of noise. However, CEQA does not require that potential effects of the environment on the project be analyzed or mitigated.

Nevertheless, an analysis of existing noise effects on development allowed under the proposed UWSP is included to provide information to the public and decision-makers and to comply with General Plan policies.

An existing Travel Plaza is located within the UWSP area on the east side of El Centro Road adjacent to the westbound I-80 off-ramp. The primary noise sources associated with the Travel Plaza are heavy truck traffic on El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue, and on-site truck circulation activities.

Noise measurement site 10 was selected to be representative of the ambient noise level environment at the portion of the UWSP area proposed for commercial/mixed-use and very high-density residential uses nearest the Travel Plaza. These noise monitoring data are inclusive of vehicle passby noise on El Centro Road, including heavy truck passby events associated with the Travel Plaza, but also include background noise from I-80. Noise measurement Site 11 was specifically selected to be representative of noise generated at the Travel Plaza, but it also includes noise from traffic on I-80. Analysis of the measured ambient noise data at these sites indicate that noise levels associated with the Travel Plaza were elevated. Based on the measured ambient noise level data, it is possible that noise from activities at the Travel Plaza could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime and nighttime standards at residential uses proposed in the immediate vicinity of the Travel Plaza. As a result, the potential exists for a non-CEQA impact with respect to existing noise sources adversely affecting proposed noise-sensitive receptors.
15 - Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan 15-71 PLNP2018-00284
To address this impact, Noise Control Measure NOI-8 is prescribed below, and would require that a noise impact study be prepared by a qualified noise consultant once sitespecific development plans are completed that addresses the impact of noise generated by the Travel Plaza noise generation residential components proposed adjacent to either El Centro Road near the Travel Plaza or on properties immediately adjacent to the Travel Plaza. With the implementation of this noise control measure, the adverse effects of stationary noise from existing commercial operations at the Travel Plaza at proposed sensitive uses near the Travel Plaza would be ameliorated.

NOISE CONTROL MEASURES
NOI-8 To satisfy the Sacramento County General Plan 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard at the outdoor activity areas of future residential uses proposed within the plan area, a noise impact study that addresses Travel Plaza noise generation shall be completed by a qualified noise consultant once sitespecific development plans are completed for the residential components of the project located adjacent to either El Centro Road near the Travel Plaza or on properties immediately adjacent to the Travel Plaza. The noise impact study shall include an analysis of existing Travel Plaza noise exposure at the nearest proposed uses within the plan area. The analysis shall include associated measures (as appropriate) to reduce Travel Plaza noise levels to a state of compliance with applicable Sacramento County General Plan exterior and interior noise level limits at nearby proposed uses. Specific measures could include but are not limited to the following:
 The construction of solid noise barriers that effectively attenuate Travel Plaza noise exposure to a state of compliance with the applicable noise limits at existing sensitive receptors.
 A site design that integrates intervening shielding and setbacks.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-1 PLNP2018-00284
16 POPULATION AND HOUSING

INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates effects related to population and housing 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. This chapter also describes existing employment levels and the existing jobs/housing relationship in Sacramento County and evaluates the potential for employment increases that would result from implementation of the proposed UWSP to potentially result in substantial changes to the jobs/housing relationship.

While an EIR may provide information regarding economic and social changes resulting from a project, which may include land use, socioeconomic, population, employment, or housing issues, CEQA does not recognize these issues as direct physical effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(d)(1)(e)). Environmental effects that could result from changes in population related to the proposed UWSP are evaluated and disclosed in the appropriate topical chapters in this Draft EIR.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received several comments related to population and housing.

Comments from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) noted that the proposed UWSP and the UWSP area itself are not anticipated for development in either the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) or the Sacramento Region Blueprint. The comments stated, however, that the proposed UWSP’s concept of higher densities and mixed use in and around the proposed UWSP Town Center District is supportive of Blueprint principles, including the principles of housing choice and diversity. On this topic, the comments noted that most of the proposed UWSP’s contribution to housing choice and diversity is contingent upon the proposed mixed-use Town Center District developing as planned. SACOG stated there is a potential risk that the Town Center District could develop as employment-only uses due to the challenges of bringing vertical mixed-use products to market in a developing community. Comments from SACOG included additional related comments pertaining to land use, transportation, natural resources conservation, and other topics, which are discussed in this and other applicable chapters of this Draft EIR.

Comments from the City of Sacramento stated that the proposed UWSP and the UWSP area are not anticipated for development in the MTP/SCS, and the proposed UWSP would remove barriers to development and bring development to an area that has not been included in the long-range plans approved by the County or the City. The City’s comments stated that, in addition to analyzing the effects of the proposed UWSP itself, the EIR should carefully evaluate the growth-inducing effects of the proposed UWSP.

The City stated that, for example, the proposed UWSP would require at least the 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-2 PLNP2018-00284
extension of urban utilities to the UWSP area, which currently lacks sufficient water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy infrastructure to support the proposed development. The City’s comments stated that CEQA recognizes that the extension of urban infrastructure to a site or area may lead to future development in nearby areas that, as a result of the infrastructure extension, may now feasibly extend and connect, thus leading to additional new development and associated environmental effects. The growth inducing effects of the proposed UWSP are discussed in Chapter 24, Other CEQA Considerations.

Comments received from the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) stated that the EIR should evaluate and state whether implementation of the proposed UWSP would result in a direct or net loss of Countywide affordable housing and/or affect the County’s contribution to regional affordable housing needs. The comments stated that the EIR should identify mitigation for any loss of affordable housing.

Comments received from Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) stated that SacRT recognizes and supports the UWSP objective to provide a variety of housing choices in varying densities, as higher-density housing is supportive of transit.

The information and analysis included in this chapter was developed based on a review of the Draft Upper Westside Specific Plan, the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, the Sacramento County Housing Element of 2021−2029, the Sacramento County Zoning Code, and the SACOG MTP/SCS.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

PHYSICAL SETTING
As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, agriculture is the predominant 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 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.

POPULATION TRENDS
Sacramento County is a member jurisdiction of SACOG, which comprises six counties and 22 cities. Table PH-1 shows the population of Sacramento County as compared to the other counties in the SACOG region. Sacramento County’s 6.2 percent population growth between 2015 and 2022 was the third highest increase behind Yuba County’s 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-3 PLNP2018-00284

10.8 percent growth and Placer County’s 10.2 growth during this same period. Sutter County experienced the lowest population growth (2.9 percent) between 2015 and 2022.

Table PH-1: Regional Population Trends (2010−2022)
Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2022
Percent
Change
2010−2015
Percent
Change
2015−2022
El Dorado County 181,058 183,172 190,465 1.2% 4.0%
Placer County 348,432 371,326 409,025 6.6% 10.2%
Sacramento County 1,418,788 1,484,379 1,576,618 4.6% 6.2% Sutter County 94,737 96,383 99,145 1.7% 2.9%
Yolo County 200,849 211,361 221,165 5.2% 4.6%
Yuba County 72,155 74,282 82,275 3.0% 10.8%
SOURCES: County of Sacramento 2022; DOF 2022.

Table PH-2 shows the population of the incorporated cities within Sacramento County as well as the population of the unincorporated area. The cities of Rancho Cordova and Folsom had the highest percentage population growth between 2015 and 2022.

Between 2015 and 2022, the population of unincorporated Sacramento County increased from 579,180 to 604,272, an increase of 25,092 persons (or 4.3 percent).

Table PH-2: City and County Population Growth (2010−2022) Jurisdiction 2010 2015 2022
Percent
Change
2010−2015
Percent
Change
2015−2022
Citrus Heights 83,301 86,152 86,367 3.4% 0.2%
Elk Grove 153,015 164,369 176,972 7.4% 7.7%
Folsom 72,203 75,687 84,592 4.8% 11.8%
Galt 23,647 24,856 25,239 5.1% 1.5%
Isleton 804 826 780 2.7% -5.6%
Rancho Cordova 64,776 70,006 80,359 8.1% 14.8%
Sacramento City 466,488 483,303 518,037 3.6% 7.2%
Unincorporated
Sacramento County
554,554 579,180 604,272 4.4% 4.3%
Total 1,418,788 1,484,379 1,576,618 4.6% 6.2%
SOURCES: County of Sacramento 2022; DOF 2022.
16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-4 PLNP2018-00284

HOUSING
The economic recession of 2008 caused a downturn in housing values and new-home construction across the Sacramento region, in line with general statewide and national trends. However, the region has subsequently experienced a period of economic growth. In addition, housing values across the region are considerably lower than in the Bay Area. As such, the Sacramento region remains a more affordable housing option for people working and commuting to other regions in Northern California.

According to the California Department of Finance, there are 227,590 housing units in unincorporated Sacramento County in 2022 and a vacancy rate of 3.7 percent (DOF 2022). Table PH-3 shows the change in housing unit type in Sacramento County between 2010 and 2022.

Table PH-3: Housing Units by Type in Unincorporated Sacramento County 2010 2015 2022
Percent
Change
2010−2015
Percent
Change
2010−2022
Single-Family Detached 141,152 142,273 147,390 0.79% 3.60% Single-Family Attached 14,064 14,074 14,231 0.07% 1.12% Two to Four 18,533 18,561 18,814 0.15% 1.36%
Five+ 39,219 39,749 40,281 1.35% 1.34%
Mobile Home 6,653 6,698 6,874 0.68% 2.63%
Total 219,621 221,355 227,590 0.79% 2.82%
SOURCES: County of Sacramento 2022; DOF 2022.

EMPLOYMENT
According to the Sacramento County Housing Element of 2021−2029, there were 249,282 jobs in unincorporated Sacramento County in 2017. As shown in Table 12 of the Housing Element, the 2020 Economic Overview for the entire County projects that the educational services, health care, and social assistance industries will be the fastest growing sectors between 2020 and 2023. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the unemployment rate of Sacramento County in the short term; however, the long-term impacts on employment rate are not yet known (County of Sacramento 2022).

JOBS/HOUSING RELATIONSHIP
The jobs-housing relationship is a concept that describes the ratio of residences (or households) to employment in a particular geographically defined area. A low jobshousing ratio (i.e., few jobs relative to the number of households in the area) indicates that many workers commute out of their area of residence to another location for employment. In areas containing a high jobs-housing ratio (i.e., many jobs for the number of households in the area), jobs are filled by workers who commute from 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-5 PLNP2018-00284
outside the area. A jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 reflects that there is one job available per household and is considered to be in “balance.” Areas with low jobs-housing ratios are likely to generate more and longer home-to-work commutes.

When assuming that the affordability of housing and the range of employment income in the local market are paired reasonably closely, if the quantity and proximity of housing units is proportionate to the quantity and proximity of jobs, the majority of employees would be able to work and reside in the same community. A more balanced relationship between jobs and housing can help reduce the number of vehicle trips and overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of shorter commutes to employment within the same proximate residential areas. Such a reduction in vehicle trips and VMT would tend to reduce levels of air pollutant emissions (including greenhouse gas emissions) and create less vehicular congestion on area roadways and intersections (i.e., fewer automobiles on the roads). The availability of an adequate housing supply, presenting a range of price levels that include reasonably affordable prices for local employees, could potentially reduce commute mileage between homes and work sites.

In 2022, there were approximately 699,500 employees in Sacramento County and 595,939 housing units. This generates a jobs/housing ratio of 1.2 (State of California, Employment Development Department 2022).

REGIONAL PROJECTIONS
SACOG is an association of local governments in the six-county Sacramento region that includes El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties. 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 greenhouse gas (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 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.

Table PH-4 summarizes projections from the 2020 MTP/SCS for population, employment, and housing in the six-county Sacramento region through 2040.

Table PH-5 summarizes projections from the 2020 MTP/SCS for population, employment, and housing in unincorporated Sacramento County through 2040. 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-6 PLNP2018-00284
Table PH-4: SACOG Population, Employment, and Housing Projections for the Sacramento Region
Year Population Employees Housing Units
2016 2,376,311 1,060,742 921,142
2040 2,996,832 1,332,308 1,181,270
Percent Increase 26% 26% 28%
SOURCE: SACOG 2019.

Table PH-5: SACOG Population, Employment, and Housing Projections for Unincorporated Sacramento County
Year Population Employees Housing Units
2016 577,323 205,391 223,991
2040 669,296 252,834 262,697
Percent Increase 16% 23% 17%
SOURCE: SACOG 2019.

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL

FAIR HOUSING ACT
The federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), enacted in 1968, prohibits discrimination by direct providers of housing, such as property owners and real estate companies as well as other entities, such as municipalities, banks or other lending institutions and homeowners insurance companies whose discriminatory practices make housing unavailable to persons because of race or color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability.

STATE

CALIFORNIA HOUSING ELEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS

ASSESSMENT
California law (Government Code Section 65580, et seq.) requires cities and counties to include a Housing Element as a part of their General Plans to address housing conditions and needs in the community. Housing Elements are prepared approximately every eight years, following timetables set forth in the law. The Housing Element must identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and “make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-7 PLNP2018-00284
community,” among other requirements. The County adopted its current Housing Element on March 8, 2022 (County of Sacramento 2022).

In accordance with California housing law, a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is established for each region in the state by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The RHNA for the 2021−2029 planning period for SACOG’s six-county region is 153,512 housing units.

The overall allocation of housing units is divided into four income categories:
 Very low-income: up to 50 percent of median countywide income, which also includes extremely low-income at less than 30 percent of median countywide income (Health and Safety Code Section 50105);
 Low-income: 50 to 80 percent of median countywide income (Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5);
 Moderate-income: 80 to 120 percent of median countywide income (Health and Safety Code Section 50093); and
 Above moderate-income: over 120 percent of median countywide income.

Due to unmet needs for housing, the state and regional housing projections are substantially higher than in prior periods. The 2021−2029 RHNA for unincorporated Sacramento County is 21,272 new units, which is an increase of 7,428 units over the previous 2013−2021 planning period of 13,844 units. As a percentage of the 153,512 units in the SACOG region, unincorporated Sacramento County is assigned approximately 14 percent of units. The unincorporated Sacramento County allocation is a one percent increase from its regional share in the prior cycle. And, while the overall number of units allocated to the unincorporated County is substantially increased (including the total number of affordable units needed), the share of very low- and lowincome units decreased by 5.1 percent from 38.7 to 33.6 percent from the previous cycle allocation.

LOCAL
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. The Housing Element is one of eight mandatory elements of the General Plan. The purpose of the Housing Element is to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all income groups; to include goals, policies and programs to address the identified needs; and to provide enough sites for new housing development to occur during the 2021−2029 planning period. The County adopted its current Housing Element on March 8, 2022 (County of 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-8 PLNP2018-00284
Sacramento 2022). The following policies from the Housing and Land Use elements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

HOUSING
HE 1.1.1 The County will provide an adequate supply of land for housing affordable to all income groups with public services and facilities needed to facilitate the development of housing to accommodate projected housing needs based on the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan. The Plan requires that the County accommodate 4,466 very low-income units, 2,692 low-income units, 4,186 moderate-income units, and 9,928 above moderate-income units.

HE 2.2.2 The County will provide flexibility of development standards, or flexibility within the adopted development ordinances, to accommodate residential projects that provide housing that helps to address identified needs in the County.

HE 7.1.2 The County shall promote fair housing choice for all residents regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital status, source of income, disability or familial status.

HE 7.1.3 The County will encourage the development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, or areas which offer low-income families the best chance at economic advancement, high educational attainment, and good physical and mental health. The County will accomplish this by rezoning sites to allow multifamily uses in high and moderate resource areas during the Countywide Rezone Program.

HE 7.1.5 The County shall work to make all communities places of opportunity and encourage future investments and development while minimizing the involuntary displacement of vulnerable populations, such as low-income households, People of Color, seniors, and people with disabilities due to the influx of less vulnerable populations attracted by increased opportunities and/or investments.

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

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.
16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-9 PLNP2018-00284
LU-120 The County shall only consider approval of a proposed UPA 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:
 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/Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Reduction Metric

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY AND SACRAMENTO REGION

BLUEPRINT
The focus of the SACOG 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 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 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-10 PLNP2018-00284
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.

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.

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 population and housing may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or  Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-11 PLNP2018-00284

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

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The proposed UWSP’s effects related to population and housing are evaluated by assessing anticipated population growth under the proposed UWSP in relation to adopted regional and local growth projections, including projections included in the SACOG MTP/SCS. While an EIR may provide information regarding economic and social changes resulting from a project, which may include land use, socioeconomic, population, employment, or housing issues, CEQA does not recognize these issues as direct physical effects on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(d)(1)(e)).

Environmental effects that could result from changes in population related to the proposed UWSP are evaluated and disclosed in the appropriate topical chapter in this Draft EIR.

IMPACT PH-1: INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL UNPLANNED POPULATION GROWTH As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the UWSP would guide development on 2,066± acres of unincorporated land in northwestern Sacramento County. A summary of proposed land uses within the UWSP area is included in Table PD-1. As shown, the portion of the plan area set aside for urban development would total 1,532 acres, or approximately 75 percent of the UWSP area, while the portion of the UWSP area set aside for the Ag Buffer would total 534 acres, or about 25 percent of the area. Overall, the UWSP would include 9,356 dwelling units with an estimated population of 25,578 residents and approximately 3.1 million square feet of non-residential space.

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).

SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
As discussed in Chapter 14, Land Use, 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 Urban Services Boundary (USB) and the Urban Policy Area (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 promote orderly growth and the efficient extension of infrastructure and the provision of urban services. The Sacramento County 2030 General Plan includes a framework for 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-12 PLNP2018-00284
considering requests to expand the 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 in the Regulatory Setting above).

As discussed in Chapter 14, Land Use, the proposed UWSP would be generally consistent with General Plan policies intended to protect the environment. 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 Sacramento County 2030 General Plan policies related to urban growth and expansion of the UPA. Consequently, the proposed UWSP would not induce substantial unplanned population growth as defined in the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan.

SACOG BLUEPRINT AND MTP/SCS
As previously noted in the Introduction of this chapter, the UWSP area is not anticipated for development in either the Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS. Chapter 14, Land Use, includes an evaluation of the proposed UWSP’s consistency with SACOG’s MTP/SCS and Blueprint. This discussion includes the relevant portions of the aforementioned evaluation that are pertinent to population and housing.

With regard to housing choice and diversity, the Blueprint includes the principle that providing a variety of places where people can live (e.g., 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. Consistent with this principle, 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 Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Residential within the Town Center District. This approach allows for a diverse range of lifestyles to all be included within one community and housing types to meet a variety of income levels.

With regard to mixed-use development, the Blueprint includes the principle that 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. Consistent with this principle, the 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, etc.). The anticipated residential density would allow four story apartments while the anticipated commercial intensity would allow four or five-story mid-rise office or hotel buildings. 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-13 PLNP2018-00284
As discussed in Chapter 14, Land Use, while the UWSP area is not anticipated for development in either the Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS, the proposed UWSP aligns with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint, including principles related to housing choice and diversity and mixed-use development.

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
A discussed in the Environmental Setting above, and in Chapter 14, Land Use, the 2021−2029 RHNA Plan identifies the need for a total 21,272 units within the unincorporated portions of Sacramento County to accommodate the projected overall housing demand, and allocates 7,158 units, or 33.6 percent, of this projected housing demand to the very low and low-income affordable housing categories. The proposed UWSP is required to accommodate greater than 90 percent of its share of the unincorporated County’s proportional obligation of low- and very low-income residential units of the current RHNA. Ninety percent of 33.6 percent is 30.24 percent. The seven high-density sites and one of the mixed-use sites in the UWSP area would meet the criteria for providing affordable housing and would accommodate a total of up to 2,137 units. This accounts for 34.8 percent of the units in the UWSP area and satisfies the proposed UWSP’s share of the County’s overall RHNA obligation.

JOBS-HOUSING RELATIONSHIP
The UWSP area is in close proximity to existing job centers. According to SACOG, there are over 200,000 existing jobs within 5 miles of the plan area. In addition, the UWSP land use plan proposes a balanced, mixed-use community with approximately

3.10 million square feet of employment and commercial uses, schools, services and other uses that will provide on-site jobs. As a result, home to work trips would be concentrated within the North Natomas area. The location of the UWSP area in relation to existing job centers and the degree of onsite capture will result in less VMT and GHG emissions, critical to meeting important regional air quality and climate action goals.

As discussed in the Environmental Setting above, in 2022, there were approximately 699,500 employees in Sacramento County and 595,939 housing units. This generates a jobs/housing ratio of 1.2 (State of California, Employment Development Department 2022). The proposed UWSP would include 9,356 dwelling units and employmentgenerating land uses (e.g., commercial, mixed-use, school) that would accommodate approximately 10,300 employees. The internal jobs/housing ratio would be approximately 0.91 jobs per housing unit. The proposed UWSP jobs-housing relationship would largely be balanced.

SUMMARY
As a condition of approval of the USWP, the proposed UWSP and subsequent development would be consistent with Sacramento County 2030 General Plan policies related to urban growth and expansion of the USB and UPA. Consequently, the proposed UWSP would not induce substantial unplanned population growth as identified in the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan. The UWSP area and the proposed UWSP were not anticipated for development in either the SACOG Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS. However, as demonstrated above, the proposed UWSP aligns 16 - Population and Housing
Upper Westside Specific Plan 16-14 PLNP2018-00284
with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint and the County’s smart growth policy LU-120. Finally, as discussed above, the proposed UWSP’s jobs-housing relationship would largely be balanced, and thus would not result in a more substantial increase GHG emissions, traffic congestion, and a variety of other environmental effects. In particular, the proposed UWSP would make it possible for employees generated by the project to live close to their jobs and thereby avoid seeking housing in other, more distant communities. For these reasons, the proposed UWSP would not be anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population growth. However, because the UWSP area and the proposed UWSP were not anticipated for development in either the SACOG Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None available.

IMPACT PH-2: DISPLACEMENT OF HOUSING
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. The proposed UWSP does not propose changes to these properties, nor would the uses allowed under the proposed UWSP cause the displacement of housing.

Rather, the proposed UWSP would substantially add new housing to the UWSP area.

Consequently, the impact related to displacement of housing would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-1 PLNP2018-00284
17 PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses existing public services available in the vicinity of the UWSP area and analyzes the effects of implementation of the proposed UWSP on those services. The services evaluated in this chapter include police protection, fire protection, public schools, libraries, and parks and recreation.

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 as well as the general public. Comments related police and fire protection services requested that an assessment be conducted to ensure that service providers have the service capability and capacity to serve the UWSP area, and whether they can provide services to the plan area without adversely affecting existing service levels elsewhere in their respective service areas.

With respect to schools, comments requested that the impacts of residential development on existing school services and facilities be studied, as well as impacts that could result if there are insufficient school sites near students’ homes. Furthermore, commenters requested that appropriate survey work be conducted to establish an environmental baseline on which to base the impact discussion. Finally, the Natomas Unified School District (NUSD) requested that language be included that requires the developer to enter into an agreement with the NUSD to fully mitigate and address the costs associated with housing students generated by the proposed development, and that the analysis address which schools would serve residents that may be located outside of the UWSP area, including those that may serve the area while schools are built.

Comments related to parks and recreation requested that the analysis address whether detention basins would be considered for joint use as parks. Furthermore, comments also stated that parks should incorporate connections to adjacent uses, and that the proposed urban farms should operate as private facilities.

Finally, with respect to libraries, comments requested that a community center and library be provided within the UWSP area, and that, until library and recreational facilities are constructed and operational in the plan area, that the analysis address service impacts to existing nearby library facilities as well as how additional demand for services would be funded.

The information and analysis included in this chapter was developed based on a review of the Upper Westside Specific Plan, relevant policies of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, the City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City of Sacramento 2040 Parks Plan, as well as the City of Sacramento Public Library, Department of Parks and Recreation, and Fire Department websites. Additionally, Sacramento County Sheriff and City of Sacramento Fire Department staff members were consulted.
17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-2 PLNP2018-00284

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

POLICE PROTECTION
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office currently provides law enforcement services within the UWSP area and would continue to do so upon implementation of the proposed UWSP. The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office provides service to unincorporated portions of Sacramento County, or a total of 944 square miles, and is headquartered in the Sheriff's Office Community Services Building located at 4510 Orange Grove Avenue in North Highlands, approximately 10 miles east of the UWSP area. The Sheriff’s Department currently has a sworn force of 1,250 deputies and a civilian force of 660 personnel.

The Sheriff’s Department is organized into three divisions: North, Central and East. The UWSP area is located in Northwest District 1 of the North Division, a subarea that wraps around the northerly edge of the of the Sacramento city limits and stretches between the Sacramento River and I-80 on the east, and the Sutter County line to the north. The North Division operates out of two facilities, the Community Services Building in North Highlands, and the Garfield Station, located at 5510 Garfield Avenue in Foothill Farms, approximately 11 miles east of the UWSP area. District 1 currently has a staff of approximately 20-22 officers serving the area (O’Brien, pers. comm. 2022).

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
The California Highway Patrol is responsible for law enforcement along I-80, which runs along the southeastern edge of the UWSP area. Following a merger in 1995, California Highway Patrol also protects State property, such as the State Capitol, as well as State employees, the Governor, and other dignitaries. CHP operations in Sacramento are headquartered at 1801 9th Street, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the UWSP area.

FIRE PROTECTION
SACRAMENTO FIRE DEPARTMENT – NATOMAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Natomas Fire Protection District currently provides fire protection and emergency medical services within the UWSP area through a contract with the City of Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) and would continue to do so after approval of the proposed UWSP (LAFCo 2010). The SFD operates 24 fire stations and provides service to a total area of 146 square miles. In 2020, it responded to approximately 80,000 calls (SFD 2022). In the 2021-2022 fiscal year, SFD was budgeted with approximately 717.50 full time equivalent positions, comprised of the following staffing levels: three staff in the Office of the Fire Chief Division, 614 staff in the Fire Ops/Emergency Medical Services Division, 35.50 in the Training/Professional Standards Division, 51 in the Tech Services Division, and 14 in the fire Administrative Services Division (City of Sacramento 2022a). 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-3 PLNP2018-00284
The UWSP area is currently served by multiple stations in North and South Natomas.

The closest fire station to the UWSP plan area is Station 43, located at 4201 El Centro Road bordering the northeastern edge of the UWSP area. Station 43 received a call volume of approximately 1951 dispatches in 2017 (SFD 2018). Other stations in the vicinity include Station 3, located at 7208 West Elkhorn Boulevard, approximately five miles northwest of the UWSP area, and Station 15, located at 1640 West El Camino Avenue, approximately two miles southeast of the plan area. In 2017, Stations 3 and 15 received call volumes of about 916 and 4,117 dispatches, respectively (SFD 2018). In 2017, the average response time for engines in the service area was approximately 5 minutes (SFD 2018).

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The UWSP area is located entirely within the boundaries of the NUSD. The NUSD currently operates 19 schools:
 Five elementary schools, all of which serve grades K–5 and one of which is a charter school;
 Six K–8 schools, one of which is a charter school;
 Two middle schools, one of which is a charter school;  Four high schools, one of which is a charter school, with three schools serving grades 9–12 and one school serving grades 6–12;
 One charter school serving grades K–12; and
 One school that is operated as a virtual academy (NUSD 2022).

In the 2021–2022 school year, NUSD had an enrollment of 8,276 elementary school students (K–6), 2,486 middle school students (7–8), and 5,347 high school students (9–12) for a district total of 16,109 enrolled students (NUSD 2022). Table PS-1 lists enrollment and capacity data for NUSD by school level.

The northern portion of the UWSP area is located within the attendance boundaries of Witter Ranch Elementary School (grades Transitional Kindergarten-5), located at 3790 Poppy Hill Way, and Inderkum High School (grades 9-12), located at 2500 New Market Drive, while the southern portion of the plan area within the attendance boundaries of Two Rivers Elementary School (grades Transitional Kindergarten-5), located at 3201 West River Drive, and Natomas High School (grades 9-12), located at 3301 Fong Ranch Road. The entire UWSP area is located within the attendance boundaries of Natomas Middle School (grades 6-8), located at 3200 North Park Drive.

Table PS-2 presents enrollment and capacity data for the schools that serve the UWSP area.
17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-4 PLNP2018-00284
Table PS-1: Natomas Unified School District Schools, Enrollment, and Capacities School Level1
2021–2022
Facilities
Design
Capacity
2021–2022
Student
Enrollment2
Excess/
(Shortage)
Capacity
Elementary School (Grades K–6) 9,973 8,276 1,697
Middle School (Grades 7–8) 3,305 2,486 819
High School (Grades 9–12) 5,066 5,347 (281)
Total 18,344 16,109 2,235
NOTES:
1 Natomas Unified School District (NUSD) operates elementary schools that serve grades K–5 and middle schools that serve grades 6–8. To compare this capacity and enrollment consistent with State Allocation Board Form 50-02, the NUSD school-level configuration was altered for the purposes of this calculation.
2 Student enrollment for this calculation was taken from Fall 2021.

SOURCE: Cooperative Strategies 2022. Page 15.

Table PS-2: Natomas Unified School District Schools, Enrollment, and Capacities in the UWSP Area
School Name
Design
Capacity1
Current
Enrollment2
Excess
Capacity
Witter Ranch Elementary School 1,050 587 463
Two Rivers Elementary School 930 596 334
Inderkum High School
Natomas High School
Natomas Middle School
2,146
2,407
1,131
2,347
1,203
619
(201)
1,204
512
SOURCES:
1 City of Sacramento 2015. Page 5-69.
2 California Department of Education 2022.

Furthermore, through the open enrollment process, students living within the boundaries of NUSD can also apply for enrollment at other NUSD schools, depending on the availability of enrollment capacity at those facilities.

PARKS AND RECREATION
The UWSP area is not currently located within the boundary of a parks and recreation district and no parks are located directly within the plan area. However, local parks, such as neighborhood and community parks, owned and maintained by the City of 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-5 PLNP2018-00284
Sacramento Department of Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment, are located nearby within North and South Natomas. In addition, regional parks owned and maintained by the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks are located within two miles of the of the UWSP area.

The City of Sacramento Department of Youth, Parks, and Community Enrichment maintains approximately 4,265 acres of park land, including a mix of regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, and parkways. There are 127 soccer fields, 138 group picnic areas, 213 play structures, and 19 community centers in parks throughout the City (City of Sacramento 2022b).

Within a 1-mile radius of the UWSP area, there are approximately 20 parks, comprising a total of 160 acres of parklands. The closest parks to the UWSP area include River Otter Park, located directly adjacent to the southeastern edge of the UWSP area, Peregrine Park, located directly adjacent to the eastern edge of the area, and San Juan Reservoir Park, located directly adjacent to the northwestern edge of the area.

REGIONAL PARKS
The UWSP area is served by Sacramento County’s Department of Regional Parks. The Department maintains and operates more than 15,000 acres of parks throughout the county, including open spaces, multi-use trails, sports facilities, golf courses, river access, and picnic areas (County of Sacramento Department of Regional Parks 2022).

There are no County-managed regional parks within the UWSP plan area. However, there are regional parks within the vicinity of the UWSP area. A description of these facilities is provided below.

NORTH NATOMAS REGIONAL PARK
North Natomas Regional Park is located approximately 1.6 miles to the northeast of the UWSP area. The park is 212.3 acres in size and includes baseball/softball/little league facilities, bikeways, bridges, dog parks, a farmer’s market, a lake, picnic area, walkways, a stage, and play areas.

SACRAMENTO RIVER PARKWAY
The Sacramento River is located along the western edge of the proposed UWSP area.

The river is a popular location for recreational fishing and boating activities. Access via motorized vehicle to the Sacramento River is limited by the Union Pacific Railroad rightof-way, private industrial properties, I-5, and the highly variable water elevations of the river. Although access to the levee along urbanized portions is difficult due to the steep nature of the levees and proximity of adjacent uses, fishing and other natural recreational uses continue to be popular in the area. The Sacramento River Parkway currently exists as a walking and bicycling trail that runs from the confluence of the American River, where it connects with the Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail in the north and extends to Captains Table Road in the Little Pocket neighborhood to the south. 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-6 PLNP2018-00284

AMERICAN RIVER PARKWAY
The American River Parkway is located approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the UWSP area. The Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail extends for approximately 20 miles east to Folsom Lake and provides opportunities for bicycle and pedestrian uses, as well as picnic areas and camping. Discovery Park, Paradise Beach, William B. Pond Recreation Area, River Bend Park, Ancil Hoffman Park, Rossmoor Bar, Sacramento Bar, Sailor Bar, Mississippi Bar, and Negro Bar are located along the Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail and provide additional recreational opportunities in the Parkway.

LIBRARIES
The Sacramento Public Library System, which is operated by the Sacramento Public Library Authority, provides library services to the residents of Sacramento County. The library system is comprised of interdependent branches providing services to all residents. Branches are grouped by services, geography, and usage patterns to provide efficient and economical services to the residents of the county. The Sacramento Public Library serves the County of Sacramento, as well as the incorporated cities of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Galt, and Isleton.

The South Natomas and North Natomas libraries are the closest branches to the UWSP area (Sacramento Public Library 2022a). The South Natomas Library is located at 2901 Truxel Road, approximately 1.3 miles from the eastern edge of the UWSP area. It offers 17 internet workstations and a meeting room with a capacity of 57 patrons (Sacramento Public Library 2022b). The North Natomas Library is located at 4660 Via Ingoglia, approximately 1.8 miles from the northern edge of the plan area. This library offers 92 internet workstations, four early learning workstations, three study rooms, one quiet room, and a meeting room with a capacity of 140 patrons (Sacramento Public Library 2022c). The North Natomas Library is currently operated in coordination with the Los Rios Community College District and is shared between Inderkum High School and the Natomas Center satellite campus of American River College.

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
There are no federal policies or regulations applicable to the analysis of public services.

STATE

ESSENTIAL SERVICES BUILDING ACT
The Essential Services Building Act of 1986, found in Chapter 2, Section 16000 of the California Health and Safety Code, applies to fire stations, police stations and other public facilities that respond to emergencies. It is intended to ensure that essential services buildings are capable of providing essential services to the public after a disaster, are designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards, and are capable of resisting, insofar 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-7 PLNP2018-00284
as practical, the forces generated by earthquakes and winds. In addition, nonstructural components vital to the operation of essential services buildings must be able to resist, insofar as practical, the forces created by earthquakes, fire, and wind.

CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION In accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 1270 (“Fire Prevention”) and 6773 (“Fire Protection and Fire Equipment”), California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established minimum standards for fire suppression and Emergency Medical Services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, requirements for the sizing of fire hoses, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment.

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
State fire regulations are set forth in Sections 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, which includes regulations for building standards (as set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers, smoke alarms, high-rise building, childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.

UNIFORM FIRE CODE
The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) provides regulations involving construction, maintenance, and the use of buildings, and is the primary fire code throughout the United States. This code is used in the development of the California Fire Code as well. Topics addressed in the UFC include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and the surrounding premises. The UFC contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. Sprinkler system standards and requirements for different types of buildings, including hospitals, are provided in the UFC.

CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
California Fire Code Section 5306 requires the storage of medical gas systems to occur within dedicated areas that involve no other uses or storage. Section 1103 provides fire safety requirements for existing buildings and Section 1103.7.3.1 additionally states that hospital facilities that do not have an automatic sprinkler system must provide automatic fire alarm system that responds to the products of combustion other than heat. All buildings are also now required to provide automatic sprinkler systems.

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FACILITY PROGRAM
Proposition 1A/Senate Bill (SB) 50 (Chapter 407, Statues of 1998) is a school construction funding measure that was approved by voters on November 3, 1998.

SB 50 created the School Facility Program enabling eligible school districts to obtain state bond funds. State funding requires matching local funds that generally come from 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-8 PLNP2018-00284
developer fees. The passage of SB 50 eliminated the ability of cities and counties to require full mitigation of school impacts and replaced it with the ability for school districts to assess fees directly to offset the costs associated with increasing school capacity as a result of new development. The old “Stirling” fees were incorporated into SB 50 and are referred to as Level 1 fees.

As of January 2020, the State Allocation Board authorized an adjustment in the Statutory School Fee amounts (Level 1 fees) for unified school districts pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(b)(3) to $4.08 per square foot for new residential development and $0.66 per square foot for commercial and industrial (non-residential) development (Lozano Smith 2020). Districts meeting certain criteria may collect Level 2 fees as an alternative to Level 1 fees. Level 2 fees are calculated under a formula in SB 50. Level 3 fees are approximately double Level 2 fees and are implemented only when the State Allocation Board is not apportioning state bond funds. The passage of Proposition 51 on November 8, 2016 authorized an additional $9 billion in general obligation bonds for the construction and modernization of schools across California.

These fees and state funding together do not always fully fund new school facilities; however, SB 50 states that, for the purposes of CEQA, payment of developer fees are “deemed to be complete and full mitigation” of the impacts of new development.

CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE
The California Education Code authorizes the California Department of Education (“Department”) to develop site selection standards for school districts. These standards are found in the California Code of Regulations and require that districts select a site that conforms to certain net acreage requirements established in the Department's 2000 “School Site Analysis and Development” guidebook. The Guide includes the assumption that the land purchased for school sites would be in a ratio of approximately 2 to 1 between the developed grounds and the building area. For example, for a school that houses kindergarten through sixth grade and has an enrollment of 600 children, the recommended acreage is 9.2 acres.

The Department's 2000 Guide includes exceptions to its recommended site size that allow smaller school sites. Additionally, the Department has the policy that if the “availability of land is scarce and real estate prices are exorbitant” the site size may be reduced. It is the Department's policy that if a school site is less than the recommended acreage required, the district shall demonstrate how the students would be provided an adequate educational program including physical education as described in the district's adopted course of study. Through careful planning, a reduced Plan Area school site could follow the recent trend of school downsizing and meet the Department's criteria.

QUIMBY ACT
California Government Code Section 66477, referred to as the Quimby Act, permits local jurisdictions to require the dedication of land and/or payment of in-lieu fees solely for park and recreation purposes. The required dedication and/or fee are based upon the residential density and housing type, land cost, and other factors. Land dedicated 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-9 PLNP2018-00284
and fees collected pursuant to the Quimby Act may be used for developing new, or rehabilitating existing, park or recreational facilities.

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

PF-28 Community and Specific Plans shall consider the needs of community colleges and address the feasibility and appropriateness of off-campus facilities, particularly in TODs [Transit Oriented Developments].

PF-29 Schools shall be planned as a focal point of neighborhood activity and interrelated with neighborhood retail uses, churches, neighborhood and community parks, greenways and off-street paths whenever possible.

PF-30 New elementary schools in the urban area should be planned whenever possible so that almost all residences will be within walking distance of the school (one mile or less) and all residences are within two miles of a school.

PF-31 Schools shall be planned adjacent to neighborhood parks whenever possible and designed to promote joint use of appropriate facilities. The interface between the school and park shall be planned with an open design and offer unobstructed views to promote safety.

PF-32 Elementary schools shall not be located along arterials and thoroughfares.

Junior high and high schools should be located near roadways with adequate capacity and should provide adequate facilities for the transport of students.

PF-33 New community college campuses and high schools within the urban service boundary shall be located along arterial or thoroughfare streets, with high priority to location adjacent to transportation corridors identified on the Transportation Plan Map.

PF-34 All school site plans shall be designed to minimize traffic speed and maximize traffic flow around the school, allowing for several access points to and from the site.

PF-35 New schools should link with planned bikeways and pedestrian paths wherever possible.

PF-38 Land dedications or reservations for schools should meet state guidelines for school parcel size. Where more than one owner or development project is involved, there shall be appropriate assurances and conditions to assure that requisite acreage can and will be assembled to meet facility site requirements. 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-10 PLNP2018-00284
PF-39 Specific Plans shall show the location of future school sites based upon adopted school district master plans and criteria in the General Plan.

PF-40 New and remodeled library facilities shall meet adopted standards for square footage and parcel size; materials and equipment; and services programs and staffing commensurate with the population served.

PF-46 Incorporate planned libraries into community and specific plans for new development.

PF-51 Plan and develop law enforcement facilities in keeping with overall needs and the distribution of growth.

PF-54 Require new development to install fire hydrants and associated water supply systems which meet the fire flow requirements of the appropriate fire district.

PF-55 New development shall provide access arrangements pursuant to the requirements of the California Fire Code.

PF-57 New development, redevelopment or traffic signal replacement shall require the installation of emergency signal activation systems in all street improvements requiring signalization when requested by a fire district.

PF-60 Require that structures of four stories or more in height provide on-site equipment and facilities to the satisfaction of the appropriate fire district, consistent with industry norms and standards.

PF-122 To help assure that local recreation and park district Master Plan standards for levels of service may be achieved and maintained, the County may require new development to dedicate land, pay in-lieu fees, development impact fees, or otherwise contribute a fair share to the acquisition and development of parks and recreation facilities.

PF-123 At a minimum, new residential developments approved by the County shall provide sites for local parks for their prospective residents consistent with the Quimby Act and the land dedication standards for each local recreation and park district adopted by Sacramento County in Chapter 22.40 of the Sacramento County Code. These requirements may be satisfied by land dedication, payment of fees in lieu of dedication, or on-site improvements per the provisions of Chapter 22.40, which will be regularly updated to reflect changing demography. These include the baseline standard of three acres of land for parks per 1,000 residents or in cases where existing parklands within a park district exceed three acres per 1,000 population, that higher ratio shall be the standard for new developments up to a maximum of five acres of land for parks per 1,000 residents based on calculations specified in SCC [Sacramento County Code] Chapter 22.40.
17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-11 PLNP2018-00284
PF-125 The County shall promote the provision of on-site recreational amenities and gathering places that are available to the public by large scale development projects and may consider providing incentives such as density bonuses or increases in building coverage for that purpose.

NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
The NUSD 2017 Facilities Master Plan (NUSD 2017) is used by the district to determine the needs and projects to be completed, both short and long-term, under possible future District general obligation bonds, state funding or developer-based fees, and provides a roadmap and vision of school sites 10–15 years into the future. The plan identifies the overall costs of immediate repairs and upgrades, expanding and transforming school sites, and adding new school sites throughout the district, as well as outlines the needs and amounts for future potential funding. The purpose of the 2017 Facilities Master Plan is to identify individual school site needs, update current projects, and identify needs of a growing and diverse community. School district enrollment projections, broken down by campus, are also provided in the plan to identify potential growth patterns in the district and provide adequate educational facilities and equipment.

LIBRARY FACILITY MASTER PLAN
The Library Facility Master Plan for the Sacramento Public Library Authority (2007-2025) sets forth general standards and criteria for the renovation and construction of all new libraries. Existing and future library needs are largely population driven (e.g., for every 30,000 residents in a community, at least one full-service library is required). Ideally, new libraries would have 0.4 to 0.6 square feet per capita with some basic minimum and maximum sizes. The Library Facility Master Plan also establishes preferred sizing and footprint and desirable components such as volumes and collection, meeting rooms, study areas, computer terminals, and so on. One of the most critical items for future library development is location, in which criteria such as land availability, cost, quality of the site, size, accessibility, and synergy with other public and private uses should be considered (Sacramento Public Library Authority 2007).

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 public services may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:
 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
 Fire protection;
17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-12 PLNP2018-00284
 Police protection;
 Schools;
 Parks; or
 Other public facilities.
 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

ISSUES NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER
All potential issues related to public services identified in the significance criteria above are evaluated below.

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

POLICE PROTECTION
The impact analysis for the provision of police protection services examines whether the proposed UWSP would require new or expanded police protection facilities to accommodate additional staffing or equipment, the construction of which would result in physical environmental effects. Increases in development have the potential to create the need for additional staff and/or police facilities. Maintaining adequate staffing levels ensures appropriate service levels and response times for police protection. This analysis uses the typical assumption of 1 police officer per every 1,000 residents in the UWSP area to determine the impact of the proposed UWSP. A need for increased staffing or equipment in and of itself is not grounds for a significant impact.

FIRE PROTECTION
The impact analysis for the provision of fire protection services determines whether the proposed UWSP would require new or expanded fire protection facilities, the construction of which would result in substantial adverse physical environmental effects.

The proposed UWSP would result in an increase in the number of residents, employees, and non-residential uses in the UWSP area. Increases in population and commercial activity in the UWSP area could result in a need for additional SFD staff, and/or a need for additional fire protection equipment or facilities. This analysis utilizes the assumption that construction of a new fire station is necessary from the generation of 16,000 residents or more in the Plan Area to determine the impact of the proposed UWSP (Tunson 2022). A need for increased staffing or equipment in and of itself is not grounds for a significant impact.
17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-13 PLNP2018-00284

PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Because future development that could generate increased enrollment is anticipated to occur solely within the boundaries of the NUSD, this analysis only addresses impacts to NUSD.

Student generation rates to calculate potential future student generation resulting from implementation of the proposed UWSP were taken from the NUSD School Facilities Needs Analysis (NUSD 2022). Table PS-3 provides details regarding student generation in the Plan Area.

Table PS-3: Student Generation Rates for Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, and Multi-family Units in the Plan Area
School Level
Single-Family
Detached Student
Generation Rates1
Single-Family
Attached Student
Generation Ratesa
Multi-Family
Student
Generation Ratesa
Elementary School 0.2090 0.0950 0.1400
Middle School 0.0933 0.0362 0.0600
High School 0.1159 0.0588 0.0900
Total 0.4182 0.1900 0.2900
NOTES:
1 Analysis for Natomas Unified School District dated February 2022.

SOURCE: NUSD 2022. pp. 10–12.

It should be noted that student enrollment levels may shift over time depending on the demographics of residential areas within the attendance zones of each school and may also be influenced by individual families’ decisions to send student to magnet schools, private schools, or open-enrollments schools in other districts.

PARKS AND RECREATION
This analysis considers whether an increase in use of public parks and recreation facilities resulting from the UWSP would cause the substantial physical deterioration of those facilities (e.g., damage to vegetation, accelerated wear on sports facilities and fields, or erosion along trails) or in the need for new or expanded facilities, the construction or operation of which would result in substantial adverse physical effects.

This analysis further considers whether implementation of the proposed UWSP would diminish or otherwise adversely affect recreational opportunities and existing facilities within the UWSP area based on facility capacity.

LIBRARIES
This analysis considers whether an increase in the use of library facilities resulting from the UWSP would cause the substantial physical deterioration of those facilities or in the 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-14 PLNP2018-00284
need for new or expanded facilities, the construction or operation of which would result in substantial adverse physical effects.

IMPACT PS-1: INCREASE DEMAND FOR POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES

WITHIN SACRAMENTO COUNTY
As discussed previously, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office would be responsible for police protection services throughout the UWSP area. The proposed UWSP would generate approximately 9,356 housing units and 25,460 residents. This increase in housing units and population would create an additional demand for police protection services within the UWSP area.

As described in the Environmental Setting above, the Sheriff’s Office Community Services Building and Garfield station provide police protection services to North Division, in which the UWSP area is located. Staffing levels at present are sufficient to provide efficient response per capita with very little wait time (O’Brien, pers. comm. 2022).

The proposed UWSP has identified a new 2.0-acre sheriff’s substation within land designated for Employment/Highway Commercial at the east end of Farm Road to provide a local presence for Sheriff’s Department staff. Note that as allowed by the proposed UWSP,
1 administrative modifications to the land use plan are allowed to reconfigure or realign land uses, including public facilities such as the sheriff’s substation. This proposed substation would support the population generated from the proposed UWSP. Based on the typical requirement of 1 police officer per every 1,000 residents, the UWSP could eventually require 26 new officers to serve the UWSP area.

The new sheriff’s substation would be constructed as part of Phase 3 of the development plan. The North Division of the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office service area, of which the UWSP area is part, has two existing stations which would adequately serve the plan area in the interim before substation buildout.

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

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed sheriff’s substation have been accounted for in the analysis, and the impact with respect to police protection services is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

1 See Section 3.5 and Section 8.8.4 of the proposed UWSP. 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-15 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT PS-2: INCREASE DEMAND FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES WITHIN

THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
As discussed previously, the SFD would be responsible for fire protection services throughout the UWSP area. The proposed UWSP would generate approximately 9,356 housing units and 25,460 residents. This increase in housing units and population would create an additional demand for fire protection within the UWSP area.

As mentioned above, the closest fire station to the UWSP area is Fire Station 43, located approximately 2.0 miles north of the intersection of El Centro Road and West El Camino Boulevard. Though the existing station is located centrally to provide adequate response times to future UWSP area residents, additional fire protection is needed based on the SFD’s standard of one station for every 16,000 new residents (Tunson 2022). Therefore, the increase in population associated with the proposed UWSP would require the construction of one new fire station. As part of the proposed UWSP, a site for a new fire station is reserved at the southeast corner of Bryte Bend Road and Street 2, approximately 2.7 miles from Station 43. Note that as allowed by the proposed UWSP,
2 administrative modifications to the land use plan are allowed to reconfigure or realign land uses, including public facilities such as the sheriff’s substation. The fire station would be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the development plan and would therefore have no impact on capacity of existing stations within the SFD service area. The site would be well-located to provide effective response times to future UWSP area residents.

As a new fire protection facility is proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, its impacts are included as part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant chapters of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible. Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed fire station have been accounted for in the analysis, and the impact with respect to fire protection services is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT PS-3: RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF SCHOOLS
As discussed previously, the NUSD would be responsible for education services throughout the UWSP area. Based on a potential introduction of 9,356 total dwelling units, the proposed plan could generate 2,799 students: 1,374 elementary school students, 588 middle school students, and 837 high school students (Table PS-4).

2 See Section 3.5 and Section 8.8.4 of the proposed UWSP. 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-16 PLNP2018-00284
Table PS-4: Student Generation Associated with the Proposed UWSP School Level
Student
Generation Rate1
Number of
Dwelling Units2
Students
Generated

SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
Elementary School 0.209 2,317 484
Middle School 0.0933 2,317 216
High School 0.1159 2,317 269

SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
Elementary School 0.095 2,122 202
Middle School 0.0362 2,122 77
High School 0.0588 2,122 125

MULTI-FAMILY
Elementary School 0.14 4,917 688
Middle School 0.06 4,917 295
High School 0.09 4,917 443
TOTALS
Elementary School – – 1,374
Middle School – – 588
High School – – 837
Total – – 2,799
NOTE:
1 Student Generation Rates were obtained from the Natomas Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis, February 2022.
2 Single-Family Detached assumed to include all units under the VLDR and LDR land use designations; Single-Family Attached assumed to include all units under the LMDR and MDR land use designations as well as those units set aside for the Missing Middle Reserve; and Multi-Family assumed to include all units under the HDR, VHDR, and CMU land uses designations.

SOURCE: Cooperative Strategies. 2022. Pages 10–12.

As shown in Table PS-1, during the 2021/2022 school year, Natomas Unified School District had a total excess capacity of 2,235 students consisting of 1,697 elementary school students and 819 middle school students, while the high school level is over enrolled by 281 high school students. Therefore, with the addition of 1,374 elementary school students and 588 middle school students generated by the proposed UWSP, there would be a remaining capacity of 323 elementary spots and 231 middle school spots. However, with respect to the high school capacity, the proposed UWSP would 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-17 PLNP2018-00284
generate 837 high school students, resulting in an over enrollment of 1,118 high school spots in the District.

The proposed UWSP would include sites for three K-8 Schools (K-8), a High School, and a Community College within the Development Area. All three K-8 school sites would be strategically distributed throughout the Development Area with one K-8 school site located in the Young Scholar’s District so that over 90 percent of the proposed residential units would be within three-quarters of a mile of a K-8 School site. Each K-8 School site would be a minimum of 16 acres in size and be located adjacent to a park site to allow shared use of facilities. K-8 School Site No. 1 is oversized at 17.1 acres to account for the potential additional student demand. The High School site is +90 acres in size, which is larger than the 50 acres typically required for a high school and is also located in the Young Scholar’s District. Finally, the Community College site is +11 acres in size and is envisioned as a vocational training campus.

As the existing elementary and middle schools in the NUSD have capacity for the elementary and middle school students generated by the proposed UWSP, there will not be an increased demand for public elementary and middle school services within the NUSD. In addition, the three proposed K-8 School sites within the Development Area would ensure that there is more than adequate capacity for students generated by the plan. As there is a high school shortage capacity of 281 students in the NUSD, there is not enough existing capacity for the approximately 841 high school students to be generated from the proposed UWSP. However, there is a high school site proposed to be included in the proposed UWSP which would be approximately 30 acres larger than typically required for a high school. As typical high schools in the NUSD enroll over 1,500 students per year, the proposed high school would have adequate capacity for the existing shortage (281 students) and project demand (837 students).

As new school facilities are proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, their impacts are included as part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant chapters of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible.

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed school facilities have been accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, with respect to K-12 schools, pursuant to SB 50, the project would be required to pay school impact fees, which is considered full mitigation for any impacts to school services that would result from the proposed plan. Therefore, the impact with respect to schools is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT PS-4: CAUSE EXISTING PARKS TO PHYSICALLY DETERIORATE,

REQUIRING ADDITIONAL PARKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
The proposed UWSP would facilitate development of up to 9,356 housing units and yield 25,460 residents. This increase in resident population as well as employees would 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-18 PLNP2018-00284
create an additional demand for parks and recreation facilities within and outside of the UWSP area. As described in the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, Policy PF-123 requires 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. As a result, approximately 127.9 acres of parkland is required to serve the needs of the proposed UWSP (Table PS-5).

Table PS-5: Parkland Associated with the Proposed Plan
Parkland Generation
Factor1
Residents
Proposed
Parkland
Required
Parkland
Provided

5.0 acres per 1,000 residents 25,460 127.4 acres 146.6 acres NOTE:
1 Parkland Generation Factor provided by Sacramento County General Plan Policy PF-123, as specified in the Upper Westside Specific Plan p. 6-2.

As there are no parks currently located directly within the UWSP area, the 160 acres of nearby parks previously described could be adversely affected by the increase of residents generated by the proposed UWSP. The areas surrounding the UWSP area, in which the existing parks are located, are developed, and contain existing residents that utilize these facilities. Therefore, there is a need for new parks to serve the UWSP area and to alleviate pressure which would occur to nearby parks from increased residential uses in this area.

To accommodate the increase in residents resulting from the proposed UWSP, the plan includes a parks program, which outlines the proposed parks and recreational facilities to be implemented in the UWSP area. The proposed UWSP parks program proposes a diverse mix of recreational amenities and public gathering spaces which are sized and distributed to serve the anticipated needs of the residents within the UWSP.

A total of 146.6 acres of parks and amenities would be provided in the UWSP area, which accounts for 11 percent of the Development Area. Parks and amenities would include 76.5 of active parks and the 2.6-acre Town Center median park as well as the 15-acre Westside Canal, 34.1 acres of greenbelt space, a 10-acre urban farm, a

12.1-acre West Edge Buffer, and a 14.7-acre Basin Edge Parkways trail. These facilities would be sufficient to accommodate the 25,460 proposed residents.

As new park facilities are proposed as part of the proposed UWSP, their impacts are included as part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment resulting from development of the UWSP area. As discussed in the relevant chapters of this EIR, compliance with mitigation measures and other construction-related regulatory requirements would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible.

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed parks facilities have been accounted for in the analysis, and the impact with respect to parks is less than significant. 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-19 PLNP2018-00284

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

IMPACT PS-5: RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES Buildout of the UWSP area would result in a demand for a total of 127.9 acres of parkland. A total of 170 acres of parks and amenities would be constructed as part of the proposed UWSP parks program, accounting for 11 percent of the Development Area. The physical impacts of the construction and operation of these proposed parks are analyzed in the appropriate technical sections of this EIR.

The proposed UWSP Parks Program would meet the requirements for parkland under the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan. Therefore, no additional means would need to be utilized to meet any demands in the UWSP area for parks and recreation services.

Objectives for parks and recreation in the UWSP area would be met under the proposed plan, and the impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

IMPACT PS-6: RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE PHYSICAL IMPACTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROVISION OF LIBRARIES
As discussed previously, the Sacramento Public Library System would be responsible for providing library services within the UWSP area. The proposed UWSP would generate approximately 9,356 housing units and 25,460 residents. This increase in housing units and population would create an additional demand for library services.

In the 2020-2021 fiscal year, the Sacramento Public Library System served a total population of 1,478,711 and received 369,551 annual visits (Sacramento Public Library 2021). The proposed UWSP would introduce an estimated 25,460 residents. The new residents introduced by the proposed UWSP would only represent about 6.9 percent of the Sacramento Public Library System’s total annual visitors.

As described in the Environmental Setting above, the nearest existing library facilities to the Plan Area are the North Natomas and South Natomas libraries. As discussed above, the library system aims to provide 0.4 to 0.6 square feet of library space per capita. As both the North Natomas and South Natomas libraries at present only provide

0.3 square feet of library space per capita,3these facilities are not currently meeting the

3 North Natomas Library: 22,648 square feet of library space / service population of 66,655 = 0.34 square feet of library space per capita; South Natomas Library: 13,615 square feet of library space / service population of 43,178 = 0.32 square feet of library space per capita (Clark 2022). 17 - Public Services and Recreation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 17-20 PLNP2018-00284
minimum standard, and the addition of new residents by the proposed UWSP would further exacerbate this deficiency.

To meet future demand for library services a new library to be shared with the Los Rios Community College District or NUSD is proposed within the Development Area. The new facility would likely be located within the educational node proposed in the northern portion of the UWSP area, either on the site of the proposed vocational training center owned by the Los Rios Community College District or on the parcel for the proposed high school owned by the NUSD. With the provision of the proposed library, it is anticipated this new facility would meet the library needs of future residents within the UWSP area.

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

Therefore, the physical impacts of the proposed library facility have been accounted for in the analysis, and the impact with respect to libraries is less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-1 PLNP2018-00284
18 TRANSPORTATION

INTRODUCTION
This chapter addresses potential impacts of the proposed UWSP on transportation.

CEQA issues evaluated include the following: consistency with plans, ordinances, and policies governing the circulation system; vehicle miles traveled (VMT); hazards from geometric design features; and emergency access. The chapter first describes the existing environmental setting for transportation facilities and the applicable regulatory framework, then describes the methodology and assumptions used to conduct the analysis and evaluates the potential transportation impacts of project construction and operation. Feasible mitigation measures are identified to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received several comments related to transportation from state and local public agencies as well as the general public. Comments focused on addressing commuteperiod congestion on roadways serving the proposed UWSP (i.e., El Centro Road, West El Camino Avenue), as well as local roadways providing access to local residents (i.e., San Juan Road, Garden Highway); consistency of the proposed UWSP with the County’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), with a specific focus on exploring ways to make the area outside the proposed mixed-use town center more attractive to non-auto modes (i.e., higher intersection density, traffic calming, or other design elements), and extending existing or creating new local and regional transit connections to and within the proposed UWSP.

Furthermore, other comments requested relocating the proposed public school site in the UWSP to a location closer to West El Camino Avenue that would be better served by future transit service envisioned by Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT); recognizing that any proposed roadway widening within Sacramento city limits meant to mitigate project impacts may be inconsistent with the City’s climate change goals and that any assumed implementation responsibility or funding agreements may be problematic; and voicing concern about development within the proposed UWSP attracting growth that would have otherwise occurred in urban areas of the city of Sacramento, and the effect of this redistribution of grown on VMT for the city and the region.

In addition, prior to the release of the NOP, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided advanced feedback to the Sacramento County Department of Transportation (SacDOT) on the scope of work for the transportation analysis being prepared for the proposed UWSP. After circulation of the NOP, inter-agency coordination between SacDOT and Caltrans continued in 2021. On August 6, 2021, Caltrans issued a comment letter based on their staff review of an administrative draft of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) (see 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-2 PLNP2018-00284
Appendix TR-1 and TR-2, respectively). The following key points related to safety were raised or requested in that letter:

1. Potential safety issues related to the I-80/W. El Camino Avenue interchange from the Sacramento 49er Travel Plaza Truck Stop driveway(s) should be analyzed.

2. Caltrans will provide an analysis of the current collision patterns on the State Highway System relative to the project for the use in the County’s Safety Analysis in the TIA/DEIR. Two to three years prior to the start of construction for Phase 1 of the project, Caltrans will provide an updated collisions patterns analysis to the County to ensure the current operational and safety conditions are represented.

3. Safety analysis should be conducted to demonstrate that safety impacts are being feasibly mitigated by discussing implementation of the “Four Pillars of Traffic Safety.”

4. Cumulative safety impacts should be evaluated on the segment of West El Camino Avenue between the I-80 and I-5 interchanges so that the full safety impact can be examined, and improvements can be proposed when local/state projects are proposed in the area.

Each of the above items is addressed directly in this Draft EIR. The August 6, 2021 comment letter also included reference to specific impacts and mitigation measures and responsibilities, which are included in the impact analysis.

The information and analysis in this chapter was adapted from a CEQA TIA prepared by Fehr & Peers in March 2022 and provided in Appendix TR-1 of this EIR. The analysis provided in the TIA was conducted consistent with the County’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) (County of Sacramento 2020). In part, the TAG establishes the guidelines and methodology for assessing transportation impacts for development projects based on the updated CEQA guidelines from the State of California that require transportation impacts be evaluated based on VMT rather than level of service (LOS) or any other measure of a project’s effect on automobile delay.

A separate document, the LTA prepared by Fehr & Peers in March 2022, analyzes nonCEQA transportation issues and is provided in Appendix TR-2 for informational purposes only. Consistent with guidance in the TAG for non-CEQA transportation analysis requirements, the LTA evaluates the proposed UWSP’s effects on traffic operations at potentially affected roadways and intersections.

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 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-3 PLNP2018-00284
the north, the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) to the east, Interstate 80 to the south, and Garden Highway to the west (see Plate PD-3).

REGIONAL ACCESS
The following freeway facilities provide regional vehicular access to the UWSP area:

Interstate I-80 (I-80) is a Caltrans facility. It is a major east-west freeway that connects Sacramento westerly to the Bay Area and easterly to Nevada and beyond. It is a sixlane freeway at the Yolo/Sacramento County Line, widening to add a carpool lane in each direction approaching the West El Camino Avenue interchange. Between this interchange and I-5 (one mile further east), it consists of three general purpose lanes, one carpool lane, and one auxiliary/weaving lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph).

Interstate 5 (I-5) is a Caltrans facility. It is California’s major north-south freeway that connects California to the Pacific Northwest. It also serves interstate and interregional travel for commerce, commute, and recreational purposes. Between Del Paso Road and Arena Boulevard, it consists of three general purpose lanes and one auxiliary/ weaving lane in each direction. Between Arena Boulevard and I-80, it consists of four general purpose lanes and one auxiliary/weaving lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 65 mph.

LOCAL ACCESS
The following roadways provide local vehicular access to the UWSP area:

West El Camino Avenue is a four-lane east-west, median-divided arterial for its

1.25-mile distance between I-80 and I-5. This segment, which is within the City of Sacramento limits, has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. West of I-80, West El Camino Avenue is within unincorporated Sacramento County and extends for a short distance, terminating at El Centro Road and serving various retail, hotel and industrial uses (including the Sacramento 49er Travel Plaza Truck Stop).

El Centro Road is a north-south arterial that begins a short distance south of West El Camino Avenue, extending about 3.5 miles to where it connects with Bayou Way near the I-5/SR 99 interchange. Between West El Camino Avenue and Arena Boulevard, it is situated primarily within unincorporated Sacramento County and is a two-lane moderate access arterial with a 50-mph posted speed limit. North of Arena Boulevard, it widens to a four-lane arterial within the City of Sacramento limits.

Arena Boulevard is an east-west four- to eight-lane arterial within the City of Sacramento limits. It begins at El Centro Road and extends easterly to its interchange with I-5 and along the southern boundary of the SleepTrain Arena property. West of I-5, it has four lanes and a posted speed limit of 40 mph.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-4 PLNP2018-00284
Del Paso Road is an east-west street that parallels Arena Boulevard approximately one mile to the north. Between El Centro Road and its interchange with I-5, it is a four-lane arterial within the City of Sacramento limits. It continues east of I-5 as a four to six lane arterial. About 0.85 miles west of El Centro Road, it becomes a rural road within unincorporated Sacramento County, terminating one mile to the west at Powerline Road.

San Juan Road begins at Garden Highway in unincorporated Sacramento County as a two-lane rural road with a posted speed limit of 55 mph. East of El Centro Road, it becomes a two-lane arterial within the City of Sacramento. Continuing easterly, it features an undercrossing of I-5, followed by an overcrossing of I-80.

Garden Highway is a two-lane rural road that parallels the Sacramento River within unincorporated Sacramento County west and south of the UWSP area. This segment has a posted speed limit of 45 mph. East of its undercrossing of I-80, the speed limit is reduced to 40 mph west of Orchard Lane where the roadway is within the City of Sacramento limits. It continues easterly with an interchange at I-5.

TRANSIT FACILITIES AND ROUTES
Plate TR-1 displays the existing transit facilities and routes in the study area. Fixedroute bus service is provided within the study area by SacRT as well as the Natomas Jibe Express. As shown, no routes currently operate within the UWSP area. However, bus routes do operate on a number of study roadways including portions of El Centro Road, Del Paso Road, Arena Boulevard, San Juan Road, West El Camino Avenue, and Garden Highway.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Plate TR-2 displays the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the study area.

As shown, various facility types such as Class I multi-use bike/pedestrian paths, Class II on-street bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and crosswalks exist. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are present at all three of the primary freeway interchanges that would serve the project (i.e., I-80/West El Camino Avenue, I-5/Del Paso Road, and I-5/Arena Boulevard).

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
There are no federal laws or regulations that are relevant to potential transportation impacts of the proposed UWSP.

Garden Hwy
Del Paso Rd
Truxel Rd
San Juan Rd
El Centro Rd
E Co m merce Way
W El Camino Ave
Park Dr
Bayou Way
Arena Blvd
Duckhorn Dr
Power Line Rd
Club Center Dr
Radio Rd
Natomas Blvd
County Road 127
A zevedo
Dr Gateway Park Blvd
Richards Blvd
County Road 126
Market Blvd
Bryte Bend Rd
Gateway Oaks Dr
Freeway Blvd
Orchard Ln
Innovator Dr New Market Dr
10Th St
Natomas Central Dr
Stemmler Dr
Hov na nia n Dr
NatomasPark Dr
Garden Hwy
Duckhorn Dr
El Centro Rd
Manera
Rica Dr
Pro sp er Rd
Del Paso Rd
W River Dr
Meister Way
Metro Air Pkwy

CITY OF

SACRAMENTO

CITY OF
WEST

SACRAMENTO
Sacramento River
American River
N:\2020 Projects\3945.00_Upper_Westside_Specific_Plan_EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\LTA_Figures\Fig11_Transit.mxd Existing Transit Facilities
Figure 11
5 5
80 99
Yolo County Line
Sacramento County Line
Transit Stop
SacRT Rail Station
Natomas Jibe Route
SacRT Peak Hour Only
SacRT Route
SacRT Greenline
Private and/or Gated, Partially Paved/
Unpaved Rural Road
Public Roadway
Upper Westside Specific Plan Boundary
City Boundary
County Boundary
13 11
11 13
86 11
13 86
88 11
113
171
174
174
171
171
171, 172, 174
170
170, 171,
172, 174
170
170
172
172
11 113
174
Note: Regional transit routes are not shown on I-80, I-5, and highway 99.

Natomas Jibe routes reflect operating conditions as of Fall 2019.

Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate TR-1
Existing Transit Facilities
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N
Garden Hwy
Old River Rd
San Juan Rd
El Centro Rd
Arena Blvd
Duckhorn Dr
Radio Rd
W El Camino Ave
Witter Way
Riverbank Rd
E Commerce Way
Bryte Bend Rd
Airport Rd
Gateway Oaks Dr
County Road 127
Orchard Ln
County Road 126
North Harbor Blvd
Natomas Central Dr
County Road 128A
Del Paso Rd
W River Dr

CITY OF

SACRAMENTO

CITY OF
WEST

SACRAMENTO
Sacramento River
Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Note: Bicycle and pedestrian facilities only shown on arterial and collector streets near project vicinity.

Figure 10
City Boundary
County Boundary
Upper Westside Specific Plan Boundary Private and/or Gated, Partially Paved/ Unpaved Rural Road
Public Roadway
5 80
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Class I Shared-Use Path
Pedestrian Bridge
Class II Bike Lane
Crosswalk
Sidewalk
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate TR-2
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-7 PLNP2018-00284
STATE
SENATE BILL 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop new CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” In December 2018, the Office of Planning and Research published Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (“Technical Advisory”) (OPR 2018), which provided guidance for implementing SB 743. On December 28, 2018, the Resources Agency adopted CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. Under this guideline, VMT is the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. On July 1, 2020, the provisions of Section 15064.3 became effective statewide.

CALTRANS SAFETY REVIEW
In December 2020, Caltrans published the Interim Local Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance (Caltrans 2020). This document provides guidance for conducting safety reviews of land use projects and plans that may affect the State Highway System. Although it stops short of including specific thresholds of significance or providing specific recommendations for how safety evaluations should be included in CEQA documents, it does clearly indicate the State’s expectation that, when appropriate, CEQA studies of land use projects should include safety investigations of the State Highway System.

CALTRANS 2020-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN
Caltrans’s 2020-2024 Strategic Plan (Caltrans 2021a) lists “Safety First” as its top goal through 2024. The 2020 Caltrans Annual Accomplishments Report describes the Four Pillars of Traffic Safety, which will help guide the department toward the ultimate goal of zero deaths or severe injuries on California roads by 2050. The Four Pillars of Traffic Safety are:

1. Double Down on What Works

2. Accelerate Advanced Technology

3. Lead Safety Culture Change

4. Integrate Equity

DOUBLE DOWN ON WHAT WORKS
This pillar focuses on implementing applicable countermeasures from Federal Highway Administration’s Proven Safety Countermeasures program (FHWA 2022). This program contains 20 types of countermeasures including several crosscutting strategies that address multiple safety focus areas.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-8 PLNP2018-00284

ACCELERATE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
This pillar refers to increased and proactive usage of advanced technologies known to improve safety. Examples at traffic signals include vehicle queue spillback detection, coupled with a fixed Changeable Message Sign upstream to alert drivers of either slowed or stopped traffic ahead. Other examples include extinguishable/blank-out signs placed on traffic signal poles to advise travelers of regulatory or advisory conditions (e.g., no right-turn on red, look left for vehicles, etc.). Additionally, adaptive traffic signal systems are now being implemented in a number of corridors in urban areas. These systems can update their traffic signal timings in real-time, in response to changes in traffic flows, to better serve travelers.

LEAD SAFETY CULTURE CHANGE
The Safe System approach represents a paradigm shift in roadway safety philosophy.

Whereas previously the focus of roadway safety was on preventing collisions, now it is on preventing fatal and severe collisions. Before, the emphasis was on improving human behavior to reduce collision frequency, but now it is recognized that humans make mistakes and are vulnerable, and that roadway design must consider these factors. The Safe System approach refocuses transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives. In the Safe System approach, the principles related to prevention of collision-related deaths and serious injuries are:
 Reduce System Kinetic Energy/Control Speeding
 Coordinate and Share Responsibility
 Proactively Address Risks

INTEGRATE EQUITY
The 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (Caltrans 2021b) lists “Integrate Equity” as one of its four guiding principles and a way to address institutional and systemic biases. This principle supports a better understanding of the effects of socioeconomic and demographic influences on fatal and serious injury crashes. Understanding these effects includes use of data related to race, income, population density, and other demographic, socioeconomic, and location-based information. Equity in safety may also relate to disparate treatment of different modes of travel.

LOCAL

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the MTP/SCS and the corresponding Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program for the six-county Sacramento region. The MTP/SCS provides a 20-year transportation vision and corresponding list of projects.

The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program identifies short-term projects (7year horizon) in more detail. The current (2020) MTP/SCS was adopted by the SACOG board in 2019 and has a horizon year of 2040 (SACOG 2019). The UWSP area 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-9 PLNP2018-00284
is not identified for development in the regional growth forecast of the 2020 MTP/SCS, which is consistent with the 2040 buildout assumed in this analysis.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
The TAG was adopted by the County in September 2020 and provides considerable guidance regarding the County’s preferred methods for analyzing the VMT of land use and transportation projects. The TAG incorporates various elements of the Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory, but refinements and clarifications have been added to reflect local conditions. Technical guidance from the TAG is referenced throughout this section.

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

CIRCULATION
CI-7 Plan and construct transportation facilities as delineated on the Transportation Plan of the Sacramento County General Plan.

CI-8 Maintain and rehabilitate the roadway system to maximize safety, mobility, and cost efficiency.

CI-9 Plan and design the roadway system in a manner that meets Level of Service (LOS) D on rural roadways and LOS E on urban roadways, unless it is infeasible to implement project alternatives or improvements that would achieve LOS D on rural roadways or LOS E on urban roadways.

CI-10 Land development projects shall be responsible to mitigate the project’s adverse impacts to local and regional roadways.

CI-11 To preserve public mobility, freeways and thoroughfares should have limited access and maintain functional characteristics that predominantly accommodate through traffic.

CI-12 To preserve public safety and local quality of life on collector and local roadways, land development projects shall incorporate appropriate treatments of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.

CI-13 Collaborate with regional transportation planning agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to provide cross jurisdictional mobility.

CI-19 Collaborate with transit service providers to provide transit services within the County that are responsive to existing and future transit demand.

CI-32 Develop a comprehensive, safe, convenient and accessible bicycle and pedestrian system that serves and connects the County's employment, 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-10 PLNP2018-00284
commercial, recreational, educational, social services, housing and other transportation modes.

CI-35 The applicant/developer of land development projects shall be responsible to install bicycle and pedestrian facilities in accordance with Sacramento County Improvement Standards and may be responsible to participate in the fair share funding of regional multi-use trails identified in the Sacramento County Bicycle Master Plan.

CI-39 Plan and implement intelligent transportation system (ITS) strategies within the County's high-demand travel corridors and support efforts to deploy ITS strategies on a regional level.

CI-40 Whenever possible, the applicant/developer of new and infill development projects shall be conditioned to fund, implement, operate and/or participate in transportation systems management programs to manage travel demand associated with the project.

CI-43 The County shall promote transit-supportive programs in new development, including employer-based trip-reduction programs (employer incentives to use transit or nonmotorized modes), "guaranteed ride home" for commute trips, and car-share or bikeshare programs.

LAND USE
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:
 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/Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Metric Only those transportation-related Performance Criteria (PC) that are relevant to the proposed UWSP are described below (the list is extensive and primarily relates to land use).

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.

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,
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-11 PLNP2018-00284
 Prominent pedestrian and bicycle network,
 Few if any cul-de-sacs, and
 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.

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
Most criteria-based policies are land-use related and thus not listed here.

However, the one criterion related to transportation is CB-4, which is described below:

CB-4 Requires at least 65 percent of all residential units to be 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.

As indicated on page 146 of the Land Use Element, points are assigned for the proportion of the dwelling units situated within one-half mile of existing or planned transit service. Points are also assigned depending on whether transit service headways are 60, 30, or 15 minutes during weekday peak periods.

Alternative #2 – Vehicle Miles Traveled/Greenhouse Gas 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 VMT per resident per day (or the equivalent VMT per household per day); OR
 ≤ Equivalent GHG [greenhouse gas] per capita per day from cars, light trucks, and medium trucks (less than 8,500 Gross Vehicle Weight).

SACRAMENTO COUNTY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Sacramento County Active Transportation Plan (SCATP) (County of Sacramento, 2022) is a tool for guiding County staff, public officials, residents, and developers to build a balanced transportation system that supports and encourages active modes of travel. Active transportation includes walking, biking, and rolling (mobility devices, skateboards, scooters, etc.). The primary purpose of the Plan is to promote and encourage people to choose walking, biking, and rolling through the creation of safe, 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-12 PLNP2018-00284
comfortable, connected, and accessible walking, rolling and biking networks, encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips and improve access to transit.

The SCATP was developed via a robust community engagement process, with input provided by hundreds of residents and thousands of online interactions from various stakeholders. The engagement process led to recommendations of 194 pedestrian improvement locations, 192 miles of sidewalk gap closures, 1,218 miles of bicycle facilities, and a collection of policy and programmatic recommendations. The County prioritized infrastructure projects for implementation based on the following factors:

Safety and Comfort, Connectivity and Access, Equity, and Project Complexity. The SCATP ranked all recommendations, then determined a priority network which includes 55 pedestrian spot improvement locations, 32 miles of sidewalk gap closures, and 185 miles of bicycle recommendations. Priority network projects directly respond to the safety, connectivity, comfort, and equity concerns raised through the needs analysis and community engagement process. Many prioritized projects fall on either the pedestrian or bicycle-high injury network, directly responding to safety needs, or close a vital gap/remove a barrier to walking, biking, and rolling in unincorporated Sacramento County.

The SCATP describes the following types of bicycle facilities:
 Class I Shared-Use Path (trails): Dedicated paths for walking and bicycling completely separate from the roadway.
 Class II Bicycle Lane: Striped lanes for people bicycling.  Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane: Bicycle lanes that include a striped “buffer” area either between the bicycle lane and the travel lane or between the bicycle lane and parked cars (sometimes in both locations).
 Class IIIB Bicycle Boulevard: Routes on low-speed, low-volume streets where roadway space is shared with people driving, enhanced with traffic calming features or other treatments to prioritize the comfort of people biking.  Class IV Separated Bikeway: On-street bicycle facilities with a physical barrier between the bicycle lane and motor vehicle lane(s). Barriers can include bollards, curbs, elevation, or parking. These facilities may be bidirectional or unidirectional.

Pedestrian facilities described in the SCATP range from sidewalks and crosswalks, typically found along roadways, to more innovative pedestrian crossing features such as pedestrian hybrid beacons, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, median islands, and other features.

As shown above in Plate TR-2, there are various existing bikeway facilities such as Class I shared-use bike/pedestrian paths and Class II on-street bicycle lanes located in the study area. Bicycle facilities are present at all three of the primary freeway interchanges that would serve the UWSP area (i.e., I-80/West El Camino Avenue, I-5/ Del Paso Road, and I-5/Arena Boulevard). Class II bike lanes are planned along 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-13 PLNP2018-00284
portions of El Centro Road, San Juan Road, and Radio Road, both within and adjacent to the UWSP area.

Chapter 4 of the SCATP includes maps of recommended bicycle and pedestrian network improvements.

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 transportation may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed UWSP would:
 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;  Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b);  Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
 Result in inadequate emergency access.

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

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The methodology and assumptions outlined below are based on guidance provided in the TAG.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Per the TAG, the VMT analysis was performed using the SACOG’s SACSIM19 tourbased travel demand model. The version of the model that was used is similar to what was used as the basis for SACOG’s 2020 MTP/SCS, but has been improved upon by considering the length of trips generated by land uses within the SACOG region that have an origin or destination outside the region.

SACSIM19 simulates people’s activities on a typical weekday and tracks travel of individuals throughout the day in trip tours. The model allocates household and employment at a parcel level, which allows the model to capture smaller-scale land use changes and demographic differences. SACSIM19 is sensitive to the local physical environment, including the presence (or absence) of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the patterns of local street networks (e.g., grid vs. cul-de-sacs), and the density, 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-14 PLNP2018-00284
proximity and mix of surrounding land uses (i.e., employment destinations, schools, retail, parks, etc.). SACSIM19 forecasts automobile, transit, bicycle, and walk trips.

SACSIM19 requires a detailed definition of household characteristics, population/ demographics and employment by type at a parcel-level of geography.

Key metrics from SACSIM19 used in the VMT analysis include the following:
 VMT per Capita includes all vehicle tours (both work/commute vehicle tours and non-work vehicle tours) that start and end at residential units. Tours made by a household resident that do not begin or end at home (e.g., mid-day travel from a worksite for lunch or personal business) are not included in the VMT per Capita estimates. Per the TAG, Household VMT includes trip types #1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 from the diagram below. It excludes work-based subtours (Trips #3 and #4).  VMT per Employee applies to office/business professional and industrial employment projects and includes all work/commute vehicle tours that start and end at the worksite (including intermediate stops). Per the TAG, Household VMT includes trips #1, 2, and 5 from the diagram below.

Table 3-3 of the TAG identifies significance thresholds for various types of land development projects. These significance thresholds also reflect the thresholds identified in the County General Plan Circulation Element, policy CI-5 and Table CI-1.

The following thresholds were applied to the VMT analysis for the proposed UWSP:
 Residential: Project VMT per capita exceeds 85 percent of the regional average VMT per capita.
 Office/Business Professional: Project VMT per employee exceeds 85 percent of the regional average VMT per employee.
 The project’s regional retail land uses causes a net increase in regional VMT. 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-15 PLNP2018-00284
 The project’s proposed widening of “regional roadways” is expected to result in an increase in regional VMT.

When reviewing the proposed UWSP’s VMT effects relative to the above thresholds, it is important to consider its overall VMT efficiency. In other words, the broader view of VMT properly considers the net effect, for instance, of a slight exceedance of one threshold versus a “substantially below threshold” outcome for another.

ROADWAY SAFETY/DESIGN STANDARDS
The proposed UWSP would cause a significant impact if it would:
 Cause a substandard rural roadway (i.e., less than 24 feet of pavement width and less than a six foot shoulder) to exceed an average daily traffic volume of 6,000 daily vehicles;
 Add 600 or more new daily vehicle trips to a substandard rural roadway that already carries 6,000 or more daily vehicles;
 Cause the maximum queue length at a freeway off-ramp to extend beyond the gore point onto the mainline (or exacerbate a current or future condition by increasing the maximum queue by one or more vehicles); or  Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Caltrans’ Interim Local Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance provides practitioners with specific guidance on analysis of project effects on freeway off-ramp queuing. That information along with supplemental explanations provided by Caltrans staff in a webinar on January 20, 2021 is used as the basis for the freeway off-ramp queuing analysis presented in this Draft EIR.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The proposed UWSP would cause a significant impact if it would:
 Eliminate or adversely affect an existing bikeway or pedestrian facility in a way that would discourage its use;
 Be in conflict with or interfere with the implementation of a planned bikeway or pedestrian improvement described in the Sacramento County Active Transportation Plan; or
 Fail to provide adequate access for bicyclists and pedestrians, resulting in unsafe conditions, including unsafe bicycle/pedestrian, bicycle/motor vehicle, or pedestrian/motor vehicle conflicts.

TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES
The proposed UWSP would cause a significant impact if it would:
 Eliminate or adversely affect existing transit access, service, or operations; 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-16 PLNP2018-00284
 Interfere with the implementation of transit service as planned in the MTP/SCS; or
 Substantially increase transit demand and fail to provide adequate transit service.

PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

ROADWAYS
Plate TR-3 shows the proposed internal roadway network included in the proposed UWSP. As shown, West El Camino Avenue would extend westerly from El Centro Road as the Main Street of the Town Center, which would be a dense, mixed-use environment. Other key project roadways include: El Centro Road, Bryte Bend Road, Farm Road, San Juan Road, and Radio Road.

The Town Center would consist of a grid-based street system. North-south streets are labeled Street A through Street E (from right to left) from West El Camino Avenue to Bryte Bend Road. East-west streets are labeled Street 1 through Street 7 (from bottom to top) starting south of West El Camino Avenue to San Juan Road.

The proposed UWSP would widen parts of El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue from the current two lanes to the number of lanes shown in Plate TR-3.

Additionally, as depicted on Plate PD-20, the proposed UWSP would include offsite roadway improvements, including offsite road improvements at the intersection of El Centro and Natomas Central Drive/Arena Boulevard; El Centro and San Juan roads; new roadway connections to Garden Highway at Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road; and potential improvements to the I-80/El Camino Avenue interchange. The proposed UWSP would be responsible for funding and implementing the proposed reconstructed interchange – the timing of which would be dependent upon traffic volume “triggers,” which would be developed using a dynamic implementation tool.

BICYCLE FACILITIES
Plate TR-4 shows the proposed bicycle network included in the proposed UWSP. Key components of the proposed bicycle network include:
 A set of north-south and east-west Class I (off-street) bicycle/pedestrian paths would be constructed. The north-south path would extend southerly from San Juan Road through the Town Center to El Centro Road. The east-west path would extend parallel and north of Farm Road from Bryte Bend Road easterly to the Natomas Westside Class I Path, which includes an overcrossing of I-80.  Class I and/or Class II bike lanes (on-street with appropriate signs and pavement markings) would be provided throughout the UWSP area.
 A potential bike trail bridge crossing of the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), as depicted on Plate PD-20.
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
; ;
;
;
;
;
;
;
; ;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
G
G
G
G
;
;
;
!H
!H
@!
@!
@!
@!
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
µ¶
Street C
Street B
Farm Rd
Street 2
Street D
Street A
Street 8
Street E
Street 10
Bryte Bend Rd
Street G
Street H
Street 3
Street 6
Street 5
Street 6
Street 3
Street 5
Street 7
Street 1
W El Camino Ave
Street F
Street 4 Street 4
Street 9
Orchard Lane
Street 12
Street I
El Centro Rd
Garden Hwy
San Juan Rd
Radio Rd
Street C
Street B

CITY OF
WEST

SACRAMENTO
Sacramento River
Project Roadway Network
Figure 3
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
Yolo County Line
Sacramento County Line
6-Lane Thoroughfare
4-Lane Arterial
2-Lane Arterial/Collector
Modified Primary Residential
Garden Highway Connector Road
Smart Growth Street
; Median Break
City Boundary
County Boundary
Upper Westside
Specific Plan Boundary
!H Roundabout
µ¶
Traffic Signal
@! Traffic Circle
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate TR-3
Proposed Roadway Network
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N
Project Bicycle Network
Figure 4
N:\2020 Projects\3945.00_Upper_Westside_Specific_Plan_EIR\Graphics\AI\LTA_Figure\Fig04_Project_Bikeway_Net.ai This side-by-side comparison depcits how the
Upper Westside Specific Plan would modify the
Sacramento County Bikeway Master Plan.

Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Figure TR-4
Proposed Bicycle Network
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-19 PLNP2018-00284

PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The proposed plan would construct a variety of pedestrian facilities including Class I shared-use paths, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Table 4-1 of the proposed UWSP indicates sidewalks or shared-use trails would be present on the vast majority of project streets. Those facilities would range from 5 to 12 feet in width. Crosswalks would be provided at signalized intersections, and some unsignalized intersections and mid-block crossings depending on location, width, volume of traffic, roadway class/functionality, and other conditions.

TRANSIT FACILITIES
Plate TR-5 shows the proposed transit system included in the proposed UWSP, which would include an on-site shuttle that would operate along key roadways during peak periods.

IMPACT TR-1: CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY

ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The following presents an assessment of the proposed UWSP’s consistency with relevant General Plan policies described in the Regulatory Setting above.

Consistent with Policy CI-9, the proposed roadway system included in the proposed UWSP would be designed in a manner that meets level of service operating standards with just a few exceptions. In instances where operating standards are not met, physical improvements to increase capacity (e.g., widening El Centro Road to an eight-lane cross section) have been deemed by Sacramento County to be either infeasible or would be inconsistent with the proposed UWSP’s goal of creating an environment conducive to walking and bicycling.

Consistent with Policy CI-10, the proposed UWSP’s potential effects to local and regional roadways were studied, and improvement options were recommended at a number of different locations, as part of the LTA conducted for the proposed UWSP (see Appendix TR-2).

Consistent with Policy CI-13, the applicant has collaborated frequently with neighboring jurisdictions and affected agencies including the City of Sacramento, SacRT, and Caltrans.

Consistent with Policy CI-32, the proposed UWSP would include a comprehensive set of on-street and off-street bicycle facilities that would accommodate riders of all ages and abilities. This includes special treatments within and along the eastern edge of the Town Center and at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. n£
n£ n£
n£

EL CENTRO ROAD
STREET 1
W. EL CAMINO AVE.

STREET 2

FARM ROAD
STREET 8
MDR
MDR
MDR
MDR

HDR MDR HDR
HDR
HDR

HDR MDR HDR

CMU CMU CMU CMU

CMU CMU

VHDR VHDR VHDR

VHDR VHDR VHDR
HDR
HDR
K-8 1 P
LMDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LDR LDR
P
LDR
LDR LMDR LDR K-8 2 LMDR
LDR

LMDR LMDR MDR P LMDR LDR
OS
LDR
CMU
E/HC
E/HC
LDR
LDR
OS
P LDR
LDR
LDR
LDR

LMDR LMDR LMDR

LDR LDR
AR
AR
AG
AG
AG
AG
LDR
CC
UF
K-8 3 LDR HS
OS
VLDR
LMDR
VLDR
VLDR

LDR LDR

LMDR LMDR

MDR MDR
P
OS
GARDEN

HIGHWAY
I-80
I-5
P
P

SACRAMENTO
RIVER

RADIO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD

WESTSIDE
CANAL

BIKE TRAILS

TOWN CENTER

MOBILITY HUB

EAST-WEST TRAIL
*

BRYTE BEND

GREENBELT
TRAIL

WESTSIDE
CANAL

BIKE TRAILS
OS
LDR
1/2 MI.

RADIUS
1/2 MI.

RADIUS
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Miles
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin (c) OpenStreetMap
contributor, and the GIS user community.

NORTH

SYMBOL TRANSIT CLASSIFICATION
Regional Transit
Conceptual Stop Locations
Long Haul Route (Large Bus)
RT
Express/Other Transit

PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT
CB-4 Standard: 80% target for 1/2-Mile radius
88% units within 1/2-Mile of RT stops
n£
Central Class I Bike Trails
Express/Other Transit
n£
P
UF
P
Project Transit System
Figure 5
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate TR-5
Proposed Transit Network
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator N
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-21 PLNP2018-00284
The proposed UWSP design appears generally consistent with Performance Criteria 1 and 5, which relate to connectivity to any existing and potential future development areas and pedestrian/transit-oriented design. With respect to Performance Criteria 1 and as discussed in Table LU-2, the proposed UWSP and proposed UWSP Development Standards and Design Guidelines 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.

Concerning Performance 5 as discussed in Table LU-2, 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 Development Standards and Design Guidelines, 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 Development Standards and Design Guidelines, provides guidance on the design of residential subdivisions so that there is excellent connectivity to schools, parks, and amenities.

Based on the above, the proposed UWSP would be substantially consistent with the circulation policies described above. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would not conflict with the General Plan and this impact would be less than significant.

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES

CALTRANS FOUR PILLARS OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
As noted in the Regulatory Setting above, the Four Pillars of Traffic Safety, which are included in Caltrans’ 2020-2024 Strategic Plan are:

1. Double Down on What Works

2. Accelerate Advanced Technology

3. Lead Safety Culture Change

4. Integrate Equity
The proposed UWSP’s consistency with each of these pillars is described below.

Please note that the consistency analysis completed for this EIR is at a program-level; a more focused consistency evaluation with the Four Pillars of Traffic Safety, and any 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-22 PLNP2018-00284
other Caltrans directives in effect at the time of project submittal and review, will be established in consultation with Caltrans when the proposed UWSP proceeds to design.

DOUBLE DOWN ON WHAT WORKS
The proposed UWSP and Sacramento County design standards include many of the treatments included in the Federal Highway Administration’s Proven Safety Countermeasures program, including roadway design improvements at horizontal curves, reduced left-turn conflicts at intersections, median barriers, traffic signals with retroreflective backplates, corridor access management, dedicated left/right turn lanes at intersections, roundabouts, medians/pedestrian crossing islands, road diets, and walkways. Other treatments from the Federal Highway Administration program that could be considered for the proposed UWSP include systemic application of low-cost countermeasures at stop-controlled intersections (e.g., advanced warning signs), leading pedestrian intervals (i.e., pedestrians receive WALK indication before motorists to enhance visibility), USLIMITS2 (a free, web-based tool designed to help practitioners assess and establish safe, reasonable, and consistent speed limits for specific segments of roadway), horizontal curve enhanced delineation and pavement friction, and pedestrian hybrid beacons.

ACCELERATE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
Implementation of many of the technologies identified for this pillar (e.g., vehicle queue spillback detection, coupled with upstream signage to alert drivers of either slowed or stopped traffic ahead; extinguishable/blank-out signs placed on traffic signal poles to advise travelers of regulatory or advisory conditions [e.g., no right-turn on red, look left for vehicles, etc.]) would be appropriate in the West El Camino Avenue and El Centro Road corridors within and adjacent to the UWSP area. Appropriate technologies can be evaluated and deployed (at the time detailed engineering drawings are prepared) at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection.

LEAD SAFETY CULTURE CHANGE
Some of the Safe System principles that are part of this pillar (e.g., reduce system kinetic energy/control speeding, coordinate and share responsibility, proactively address risks) can be employed as part of the proposed UWSP design and mitigation. Others are more regional and programmatic in nature, requiring leadership and commitment by regional and state agencies and other stakeholders. Through preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan completed in 2022, Sacramento County is working to address roadway safety risks at a programmatic level in addition to identifying targeted safety improvements at high collision locations. The Local Roadway Safety Plan is a countywide document that is systemic in nature, focusing on collision trends and classes of countermeasures that should be considered to reduce severe injury and fatal collisions.

INTEGRATE EQUITY
The proposed UWSP has been designed to accommodate all modes of travel, including facilities to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian mobility. In many cases, proposed facilities supporting these modes of travel would be physically separated from the 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-23 PLNP2018-00284
roadway system to provide greater levels of protection to these vulnerable users.

Plate TR-4 shows where the physically separated bicycle facilities (Class I shared-use path) would be situated including on numerous roadways within the UWSP area. A Class I facility is planned on the north side of West El Camino Avenue between I-80 and El Centro Road. This area is particularly important to provide greater protection for bicyclists given the volume of traffic expected on West El Camino Avenue.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
The proposed UWSP would not eliminate or adversely affect an existing bikeway or pedestrian facility in a way that would discourage its use. It would also not interfere with the implementation of any planned bikeways in the UWSP area. In fact, the SCATP includes maps and tables showing many of the proposed bicycle facilities within the UWSP area. Refer to Figure 18 and Table C-6 of the SCATP for recommended facilities along UWSP streets such as El Centro Road, Bryte Bend Road, Del Paso Road, San Juan Road, and Radio Road. Figure 18 also shows a planned Class II bike lane on West El Camino Avenue between El Centro Road and I-80.

Figure 17 of the SCATP shows recommended pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of the UWSP consist of sidewalk gap closures on El Centro Road, West El Camino Avenue between El Centro Road and I-80, and San Juan Road west of El Centro Road.

According to the proposed UWSP, the segments of El Centro Road and San Juan Road within the UWSP area would be constructed with sidewalks and/or shared-use paths.

Therefore, they would accomplish the SCATP objectives of closing sidewalk gap closures along these streets. The segment of West El Camino Avenue east of El Centro Road (i.e., outside the plan area) is discussed in detail below.

As shown in Plate TR-4, the proposed UWSP would construct bicycle facilities on each of these streets that would match or exceed (in terms of quality or quantity of facilities) what is planned in the SCATP. The SCATP shows Class I and II facilities along Bryte Bend Road. The UWSP proposes Class II and IIB facilities, which are consistent with SacDOT design standards and provide dedicated space for bicyclists. The proposed UWSP would also construct a Class I facility along existing El Centro Road south of West El Camino Avenue parallel to I-80 to allow for a future connection under I-80 to a planned Class I facility near West River Drive. A bicycle facility connection from the UWSP area to the existing Class II bike lane to the east on Garden Highway (within the City of Sacramento) would be a multi-agency effort because the facility would traverse both the City and County of Sacramento, and would also need to be coordinated with improvements to the levee being constructed by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Authority as part of a separate project.

While the proposed UWSP plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the plan area, as currently proposed, the UWSP would not improve the quality of access for bicyclists/pedestrians traveling just east of the plan area along West El Camino Avenue (east of El Centro Road across I-80 and beyond). Although Class II bike lanes are present on both sides of this segment of West El Camino Avenue and a sidewalk and crosswalks are present on the north side of the street, the presence of free-flow, highspeed on/off-ramps makes walking/biking challenging. Since the project would introduce 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-24 PLNP2018-00284
more bicyclists and pedestrians to this corridor and would not improve its condition, it would fail to provide adequate access for bicyclists and pedestrians by increasing conflicts with vehicles. As a result, this impact would be considered potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure TR-1a is prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the El Centro Road/West El Camino Avenue intersection and I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. Pedestrian amenities shall include sidewalks along El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue west of El Centro Road. It is not known whether a sidewalk would also be provided on the south side of West El Camino Avenue east of El Centro Road across the interchange, as pedestrians using it would encounter three on/off ramps carrying considerable levels of traffic. An alternate route for pedestrians would be the Class I path on the north side. Crosswalks would be provided on three of the four legs at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection. A crosswalk would not be provided on the east leg due to its potential to adversely affect overall intersection operations. All required improvements identified in Mitigation Measure TR-1a are depicted graphically in Plate TR-6.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1a would require approvals from Caltrans and the City of Sacramento because the identified improvements would occur along roadways under their control. Sacramento County cannot compel those agencies to approve and allow construction of the specified improvements. Therefore, despite the availability of mitigation which would reduce the impact to less than significant if implemented, the impact with respect to bicycle and pedestrian facilities is nonetheless considered significant and unavoidable because Sacramento County cannot assure those improvements will be made.

TRANSIT SERVICE AND FACILITIES
Consistent with Sacramento County’s General Plan Policy LU-120, the Town Center component of the proposed UWSP would consist of a mix of complementary land uses built at high densities to support transit use. However, existing fixed-route transit service is not currently provided to the UWSP area. To determine compliance with Policy LU-120, a transit network and frequency analysis needs assessment was performed as part of the TIA (see Appendix TR-1). This evaluation determined that the UWSP area should be served by fixed-route bus service operating on 15-minute headways from approximately 6 AM to 8 PM. The recommended route would travel along portions of Bryte Bend Road and West El Camino Avenue through the Town Center to travel between El Centro Road on the north and I-80 on the east. Since the proposed UWSP would be phased over time, it is anticipated that transit service levels will also increase over time as ridership increases.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
El Centro Rd/I-80 WB Ramps/West El Camino Ave Improvements Figure 12
N:\2020 Projects\3945.00_Upper_Westside_Specific_Plan_EIR\Graphics\AI\LTA_Figure/Fig0x_ElCentro_I80_ElCamino_IntPlan..ai Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bike Lane
Sidewalk
New Crosswalk
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Figure TR-6
El Centro Rd/I-80 WB Ramps/West El Camino Ave
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-26 PLNP2018-00284
The proposed UWSP would not eliminate or adversely affect existing transit access, service, or operations, because no service is currently provided in the UWSP area. The proposed UWSP would not interfere with implementation of transit services as planned in SACOG’s MTP/SCS. However, the proposed UWSP would substantially increase transit ridership demand that may not be fully accommodated by the proposed transit service as described in the transit plan that has been prepared for the Specific Plan.

Specifically, severe congestion along El Centro Road between West El Camino Avenue and Farm Road would cause substantial delays to bus service that would operate along this route as part of the UWSP. Additionally, the lack of planned fixed-route bus service may lead to an unmet demand for transit service. This impact would be considered potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measures TR-1b is prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to coordinate with the County and SacRT (or other transit operators) to provide the additional transit facilities and services assumed in the transportation analysis, or a cost-effective equivalent level of transit facilities and services, and require the project applicant to construct geometric and associated signal timing/phasing improvements (or an equivalent or more effective set of alternate improvements subject to the determination of the environmental coordinator) at the I-80/ West El Camino Avenue interchange and at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection, respectively. The specified physical improvements would substantially reduce queuing, delays, and congestion on West El Camino Avenue and El Centro Road near the Town Center. They would also decrease average delays at the El Centro Road/West El Camino Avenue, El Centro Road/Farm Road, and two I-80 ramp intersections during peak hours. Operations would generally improve to a level similar to other key corridors in Sacramento County (e.g., Watt Avenue, Arden Way, etc.) that feature high-quality bus service. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact related to transit service and facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
TR-1a) The on-site bicycle improvements listed below are to be constructed as the adjacent roadway is built or reconstructed (if already existing).

The project applicant shall implement the following bicycle and pedestrian improvements at the El Centro Road/West El Camino Avenue intersection and I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. Bicycle improvements shall include:
 Class I multi-use path allowing two-way bicycle travel on the north side of West El Camino Avenue that would extend from El Centro Road to the signalized Orchard Lane intersection (within the City of Sacramento) east of I-80. Additional studies during the interchange design phase will be necessary to determine its exact alignment and how/whether it intersects the three on/off ramps at-grade or not.
 Class I multi-use path on the west side of El Centro Road both north and south of West El Camino Avenue.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-27 PLNP2018-00284
 Class II bike lanes in both directions of El Centro Road both north and south of West El Camino Avenue.
 Class II bike lanes in both directions of West El Camino Avenue west of El Centro Road (including an eastbound bike lane that would be located between the left and through lanes at the signal). This bike lane would operate with the eastbound left-turn phase, providing bicyclists with the ability to reach the triangular island to access the Class I multi-use path on the north side of West El Camino Avenue.
 A Class II bike lane is currently shown in the eastbound direction of West El Camino Avenue from El Centro Road extending across the interchange.

Bicyclists in this lane need to navigate the merging area with vehicles desiring to travel onto the westbound I-80 diagonal on-ramp. Additional discussion with Caltrans will be necessary during the design phase of the interchange to determine whether this bike lane is desirable or not.

TR-1b) The project applicant shall coordinate with the County and SacRT (or other transit operators) to provide the additional transit facilities and services assumed in the transportation analysis, or a cost-effective equivalent level of transit facilities and services. Equivalent transit services may include, but are not limited to buses, vanpools, shuttles, or dial-a-ride service. Ultimately, transit service shall include 15-minute headways or equivalent during peak hours (Monday through Friday from 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m.) and 30-minute headways during non-peak hours (Monday through Friday). The implementation of the transit routes and service frequency must be phased with development buildout of the proposed UWSP. This shall be accomplished through the annexation to County Service Area 10, formation of a transportation services district, or other secured funding mechanism. Such annexation or formation shall occur prior to recordation of any final small lot subdivision map for the proposed UWSP.

Regarding Mitigation Measure TR-1a, the County strives to ensure that investments in transportation infrastructure keep pace with land use development growth. To this end, the County has developed an innovative approach to identify and require the construction of the necessary transportation improvements that consider the amount and location of development within large specific plans. The result of this new approach is the development of the Dynamic Implementation Tool (Tool). For any interim amount of development that is approved in the UWSP, the Tool can be used to estimate the vehicle trips that would be generated, where those new vehicle trips would be distributed, and if the addition of those new vehicle trips causes any roadway segments or intersections to not meet applicable operating targets. The Tool allows SacDOT to monitor and manage the transportation network proactively and assign improvements to roadways and intersections in support of where the growth in vehicle trips occurs in the UWSP.

It is the intent of Sacramento County that impacts to the transportation network be mitigated concurrent with the implementation of the impacting development and that the size of the improvements is commensurate with the size and impact of development 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-28 PLNP2018-00284
and the available funding. The County will determine Build Improvements considering the various improvements identified by the Tool, the estimated cost of the identified improvements, the Fee Increment, and the availability of other funds. This strategy and its components, including the Tool, shall be reviewed and updated as needed, but no less frequently than every five years or at key planning events undertaken by the County including, but not limited to, General Plan updates, and any substantive updates to the UWSP.

A customized Tool was built specifically for the proposed UWSP. It was then applied for a (applicant suggested) Phase 1 development plan consisting of about 1,400 dwelling units located in the southerly portion of the UWSP area. Using the tool, it was determined that signalization with additional travel lanes was required at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road and El Centro Road/San Juan Road intersections, along with the need to coordinate the new West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road signal with the existing signals at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange.

A memo is on file with SacDOT documenting this analysis. This exercise illustrates how the Tool will be valuable in identifying the need for infrastructure improvements as development occurs.

The bicycle facilities listed in Mitigation Measure TR-1a are not triggered by traffic operational parameters per se; rather, they become necessary as development occurs and the demand for walking and biking to/from the project area increases. In most instances, the bicycle facility improvements would be constructed concurrent with the adjacent roadway network improvements.

It is the County’s intent for the Plan area to be served by public transit at such time that it is warranted by demand. However, the county cannot compel Regional Transit to provide such service. Therefore, it is not possible to establish a performance-related standard regarding the level of transit service present in the area at any given time.

Similarly, a performance-related standard regarding (off-site) bicycle/pedestrian improvements along West El Camino Avenue east of El Centro Road is not possible as the county cannot compel Caltrans or the City of Sacramento to approve and allow construction of said improvements.

IMPACT TR-2: VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Table TR-1 displays the proposed plan’s average daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trip generation. Refer to LTA located in Appendix TR-2 for details. While not utilized directly to estimate the project’s ADT, this table is nonetheless valuable in understanding the magnitude of gross project trips being generated, the percentage expected to remain internal to the project site, and external trips made by non-auto modes, such as walking, biking, and transit.

Additionally, Figures 8 and 13 of the LTA display average daily traffic volumes on roadways within the UWSP area and in its vicinity under existing and existing plus project buildout conditions, respectively.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-29 PLNP2018-00284
Table TR-1: Project Trip Generation
Land Use Quantity1
Trips
Daily
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Single-Family Detached Housing 4,367 du’s 41,224 3,232 4,323 Multi-Family Housing Mid-Rise 4,989 du’s 27,140 1,796 2,195 Professional Office 1,573 ksf 15,669 1,689 1,730
Medical Office 41.6 ksf 1,511 102 143
Hotel 410 rooms 3,428 193 246
Business Hotel 410 rooms 1,648 160 131
Government Office 74 ksf 1,681 248 128
Shopping Center 245 ksf 13,549 426 1,242
Health/Fitness Club 65 ksf 1,730 86 225
Supermarket 65 ksf 6,359 248 605
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 104 ksf 11,644 1,032 1,014 Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through 24 ksf 11,303 965 784 Recreational Community Center 72 ksf 2,075 169 192
Middle School/Junior High School 3,000 students 6,390 1,740 510 High School 1,500 students 3,045 780 210
Vocational School & Junior College 208 ksf & 2,500
students 7,087 706 662
Gross Project Trips 155,483 13,572 14,340
Internal Trips2-34,890 -4,724 -3,664
External Transit Trips3-3,576 -271 -315
Walk/Bike Trips4-622 -81 -72
Net External Vehicular Project Trips 116,395 8,495 10,289 Pass-by Trips5-6,614 -366 -1,048
Diverted Link Trips6-4,372 -221 -726
Net New External Vehicular Trips 105,409 7,908 8,515
Net New External and Diverted Link Vehicular Trips 109,781 8,129 9,241 NOTES: ksf = thousand square feet. dus = dwelling units. 1 Does not account for eliminated trips due to removal of existing uses. See following tables. 2 Internal trips estimated to be 22.5 percent on a daily basis, 34.9 percent during the AM peak hour, and

25.6 percent during the PM peak hour.
3 Estimated proportion of total external trips made by transit ranges from 2.0 to 2.3 percent depending on time period.
4 Estimated proportion of total external trips made by walking or biking ranges from 0.4 to 0.6 percent depending on time period.
5 Pass-by trips are made to retail uses from the adjacent street. Pass-by percentages are based on the Trip Generation Handbook (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017). 6 Diverted link trips come from I-80 or I-5. Percentages are from the Trip Generation Handbook (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017).

SOURCE: Fehr & Peers 2022b.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-30 PLNP2018-00284

VMT PER CAPITA AND PER EMPLOYEE
The TAG describes the specific analytical process to be used to calculate both VMT per capita and VMT per employee both for the project and for the regional average. This process was followed, and the results are shown in Table TR-2 for baseline conditions, which is represented by the base (Year 2016) SACSIM19 travel demand model. As indicated in the table, the project’s VMT per capita and VMT per employee would be below (i.e., perform better than) the 85 percent threshold of the regional average.

Table TR-2: VMT per Capita and per Employee
Measure
Work Tour VMT Per
Employee1
Household VMT per
Capita1
Regional Average2 18.48 17.44
Threshold3 15.70 14.83
Proposed UWSP4,5,6 15.31 14.34
NOTES:
1 Calculated per Sacramento County TAG.
2 Regional Average is from Existing No Project Model run. VMT includes the entire length of trips outside of SACOG Region, whereas Sacramento County TAG threshold didn’t include trip length outside SACOG Region; hence, values are slightly different. 3 85 percent of Regional Average per Sacramento County TAG. 4 The proposed UWSP was added to the base year MTP/SCS model. Average trip distance outside of SACOG region for the project was estimated using the average of nearby TAZs. 5 SACSIM estimated that 15.4 percent of home-based household trips would be internal to the project site, which is low given the diversity and proximity of on-site land uses. In contrast, the MXD+ mixed-use trip generation model estimated 22.9 percent of home-based trips being internal.

Because SACSIM is a regional travel demand model, while MXD+ was developed to more accurately estimate internal trips associated with mixed-use projects, the household VMT estimate from SACSIM was adjusted to reflect this expected level of internal resident trips. 6 Adjustments were not made to work tour VMT per employee because results appeared reasonable and this VMT represents a relatively small (i.e., about 20 percent) component of the proposed UWSP’s total VMT.

SOURCE: Fehr & Peers 2022a.

REGIONAL RETAIL EFFECT ON VMT
The regional retail provided by the proposed UWSP consists of the retail component of land uses proposed on the east side of El Centro Road both north and south of West El Camino Avenue. These retail uses are considered regional-serving because they would be located nearest to and visible from I-80. In contrast, the retail uses that are part of the CMU parcels within the Town Center would not have the same type of regional retail orientation.

The SACSIM model was run without and with the regional retail (but with the remainder of the proposed UWSP assumed to be developed). The results are shown in 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-31 PLNP2018-00284
Table TR-3. As shown, the proposed UWSP without its regional retail generates more VMT than the proposed UWSP with the regional retail added.

Table TR-3: Regional Retail Effect on VMT
Measure1 SACSIM Model Plus Project
SACSIM Model Plus Project
Without Regional Retail
Total Regional VMT 42,992,142 43,014,069
Difference -21,927
NOTES:
1 Calculated using Daysim trip tables, which is a step within the overall SACSIM model.

SOURCE: Fehr & Peers 2022a.

Regional retail would be located at the I-80/Truxel Road interchange in the City of Sacramento and at the I-80/Reed interchange in the City of West Sacramento. These uses are about five miles apart. There are a substantial number of households located in North and South Natomas, and west of I-5 (north of I-80), many of whom would likely visit these regional retail destinations. The proposed UWSP would introduce an additional 9,356 units to this total. Placing regional retail at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange (i.e., between the two existing regional retail destinations) would decrease the travel distance for many of residents who are traveling to a regional retail destination. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed UWSP’s regional retail would reduce VMT.

ROADWAY WIDENING EFFECT ON VMT
The proposed UWSP would construct new roadways and widen existing roadways.

These capacity expansions could induce more VMT due to changes in background travel demand, route choice, and other factors. The following specific roadway widenings, which are considered regional in nature, are proposed as part of the project:
 Approximate 2,150-foot widening of West El Camino Avenue from two to six lanes from El Centro Road to just east of I-80.
 1,375-foot widening of El Centro Road from two to six lanes from West El Camino Avenue to just north of Farm Road.
 1.5-mile widening of El Centro Road from two to four lanes from just north of Farm Road to just south of Arena Boulevard.

The above roadway widenings represent an addition of 5.7 lane-miles to the County’s roadway network. According to the TAG, secondary roadways (e.g., Bryte Bend Road, Farm Road, Radio Road, etc.) would not be expected to induce more travel due to their local-serving nature and are therefore not considered in the induced travel VMT analysis. 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-32 PLNP2018-00284
The SACSIM model was run without and with the aforementioned regional roadway widenings (but with all other components of the proposed UWSP included). The net change in VMT is shown in Table TR-4. As shown in the table, the isolated effect of widening these three segments would be a net increase of 1,800 VMT. Review of the model runs indicated that the roadway widenings would eliminate “out of way” travel that would otherwise occur on roadways such as San Juan Road and Garden Highway. But by virtue of providing more roadway capacity to access I-80, the roadway widenings would also contribute to longer trip lengths, which would offset the eliminated “out of way” travel.

Table TR-4: Roadway Widening Effect on VMT
Scenario VMT1
With Roadway Widenings 57,062,857
Without Roadway Widenings 57,061,058
Difference + 1,799
NOTES:
1 VMT is calculated for the entire model network. TAZ connectors and gateways are excluded.

SOURCE: Fehr & Peers 2022a.

SUMMARY
The results of the three VMT analyses conducted for the proposed UWSP indicate that:
 VMT per capita and per employee generated by the proposed UWSP would be below the County’s threshold of significance.
 The regional retail component of the proposed UWSP would result in a reduction in VMT of approximately 21,900.
 The roadway widening component of the proposed UWSP would result in an increase in VMT of approximately 1,800.

Based on the above, the proposed UWSP would generate VMT per capita and per employee that are below the County’s applicable thresholds, and the net change in VMT due to regional retail and roadway widening components would be negative (i.e., the increase in VMT resulting from roadway widenings would be offset by the reduction in VMT resulting from regional retail). Therefore, implementation of the proposed UWSP would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and the impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-33 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT TR-3: HAZARDS DUE TO DESIGN OR INCOMPATIBLE USES

ROADWAY SAFETY/DESIGN STANDARDS
As documented in Table 11 of the LTA conducted for the proposed UWSP (see Appendix TR-2), the proposed UWSP would not cause a substandard rural roadway (i.e., less than 24 feet of pavement width and less than six a foot shoulder) to exceed average daily traffic of 6,000 vehicles and would not add 600 or more vehicle trips to a substandard rural roadway that already carries 6,000 or more daily vehicles.

Substandard rural roadway segments in the study area include Del Paso Road, San Juan Road, Powerline Road, Garden Highway, and Bayou Way; while average daily traffic would increase on these roadway segments with implementation of the proposed UWSP, average daily traffic would not exceed the significance threshold described above. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to rural roadway compatibility is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUES EXCEED AVAILABLE STORAGE
AM and PM peak hour maximum queues on freeway off-ramps were evaluated for the proposed UWSP. Detailed tables and calculations are provided in the LTA (see Appendix TR-2). The analysis concluded that all study freeway off-ramps would continue to have sufficient storage to accommodate the maximum queue lengths with the proposed UWSP, with the exception of the I-80 eastbound and westbound off-ramps at West El Camino Avenue (during one or both peak hours) despite the interchange’s assumed expansion with the proposed UWSP, and I-5 southbound off-ramp at J Street (during the AM peak hour).

Caltrans' Interim Local Land Development and Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance specifies that the speed differential between the offramp queue and the adjacent travel lane is an important criterion that should be considered when determining significance of freeway off-ramp impacts. The guidance specifically cites 30 miles per hour as a threshold beyond which collision severity increases. Because the I-80 mainline at West El Camino Avenue operates in a free-flow condition during weekday AM and PM peak hours, there would be a greater than a 30-mph speed differential between queued off-ramp traffic and freeway mainline traffic.

In contrast, the travel lane on southbound I-5 at the J Street off-ramp is frequently congested during the AM peak hour as a result of queue spillback from the I-80/US 50/SR 99 interchange. Hence, there would not be a 30-mph speed differential at this offramp. Thus, the impact of the proposed UWSP related to off-ramp queuing at the I-80 eastbound and westbound off-ramps at West El Camino Avenue would be considered potentially significant.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measure TR-3a is prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to construct geometric and associated signal timing/phasing improvements (or an equivalent or more effective set of alternate improvements subject to the determination of the environmental coordinator) at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange and at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection. As 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-34 PLNP2018-00284
noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, project buildout would be supported by a reconstructed I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange to accommodate the travel needs of the proposed UWSP and provide for a more bicycle/pedestrian friendly design (i.e., by removing the free-flow westbound I-80 off-ramp right-turn movement, for instance). Although the initial proposed UWSP improvements (see Plate TR-7) include a traffic signal with additional lanes at the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection, the resulting roadway network would not have sufficient capacity to accommodate inbound travel associated with buildout of the UWSP area. As a result, vehicle queues at each off-ramp would spill onto I-80 under buildout conditions.

The required geometric improvements described above and depicted graphically in Plate TR-8 (also see Appendix TR-1) were analyzed to determine how off-ramp queuing would be affected at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange. The results indicated that the maximum queue with the improvements in place at the eastbound offramp would be 1,050 feet during the more critical PM peak hour, which can be accommodated in a standard interchange design. At the westbound off-ramp, the maximum queue would be 475 feet during the AM peak hour and 600 feet during the PM peak hour. Since this is less than the existing storage of 1,500 feet, the geometric improvements required by Mitigation Measure TR-2a would not cause traffic to spill onto the I-80 mainline. Mitigation implementation will require further design refinement through a subsequent Intersection Control Evaluation process in conjunction with Caltrans to identify the proper interchange design to address both operational capacity and safety issues.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3a would require approvals from Caltrans and the City of Sacramento because the identified improvements would occur along roadways under their control. Sacramento County cannot compel those agencies to approve and allow construction of the specified improvements. Therefore, despite the availability of mitigation which would reduce the impact to less than significant if implemented, the impact with respect to freeway off-ramp queues exceeding available capacity is nonetheless considered significant and unavoidable because Sacramento County cannot assure those improvements will be made in a reasonable period of time.

FREEWAY ON-RAMP RAMP METER QUEUES EXCEED AVAILABLE STORAGE AM and PM peak hour queues at freeway on-ramp ramp meter locations where the proposed UWSP would add vehicles were evaluated. Detailed tables and calculations are provided in the LTA (see Appendix TR-2). The analysis concluded that most freeway ramp meter on-ramp locations would continue to have sufficient storage for queues except for the I-5 southbound diagonal on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue and I-5 southbound loop on-ramp and I-5 northbound diagonal on-ramp at Garden Highway.

The impacts of the proposed UWSP with respect to freeway on-ramp ramp metering queuing at these locations would be considered potentially significant. \\Fpsa03.fpainc.local\Data\2020 Projects\3945.00_Upper_Westside_Specific_Plan_EIR\Graphics\AI\Phase_1_Figures El Centro Rd & W El Camino Ave
Existing & Existing Plus Phase I with Recommended Improvements Figure 1
1 City Boundary
County Boundary
Upper Westside Specific Plan Boundary
Study Intersection
Public Roadway
Private and/or Gated, Partially Paved/Unpaved Rural Road Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
OVL Right-Turn Overlap
Garden Hwy
Truxel Rd
San Juan Rd
El Centro Rd
E Com merce Way
W El Camino Ave
Arena Blvd Duckhorn Dr
Radio Rd
County Road 127
Azevedo Dr
Gateway Park Blvd
Richards Blvd
County Road 126
Market Blvd
Bryte Bend Rd
Gateway
Oaks Dr
F
r
e
e
w
ay
Blvd
Orchard Ln
Natomas Central Dr
Stemmler Dr
Garden Hwy Duckhorn Dr
!17
Sacramento River
American
R
i
ve
r
§¨¦80
§¨¦5
Yolo County Line Sacramento County Line
!"$
!"$
B
CF
IF
W El Camino Ave
El Centro Rd

17. El Centro Rd/W El Camino Ave
AB
CF
IFF
W El Camino Ave
El Centro Rd

17. El Centro Rd/W El Camino Ave
OVL
Existing
Existing Plus Phase I
with Recommended Improvements
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate TR-7
El Centro Road & West El Camino Avenue -
Existing & Existing Plus Phase I with Recommended Improvements SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator °09=A
52'

TOMATO PATCH LANE
LANGIS
NAIDEM
NAIDEM
GNITSIXE VK 96

LAITNETOP
LANGIS

EL CENTRO ROAD

ENAL HCTAP OTAMOT
NAIDEM

POWER POLE

NOITACOLER

LIART EKIB

OT NOITISNART NRUT THGIR ELBUOD DENGILA-ER

PMAR-FFO

ETACOLER

LANGIS CIFFART
R=800'
L=836'±
I-80 OFF-RAMP
I-80 ON-RAMP
W. EL CAMINO AVENUE

EDISBRUC

GNIKRAP
DEP/EKIB '01

EDISBRUC ON

NO GNIKRAP

TNE MGES SIHT
W. EL CAMINO AVENUE
LIART

TUC BRUC EVOMER

EERF ELBUOD

GNITSIXE EVOMER

PMAR-FFO BW
ELBUOD

NRUT THGIR
DEP/EKIB '01
LIART
ELPIRT

NRUT TFEL
L=690'±
±'855=L
WOLLA

TUO TFEL

NRUT TFEL
TEKCOP

PEDESTRIAN/

GNISSORC EKIB
L=115'±
±'58=L

NRUT THGIR ELBUOD
REQUIRED 6-LANE THOROUGHFARE
126'
ERAFHGUOROHT ENAL-6
113'

NRUT THGIR
EGATS-2

KLAWSSORC

GEL TSAE KLAWSSORC ON
)PYT( ENAL EKIB

PEDESTRIAN/

DNALSI EKIB
I SSALC YAW-2
FUTURE

KLAWEDIS
L=32'±
±'511=L
Geometric Improvements at West El Camino
Avenue and El Centro Road
Figure 11
N.T.S.

CONCEPTUAL - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. ADDITIONAL
DETAILED ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING DESIGN REQUIRED.

Notes:

1. Improvements also include modifications within state right-of-way.

2. Source: Wood Rodgers, Oct 2021
Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Figure TR-8
El Centro Road & West El Camino Avenue -
Geometric Improvements
SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, 2022
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-37 PLNP2018-00284
To address this impact, Mitigation Measure TR-3b is prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to pay its proportionate fair share percentage toward improvements at the I-5 southbound on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue and I-5 southbound and northbound on-ramps at Garden Highway. All three on-ramps feature a single general purpose metered lane with storage (625 to 750 feet) that is less than is typically provided at new interchanges. Queuing could be reduced at each on-ramp by widening it to include a second lane (either general purpose or carpool). Caltrans indicated in their August 6, 2021 comment letter that there is a planned project at the I-5 southbound on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue, but nothing planned at the I-5 on-ramps at Garden Highway. It is further noted that the Garden Highway on-ramp queuing is an existing operational issue, caused in part by Caltrans’ decision to apply metering rates of about 800 vehicles per hour (due to congestion along I-5). Since adding increased on-ramp capacity could contribute to increased traffic flows on I-5 during peak hours, one option would be to reduce metering rates in conjunction with the on-ramp capacity increase so as to avoid adding more peak hour traffic onto I-5.

The fair share payment is to be made by the applicant to Sacramento County where it will be held in a custodial account. At such a time that a lead agency (either City of Sacramento or Caltrans) indicates an intent to construct the specified (or other equally effective) improvements, the County will transfer the fair share payment to that appropriate agency. While this payment would represent the project’s fair share contribution toward the improvement, it would not assure that the improvement would be constructed both the remaining fair share funding sources are not known.

Furthermore, it is unknown whether the City of Sacramento or Caltrans will approve construction of said improvements. Therefore, the impact with respect to freeway on-ramp ramp meter queues exceeding available capacity is considered significant and unavoidable because Sacramento County cannot assure those improvements will be constructed.

INCREASED HAZARDS AT PROJECT ACCESS INTERSECTIONS ON GARDEN HIGHWAY The proposed UWSP would construct new or expanded intersections on Garden Highway, which along the project frontage is currently a two-lane undivided roadway featuring horizontal curvature, a 45-mph posted speed limit, and limited to no shoulders.

New/improved intersections would be located at Radio Road, San Juan Road, Street 9, and Bryte Bend Road. The Bryte Bend Road intersection with Garden Highway would be relocated approximately 600 feet north of its current location to a tangential section of Garden Highway. The TIA (see Appendix TR-1) conducted a sight-distance review of this proposed relocated intersection and determined that motorists exiting Bryte Bend Road (looking to the left, which is the more critical direction) would have adequate sight distance based on the new location and Sacramento County design standards. The addition of project trips to these new/improved intersections could increase design hazards due to their geometric features. This impact would be considered potentially significant.

It is also noted that agricultural equipment occasionally is observed traveling along Garden Highway (in vicinity of Radio Road, San Juan Road, and Bryte Bend Road) 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-38 PLNP2018-00284
while traveling between adjacent fields/agricultural sites. The addition of project trips would cause interactions between vehicles and agricultural equipment to be more common. However, usage of this segment of Garden Highway by development allowed under the proposed UWSP is expected to be modest, meaning only minor increases in conflicts even at project buildout. But under cumulative conditions, the combined growth in background traffic plus addition project trips on Garden Highway triggers the need for the addition of shoulders. The need for this improvement is discussed in the Chapter 22, Cumulative Impacts.

To address the impact associated with the lack of turn lanes at project access intersections on Garden Highway, Mitigation Measure TR-3c is prescribed below. As shown, it would require the project applicant to construct improvements at project access intersections along Garden Highway. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact of increased hazards at project access intersections on Garden Highway would be less than significant. If necessary, the County could exercise its powers of eminent domain to acquire parts of properties for widening should additional right-of-way be needed.

In the vicinity of these intersections, Garden Highway consists of a pair of 10-foot, undivided travel lanes with 0- to 4-foot shoulders on either side of the street. Garden Highway has a 40.6-foot right-of-way near San Juan Road. It increases to 68 feet further south and also becomes a prescriptive right-of-way (i.e., legal right to use adjacent parcel for access). Adjacent property owners include some private residences (primarily on the west), PG&E, and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Authority.

Widening to the east (where there is more undeveloped land) would be the primary means for developing the left or right-turn pockets. The left-turn pockets at San Juan Road and Radio Road would require widening both to the north and south of each intersection as it is necessary to transition the northbound travel lane easterly to develop a left-turn pocket.

The following describes the recommended timing for these improvements:
 Garden Highway/San Juan Road – Construct southbound left-turn lane concurrent with UWSP development along (i.e., accessed from) San Juan Road.  Garden Highway/Bryte Bend Road – Construct northbound right-turn lane concurrent with realignment and improvements to Bryte Bend Road.  Garden Highway/Radio Road – Construct southbound left-turn lane concurrent with UWSP development along (i.e., accessed from) Radio Road.

POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUES AT I-80/WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE INTERCHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH SACRAMENTO 49ER TRAVEL PLAZA TRUCK STOP The existing 49er Travel Plaza truck stop is located in the northeast corner of the West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road intersection. As detailed in the TIA (see Appendix TR-1), it was measured to generate about 175 AM peak hour trips and 215 PM peak hour trips, most of which are trucks. The site is accessed by a right-turn only driveway on West El Camino Avenue and three full-service driveways on El Centro 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-39 PLNP2018-00284
Road. At full build-out of the proposed UWSP, this use would be replaced by commercial mixed-use. However, it would likely remain in place for a period of time while the proposed UWSP begins developing.

The short segment of westbound West El Camino Avenue from the I-80 westbound ramps and El Centro Road features a short (about 150-foot) weaving area. The freeflowing off-ramp from westbound I-80 merges into its own lane, which becomes the right-turn lane at El Centro Road. A Class II bike lane and sidewalk are also present on this segment. During the PM peak hour (which is busier than the AM peak hour), 150 vehicles exit this off-ramp, many of which weave with the 910 vehicles (in a single lane) that continue straight from the freeway overcrossing.

The Transportation Injury Mapping System was developed by the University of California Berkeley’s Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC) to map and document California crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. Transportation Injury Mapping System data was pulled for this area for the seven-year period from 2014 through 2020 inclusive. The data revealed only two collisions between the I-80 westbound ramps and El Centro Road, both resulting in complaints of pain, but not being severe or fatal. One was a broadside collision and the other involved a collision with a fixed object. Given the volume of traffic on this segment (14,200 daily trips), this is not considered an above average collision rate. There were six reported collisions on El Centro Road along the 49er Travel Plaza frontage. These collisions included broadside, rear-end, and head-on types. These safety issues represent a potentially significant safety impact.

To address this impact, Mitigation Measures TR-3d and TR-3e are prescribed below, which would require the project applicant to eliminate the 49er Travel Plaza driveway on West El Camino Avenue and replace the free-flowing right-turn off-ramp movement with a signal-controlled movement, respectively. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3d is feasible as it would occur completely within Sacramento County roadways under County control. However, Mitigation Measure TR-3e would require approvals from Caltrans, which the County cannot assure will occur. Therefore, the impact of increased hazards at the existing 49er Travel Plaza truck stop driveway on West El Camino Avenue (associating with weaving from the free-flow movement from the I-80 off-ramp) is considered significant and unavoidable despite the presence of mitigations, which if implemented, would improve the condition.

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT COLLISION PATTERNS ON ADJACENT SEGMENTS OF I-80 AND I-5
Caltrans provided collision statistics from June 1, 2018 through May 31, 2021 for two segments of I-5 and one segment of I-80 that would be used to the greatest degree by project trips, which are summarized in the TIA (see Appendix TR-1). The statistics indicate that collision rates (total, fatal, and fatal/injury) are greater on the two segments of I-5 versus the segment of I-80. This is expected because the segments of I-5 generally feature more recurring congestion, lane changing, and other travel behaviors that may contribute to these collision patterns. On all segments speeding was the most 18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-40 PLNP2018-00284
common primary collision factor and rear-end collisions were most commonly reported.

The collision rate (0.95 collisions per million vehicle miles of travel) on I-5 is slightly greater than the average rate for similar facilities (0.90 collisions per million vehicle miles of travel).

While the proposed UWSP would add the most trips to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange on-ramps, it would also reconstruct the interchange to include ramp metering. With ramp metering in place, more orderly traffic flow from these on-ramps onto I-80 would be achieved, which may reduce collision rates. For this reason, the impact of the proposed UWSP on collision rates on I-80 and I-5 would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
All required improvements detailed below for Mitigation Measures TR-3a through TR-3c are based on the forecast traffic volume and geometric conditions at each intersection, as analyzed in the LTA prepared for the proposed UWSP (see Appendix TR-2).

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

West El Camino Avenue/El Centro Road Intersection
 Construct two channelized westbound" right-turn lanes (i.e., two approach lanes, triangular corner raised median, and two receiving lanes).  Construct at-grade crosswalks on the north, south, and west legs (including a signalized crosswalk in the westbound right-turn lanes).

Prohibit pedestrian travel on the east leg.
 Modify the eastbound approach to consist of a single left-turn lane and the northbound approach to consist of a single through lane.  Construct a third westbound left-turn lane.
 Modify the eastbound right-turn lane to become a shared through/right lane.

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

West El Camino Avenue between I-80 Westbound Ramps and El Centro Road  In the westbound direction, construct four travel lanes departing the westbound ramps intersection.
 In the eastbound direction, construct three receiving lanes departing El Centro Road that laterally transition and then widen to four lanes approaching the westbound ramps intersection.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-41 PLNP2018-00284
TR-3b) The project applicant shall pay its proportionate fair share percentage toward improvements at the I-5 southbound on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue and I-5 southbound and northbound on-ramps at Garden Highway.

TR-3c) The project applicant shall construct the following improvements at project access intersections along Garden Highway:
 Garden Highway/San Juan Road – Construct exclusive southbound leftturn lane.  Garden Highway/Bryte Bend Road – Construct exclusive northbound right-turn lane.
 Garden Highway/Radio Road – Construct exclusive southbound left-turn lane.

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

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

IMPACT TR-4: EMERGENCY ACCESS
As shown in Plate TR-3, the proposed UWSP includes a fully developed roadway system. In addition, the UWSP area includes a designated site located at the southeast corner of Bryte Bend Road and Street 2, which is southwest of the Town Center District, for a potential future fire station. Future driveway and building configurations would comply with applicable fire code requirements for emergency evacuation, including proper emergency exits for visitors and employees. Individual buildings proposed within the UWSP area would be subject to the review and approval of access and circulation plans by the City of Sacramento Fire Department;1 as such, the proposed UWSP would not result in inadequate emergency access. Furthermore, pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 21806, the drivers of emergency vehicles are generally able to avoid traffic in the event of an emergency by using sirens to clear a path of travel or by driving in the lanes of opposing traffic. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would not result in inadequate emergency access, and the impact would be less than significant.

1 As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, the City of Sacramento Fire Department is currently contracted to provide fire and emergency services to the UWSP area and would continue to do so after approval of the UWSP.
18 - Transportation
Upper Westside Specific Plan 18-42 PLNP2018-00284

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-1 PLNP2018-00284
19 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. 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 (SB 18) and Assembly Bill 52 (AB 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 culturally affiliated Native American tribes.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Chapter 9, Cultural Resources, provides a comprehensive overview of the environmental setting, including the natural, physical, hydrological, soils, climate, flora, and fauna of the UWSP area, as well as a cultural setting, including the pre-contact and historic overview. Chapter 9, Cultural Resources, also provides a review of the background research completed for the UWSP area.

ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
The UWSP area is located in the southwestern corner of the traditional territory of Nisenan, also known as the Southern Maidu. Other Native American groups located near the UWSP area were the Plains Miwok to the south near Freeport, and the Patwin, on the west side of the Sacramento River.

Nisenan territory included the American, Yuba, and Bear River drainages from the Sacramento Valley to the crest of the Sierras, and the lower reaches of the Feather River. This included the Sacramento Valley area now occupied by the City of Sacramento, with the Sacramento River marking the western boundary of Nisenan territory in this location. Because of the extensive range and variation in the territory occupied, the Nisenan are sometimes divided into two subgroups, the Hill Nisenan and the Valley Nisenan.

The Nisenan were organized into autonomous village communities, based on extended family groupings. Nisenan settlements ranged in population size from 15 to 500 people.

One larger village usually played a dominant social and organizing role in a particular area. From the central village, inhabitants dispersed at certain times of the year to 19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-2 PLNP2018-00284
gather resources and hunt. Near the UWSP area, the largest known village is Pusune or Pujune (CA-SAC-26), which was north of the mouth of the American River.

In the Sacramento Valley, Nisenan settlements were located on low rises near rivers and streams, to avoid flooding and to allow exploitation of riverine resources. In the foothills, settlements were located on gentle slopes with south or western exposure.

Important factors for the location of village sites included available water, south or western exposure for warmth in the winter, and elevation.

Family dwellings were circular dome-shaped structures, roofed with grass, tule, and earth.

Typical houses were eight to fifteen feet in diameter, although the house of the headman could be larger. Summer shelters were usually informal brush and tule structures designed for shade and air flow. Larger villages had a dance house, a semi-subterranean circular dome-shaped structure, but much larger, thirty feet or more in diameter.

Subsistence was based on generalized hunting and gathering, with acorns playing a large role as a reliable food stuff. In addition to acorns, the Nisenan gathered a large variety of nuts, roots, bulbs, berries and greens for both food and medicinal uses.

Hunting focused on deer, however, pronghorn antelopes, bears, and small animals such as rabbits, squirrels, and birds were also hunted. Fish were an important part of the diet in areas located along major drainages. Amphibians and reptiles were not eaten, and dogs, coyotes, and wolves were regarded as poisonous and never eaten.

The Nisenan used typical flaked and ground stone tool assemblages, including mortars and pestles, knives, scrapers, pipes, and charmstones. Baskets, nets, and matting were also widely utilized. Hunting was done with the bow and arrow. The Valley Nisenan used tule rafts or canoes to navigate the delta and rivers but did not travel widely.

Foodstuffs, furs, and manufactured items were traded by the Nisenan with their neighbors. Desirable exotic items were obtained through trade, such as ocean shell, shell beads, and obsidian toolstone.

Contact between the Nisenan and the Spanish Mission system began about 1800.

However, the Valley Nisenan were sufficiently removed from the Mission influence, which was concentrated around San Francisco Bay, to largely escape being brought to the Missions. Spanish explorers did cross through the area, and by the 1820s, American trappers were working in Nisenan territory. These localized intrusions did not result in any permanent settlement. In 1832-1833, a malaria epidemic swept the Sacramento Valley, killing perhaps as much as 75% of the indigenous population.

The arrival of John Sutter in 1839, followed by the gold rush after the discovery of gold in 1848, resulted in quick and complete destruction of the traditional Nisenan lifeway.

Wide-spread activity by prospectors, miners, and farmers disturbed or destroyed hunting and gathering areas, and the Native Americans were pushed out of their settlements and much reduced in number by disease and deliberate killing.

Modern tribal entities with Nisenan heritage include: Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians, Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, Greenville Rancheria of 19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-3 PLNP2018-00284
Maidu Indians of California, Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, Mooretown Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), Susanville Indian Rancheria, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria, Honey Lake Maidu Tribe, KonKow Valley Band of Maidu Indians, Nisenan of Nevada City Rancheria, Strawberry Valley Band of Pakan’yani Maidu (a.k.a. Strawberry Valley Rancheria), Tsi Akim Maidu Tribe of Taylorsville Rancheria, United Maidu Nation, and Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe of the Colfax Rancheria.

TRIBAL CONSULTATION EFFORT
On October 6, 2020, Sacramento County Office of Planning and Environmental Review (PER) distributed AB 52 notification letters to Ione Band of Miwok Indians, United Auburn Indian Community, and Wilton Rancheria, the registered consulting parties of the County. In addition to these consulting tribes, Sacramento County also distributed SB 18 notification letters to the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, ColfaxTodds Valley Consolidated Tribe, Nashville Enterprise Miwok-Maidu-Nishinam Tribe, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and Tsi Akim Maidu, per the recommendations of the Native American Heritage Commission
Three tribes formally requested consultation: United Auburn Indian Community (October 20, 2020); Wilton Rancheria (October 27, 2020); and Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (November 2, 2020). Between October 2023 and May 2024, County PER held consultation meetings with these tribes. County PER provided project updates, steps for tribal cultural identifications, and avoidance/mitigation measures that could be implemented through the environmental document. United Auburn Indian Community expressed interest in employing a canine forensic survey to ensure there are no unknown burial sites within the development areas. Wilton Rancheria expressed interest in joining the tribal cultural survey. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians reaffirmed their assessment of significant impacts that the project would have on the tribal cultural landscape (Sacramento River Tribal Cultural Landscape).

On May 20, 2024, Rene Guerrero from United Auburn Indian Community conducted a tribal survey of the accessible project site. Representatives from Wilton Rancheria opted to review County drone footage in lieu of on-site observation. While no tribal cultural resources were identified, Mr. Guerrero expressed concern over the holistic impact to the tribal cultural landscape and the ability to view and comment of mitigation measures prior to release of the draft EIR.

SACRAMENTO RIVER TRIBAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE
The Sacramento River is a registered Tribal Cultural Landscape (TCL) on file with the Office of Historic Preservation and recognized by California’s State Historic Preservation Officer as a landscape that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) under the Criterion A.

The TCL includes the entire span (approximately 50 miles) of the Lower Sacramento River within Sacramento County. The primary characteristics of this landscape are 19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-4 PLNP2018-00284
waterways, tule habitat, fisheries, and native wildlife. The landscape is considered sacred for its association with pre-contact indigenous occupation and long-spanning ethnographic lore.

The TCL remains significant to the indigenous communities of Sacramento County for its contemporary habitats, which support native plants and animals still used today for spiritual, medicinal, and modern foraging practices that help preserve traditional lifeways.

NATIONAL REGISTER EVALUATION STATUS
All properties and districts listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register are considered in the planning of federal undertaking such as highway construction and Community Development Block Grant projects. Federal undertakings also include activities sponsored by state or local governments or private entities if they are licensed or partially funded by the federal government.

If a project is subject to the CEQA, then the National Register designation of a property (or the determination of its eligibility) would indicate its significance and the need to take into account any effects of the project on the property. A local agency may tie listing in the National Register to restrictions imposed locally, such as design review.

In March 2023, California’s State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) recognized the Sacramento River TCL as property eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A, for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Despite being subject to significant alterations in the 19th and 20th centuries, the SHPO concurred that the landscape maintains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association.

CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION STATUS
All properties and districts listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register are considered in the planning of public and private projects that are subject to CEQA as potential impacts to cultural and/or tribal cultural resources.

The Sacramento River TCL has not been evaluated at the state level, and its eligibility status remains unconfirmed. Because the Sacramento River TCL is not a listed or evaluated property under the California Register, Sacramento County defers to Public Resources Section 21074, which states that “a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Section 5024.1(c) and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.” Therefore, the Sacramento TCL is considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. 19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-5 PLNP2018-00284

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
There are no federal laws or regulations specifically related to tribal cultural resources.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act considers historic properties, which also include traditional cultural properties.1 Chapter 9, Cultural Resources, provides a summary of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

STATE
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 21074, 21080, 21083 (ASSEMBLY BILL 52) In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 52, which added provisions to the Public Resources Code regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on tribal cultural resources (Public Resources Code Sections 21074 and 21083.09). The law defines tribal cultural resources in a new Section, Public Resources Code Section 21074. AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3).

Public Resources Code Section 21084.3 addresses mitigation for tribal cultural resources impacts as follows:
a) Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.
b) If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process provided in Section 21080.3.2, the following are examples of mitigation measures that, if feasible, may be considered to avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts:
1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
2) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:

1 A Traditional Cultural Property is a property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places based on its associations with the cultural practices, traditions, beliefs, lifeways, arts, crafts, or social institutions of a living community.
19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-6 PLNP2018-00284
A. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource.

B. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.

C. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
4) Protecting the resource.

SENATE BILL 18
Senate Bill 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes before making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in California Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). Adoption of the proposed UWSP would require several General Plan amendments; therefore, the SB 18 consultation process is applicable.

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-151 Projects involving an adoption or amendment of a General Plan or Specific Plan or the designation of open space shall be noticed to all appropriate Native American tribes in order to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places.

CO-152 Consultations with Native American tribes shall be handled with confidentiality and respect regarding sensitive cultural resources on traditional tribal lands.

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 tribal cultural resources may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-7 PLNP2018-00284
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

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

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
For projects for which an NOP or a notice of negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration was filed on or after July 1, 2015, CEQA requires that a project’s impacts on tribal cultural resources be considered as part of the overall analysis of project impacts (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21084.2, and 21084.3).

Tribal cultural resources are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) listed or eligible for listing in the California Register, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (ii) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area may have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the analysis of whether project impacts may result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource depends heavily on the results of consultation between the lead agency and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes during the CEQA process.

IMPACT TCR-1: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP could involve ground disturbance, vibration, and the removal of archaeological resources and/or architectural resources. Construction of individual projects may also affect the biological resources community (e.g., trees, vegetation, fish, riparian vegetation), visual setting, noise levels, 19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-8 PLNP2018-00284
and air quality, among other resources. However, the exact details, including 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 tribal cultural resources.

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). It is not known whether the offsite improvements would affect any significant tribal cultural resources.

Construction could result in a significant impact on tribal cultural resources, including the National and California Register-eligible Sacramento TCL, by introducing new visual elements to landscapes associated with or comprising tribal cultural resources. Grounddisturbing activities could result in a significant impact on archaeological resources that are also considered tribal cultural resources through their partial or complete destruction.

Finally, construction activities could alter the makeup of biological communities (e.g., fish, riparian vegetation) that comprise tribal cultural resources (e.g., traditional hunting/ fishing/gathering areas). Any impact of these construction activities on such tribal cultural resources could be significant.

If construction activities for development allowed under the proposed UWSP or offsite improvements result in either a direct impact (e.g., physical modification, damage, or destruction) or an indirect impact (e.g., alteration to setting, biological community, or visual setting) on any tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, the impact would be potentially significant.

The Sacramento River TCL is an altered landscape with a spectrum of significance throughout its boundaries. Sacramento County relies on tribal consultation to determine when impacts to the Sacramento River TCL are potentially significant. Through consultation under CEQA, tribes confirmed that the project area contains critical aspects of the TCL. If construction activities for development allowed under the proposed UWSP or offsite improvements result in either a direct impact (e.g., physical modification, damage, or destruction) or an indirect impact (e.g., alteration to setting, biological community, or visual setting) on any tribal cultural landscape as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, the impact would be potentially significant.

Compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-2a, CUL-2b, and CUL-3 would be required when applicable to a given project. In addition, Mitigation Measures TCR-1a and TCR-1b would be required when applicable to a given project. 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 a tribal cultural 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 measures, or equally effective mitigation measures, would reduce a significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-9 PLNP2018-00284

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

Upon submittal of subsequent development applications, the project proponent shall coordinate with the County and consulting Native American tribes (United Auburn Indian Community, Wilton Rancheria, and Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians – collectively referred to as tribes) for each project-specific area. The tribes shall be offered the opportunity to identify portions of the project site that could be sensitive or potentially sensitive for tribal cultural resources. The tribes may work in coordination with the tasks outlined in CUL-1.

Tribes may request additional testing and boundary delineation prior to the disturbance of any potential tribal cultural resource. The treatment plan may include identification methods including, but not limited to, canine forensic surveys, ground penetrating radar, vegetation clearing for surface visibility, and/or subsurface testing.

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

If the consulting Native American tribes determine that a tribal cultural monitor is warranted for a project, the tribes shall be offered the opportunity to engage in compensated construction monitoring. Tribes must be contacted for the opportunity to monitor each separate development stage. For monitoring, the provisions of Mitigation Measure CUL-2a will be followed, which includes the development of a monitoring plan.

If potentially significant impacts on tribal cultural resources that qualify as historical resources (per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) are identified, a treatment plan for avoiding or minimizing such impacts shall be 19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-10 PLNP2018-00284
developed, in coordination with the tribes. Measures for avoiding or minimizing impacts include:
 Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
 Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
- Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. - Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
- Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
 Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places.
 Protecting the resource.

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

TCR-1b Tribal Repatriations.

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

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

Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2a.

For the text of this mitigation measure, see the discussion of Impact CUL-2 in Chapter 9, Cultural Resources.
19 - Tribal Cultural Resources
Upper Westside Specific Plan 19-11 PLNP2018-00284
Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2b.

For the text of this mitigation measure, see the discussion of Impact CUL-2 in Chapter 9, Cultural Resources.

Implement Mitigation Measure CUL-3.

For the text of this mitigation measure, see the discussion of Impact CUL-3 in Chapter 9, Cultural Resources.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-1 PLNP2018-00284
20 UTILITIES

INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing utilities and service systems that serve the UWSP area.

Utilities and service systems described in this chapter include water supply and conveyance, wastewater treatment and conveyance, stormwater conveyance, solid waste collection and disposal, and electricity, natural gas and telecommunications.

Pertinent federal, state, and local regulations and requirements are reviewed. Potential impacts of the proposed UWSP on utilities and service systems are discussed, and as warranted, mitigation measures that could avoid or minimize the magnitude of potential impacts are presented. This chapter discusses potential impacts on stormwater conveyance facilities; for a discussion of stormwater quality management, see Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on October 5, 2020. The County received several comments related to utilities, all stating that the County should continue consultation with utility providers to ensure that the EIR addresses impacts on the utility and infrastructure network and the provision of service to the UWSP area.

The information and analysis in this chapter was developed based on project-specific construction and operational features, data provided by the City of Sacramento (City) regarding existing water use, and additional data and information gathered from the Sacramento 2035 General Plan, Sacramento 2035 General Plan Master EIR, Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report, the City of Sacramento Draft 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), a water supply assessment (WSA) (Appendix UT-1), and other published technical reports, as indicated in footnoted references.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
WATER

WATER SUPPLY
The Natomas Central Mutual Water Company (NCMWC) currently serves agricultural customers in the western portion of the UWSP area while the City of Sacramento currently serves domestic customers within the eastern portion of the UWSP area and would serve future development allowed under the proposed UWSP.

SURFACE WATER
Most of Sacramento’s water supply comes from surface water diversions pursuant to the City’s surface water rights and entitlements. These consist of water rights established before 1914 (pre-1914 rights), water rights established after 1914, and a settlement contract between the City and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-2 PLNP2018-00284
The City’s pre-1914 appropriative rights entitle the City to surface water from the Sacramento River. The City’s right is based on the use of Sacramento River water since 1854; this pre-1914 appropriative right allows for direct diversion of 75 cubic feet per second (cfs) from the Sacramento River.

The City’s post-1914 Sacramento River rights are reflected in five water rights permits issued by the State Water Resources Control Board or its predecessor, the State Water Rights Board. Permit 992 authorizes the City to take up to 81,800 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the Sacramento River by direct diversion, with a maximum diversion of 225 cfs, and has a priority date of March 30, 1920. This permit sets a boundary around the area in which the City is allowed to use diverted Sacramento River water (the place of use): the area within the legal city limits, an area that changes from time to time through annexations.

The City has four additional post-1914 water rights permits, which authorize diversions of American River water. Permits 11358 and 11361, which authorize the City to divert water from the American River by direct diversion, have priority dates of October 29, 1947, and September 22, 1954, respectively. These permits allow for diversions at the City’s E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant (FWTP), on the south bank of the American River just downstream from the Howe Avenue Bridge, and specify a combined maximum allowable rate of diversion of 675 cfs. The authorized place of use for both permits is 79,500 acres within and adjacent to the city limits.

The final two post-1914 permits (permits 11359 and 11360) authorize re-diversion for consumptive uses1 of American River tributary water previously diverted by Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD’s) Upper American River Project. Permits 11359 and 11360 have priority dates of February 13, 1948, and July 29, 1948, respectively, and the place of use for both permits is 96,000 acres within and adjacent to the city limits. These permits allow for diversions at the FWTP and at the City’s Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant (SRWTP), located on the east bank of the Sacramento River between the American River confluence and the I Street Bridge. The combined maximum allowable re-diversions under these permits are up to 1,510 cfs of Upper American River Project direct diversion water and up to 589,000 AFY of Upper American River Project stored water.

1 Water used consumptively diminishes the source and is not available for other uses, whereas nonconsumptive water use does not diminish the source or impair future water use. Consumptive water use is defined as any use of water that causes a diminishment of the source at the point of appropriation.

Diminishment is defined as to make smaller or less in quantity, quality, rate of flow, or availability.

Surface water use is non-consumptive when there is no diversion from the water source or diminishment of the source.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-3 PLNP2018-00284
In addition, the City entered into a water rights settlement contract with Reclamation in 1957 after Reclamation’s construction of Folsom Dam, which provides improved flood control to downstream communities. The essence of the City/Reclamation settlement contract is that the City agreed to (1) limit its combined rate of diversion under its American River water rights permits to a maximum of 675 cfs, up to a maximum amount of 245,000 AFY in the year 2030, and (2) limit its rate of diversion under its Sacramento River water rights permit to a maximum of 225 cfs and a maximum amount of 81,800 AFY. This limits the City’s total diversions of Sacramento and American River water to 326,800 AFY in the year 2030 (see Table UT-1). The contract also specifies an annual build-up schedule to this maximum amount (see Table UT-2).

In return, the contract requires Reclamation to make enough water available in the rivers at all times to enable the City’s agreed-upon diversions. The City agreed to make an annual payment to Reclamation for Folsom Reservoir storage capacity used to meet Reclamation’s obligations under the contract, beginning with payment for 8,000 acre-feet (AF) of storage capacity in 1963 and building up, more or less linearly, to payment for the use of 90,000 AF of storage capacity in 2030. The water rights settlement contract is permanent and has no delivery limitations. The Reclamation contract, in conjunction with the City’s water rights, provides the City with a reliable and secure water supply.

The City’s diversions of American River water at the FWTP are also subject, during certain time periods, to limitations specified in the Water Forum Agreement (WFA). The Water Forum was established in 1993 by a group of water managers, local governments, business leaders, agricultural leaders, environmentalists, and citizen groups with two “co-equal” goals: to provide a reliable and safe water supply through the year 2030, and to preserve the wildlife, fishery, recreational, and aesthetic values of the Lower American River. After six years of intense interest-based negotiations, the Water Forum participants approved the 2000 WFA. Several factors can affect the allocation of water supply from the American River. When March to November unimpaired flow into Folsom Reservoir (UIFR) is greater than 1.6 million acre-feet, no annual WFA restrictions are applied. However, other restrictions could be in effect such as the Central Valley Project shortage criteria.
2 2 Central Valley Project Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water Shortage Policy Guidelines and Procedures ensure consistent and equitable implementation of the M&I Water Shortage Policy throughout the Central Valley Project for those M&I Contractors subject to the Water Shortage Policy. These guidelines focus on the process and calculations of public health and safety and adjustments to a Contractor’s Historical Use.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-4 PLNP2018-00284
Table UT-1: Summary of the City of Sacramento’s Post-1914 Water Rights Application
or License
Number
Priority
Date Source
Maximum
Amount
Specified*
Purpose
of Use
Season of
Diversion and
Re-diversion Place of Use
Deadline to
Perfect Full
Use (cfs) (AFY)
A. 1743
P. 992
3/30/1920 Sacramento River 225 81,800 Municipal January 1– December 31
City of Sacramento 12/31/2030
A. 12140
P. 11358
10/29/1947 American River
675 245,000
Municipal November 1–
August 1
79,500 acres within
and adjacent to the
city limits
12/31/2030
A. 16060
P. 11361
9/22/1954 Tributaries of the
American River
Municipal November 1–
August 1
79,500 acres within
and adjacent to the
city limits
12/31/2030
A. 12321
P. 11359
2/13/1948 Tributaries of the
American River
1,510 589,000
Municipal November 1–
August 1
96,000 acres within
and adjacent to the
city limits
12/31/2030
A. 12622
P. 11360
7/29/1948 Tributaries of the
American River
Municipal November 1–
August 1
96,000 acres within
and adjacent to the
city limits
12/31/2030
Maximum Diversion Amount 900 326,800
NOTES: AFY = acre-feet per year; cfs = cubic feet per second 1 Permits 11359, 11360, and 11361 allow for re-diversion of surface water tributaries within Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s Upper American River Project into the American River. Permits 11359 and 11360 allow for re-diversion at 1,510 cfs at the E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant and at the Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant for up to 589,000 AFY of stored Upper American River Project water. * Amounts shown reflect the 1957 water rights settlement agreement between the City of Sacramento and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, as discussed in the text in this chapter.

SOURCE: City of Sacramento 2021.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-5 PLNP2018-00284
Table UT-2: Maximum Diversion Schedule (acre-feet per year) in the Settlement Contract between the City and Reclamation
Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
American River 228,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000
Sacramento River 81,800 81,800 81,800 81,800 81,800
Total 309,800 326,800 326,800 326,800 326,800
NOTES: City = City of Sacramento; Reclamation = U.S. Bureau of Reclamation SOURCE: City of Sacramento 2021.

As part of the WFA, each water purveyor signed a purveyor-specific agreement that specified that purveyor’s Water Forum commitments. The City’s purveyor-specific agreement limits the quantity of water it can divert from the American River at the FWTP during two hydrologic conditions: extremely dry water years (“Conference Years”)3 and periods when river flows are below the so-called “Hodge Flow criteria.”4 The City’s purveyor-specific agreement defines extremely dry water years (Conference Years) as years in which the California Department of Water Resources projects an annual March to November UIFR of 550,000 AFY or less, or the UIFR is less than 400,000 AFY. In Conference Years, the City has agreed to limit its diversions for water treated at the FWTP to 155 cfs and 50,000 AFY. Conference Years have occurred on the American River only twice during the 72-year period of record for historical hydrology.

In addition to Conference Years, the City’s purveyor-specific agreement specifies limitations on the City’s diversion rate at the FWTP when American River flows bypassing the FWTP are less than the Hodge Flow criteria as follows: 3,000 cfs from March through June; 2,000 cfs from October 16 through February; and 1,750 cfs from July through October 15.

Based on CalSim II5 analysis of 1922 to 1994 climate data, in 59 percent of years the American River is predicted to experience flows that are less than Hodge Flow

3 “Conference Years” occur when March–November UIFR is less than 400 thousand acre-feet. In those years’ diverters and others are required to meet and confer on how best to meet demands and protect the American.
4 A "Hodge Year" occurs when the March–November UIFR is less than 1,600 thousand acre-feet. In the case of EDF v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (Superior Court, Alameda County, 1990, No. 425955), the court (Judge Hodge) established minimum flow levels that would have to be met in the American River for East Bay Municipal Utility District to divert water into the Folsom South Canal. These flow levels have come to be known as “Hodge Flows.” "HodgeFlow trigger" which affects diversions at the Fairbairn treatment plant when the LAR flow is less than 3,000 cfs during Mar-Jun; 2) Less than 2,000 cfs from October 16-Feb; and 3) Less than 1,750 cfs from July-Oct15. 5 CalSim is the model used to simulate California State Water Project/Central Valley Project operations.

CalSim II is the latest version of CalSim available for use. 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-6 PLNP2018-00284
conditions at some time during the peak months of June through August. When flows passing the FWTP are greater than the Hodge Flow criteria and Conference Year conditions do not exist, the purveyor-specific agreement allows diversions of American River water up to the FWTP’s current maximum rate of 310 cfs (200 million gallons per day [mgd]).

It is important to note that the WFA does not restrict diversion under the City’s American River entitlements from a Sacramento River diversion point (which leaves the water in the American River throughout its reaches). Therefore, during a Conference Year condition, the City’s annual surface water diversion amounts are limited only by the FWTP Conference Year condition and the diversion and treatment capacity at the SRWTP. Assuming a maximum treatment capacity of 50,000 AFY at the FWTP and 180,000 AFY at the SRWTP, the current drought-limiting scenario allows surface water production of 230,000 AFY.

GROUNDWATER
The City obtains the majority of its water supply from surface water in the American and Sacramento Rivers; groundwater makes up the balance of its water supplies.

Groundwater for municipal uses is obtained from the North American and South American subbasins of the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. The North American Subbasin is bounded by the Bear River to the north, the Feather River to the west, the Sacramento and American Rivers to the south, and a north-south line extending from the Bear River to Folsom Lake to the east. The South American Subbasin is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Sacramento River to the west, the American River to the north, and the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers to the south.

Based on production capabilities, the City expects to pump up to 24.175 million gallons per day or 27,083 AF in 2025 and would continue to use groundwater to supplement its surface water supplies over the next 20 years (see Table UT-3).

Table UT-3: City of Sacramento Groundwater Supplies
Projected Water Supply Volume (acre-feet)*
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
City of Sacramento 27,083 31,107 35,131 39,155 39,155
NOTE:
* Based on sustainable target pumping of 20,591 acre-feet (AF) from the North American Subbasin and up to approximately 19,000 AF from the South American Subbasin.

SOURCE: City of Sacramento 2021.

The City extracts groundwater from 28 municipal wells; 26 of the wells are located north of the American River in the North American Subbasin and the other two wells extract groundwater from the South American Subbasin. However, only 23 of these wells are currently operated on a regular basis to supply municipal water. The City has 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-7 PLNP2018-00284
constructed three additional water supply wells. One well was installed at the FWTP but the appurtenances and facilities needed to pump, treat, and deliver groundwater are pending design and installation. The City expects to complete design in spring 2023 and this new well could be operational by late 2023 or early 2024. The other two groundwater supply wells were constructed at Shasta Park with a 4 MG reservoir.

These wells were expected to be permitted and on-line in 2021; however, delays occurred over the last two years. The City expects to have these new groundwater wells operating in early 2023. The City also owns and operates 22 irrigation/park supply wells (City of Sacramento 2021).

The City is one of many water purveyors that use groundwater from the North American and South American subbasins. Although the City pumps from both subbasins, more than 90 percent of the City’s groundwater is pumped from the North American Subbasin. For example, in 2020, the City pumped 19,022 AF of groundwater from the North American Subbasin and 1,407 AF from the South American Subbasin for potable water consumption (City of Sacramento 2021).

In 2014, the Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA) prepared a groundwater management plan for the portion of the North American Subbasin located between the American River and the Sacramento County line. Additionally, as a result of the Water Forum Successor Effort, the Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan was prepared. These two plans identify measures to be taken to maintain a sustainable, high-quality groundwater resource.

The WFA identified a sustainable yield for the North American Subbasin of 131,000 AFY.

The SGA monitored groundwater extractions from the North American Subbasin from 2000 to 2013 and estimated all annual average extractions at 99,500 AFY. The Groundwater Management Plan also reports that groundwater use declined during this period, largely as a result of the implementation of conjunctive use6 operations and water use efficiency measures. The Groundwater Management Plan concludes that the North American Subbasin is well within its sustainable yield indicator, and because North American Subbasin is largely developed, it is not expected that new water demands would cause the basin to approach its average annual sustainable yield (SGA 2014). The South American Subbasin occupies approximately 248,000 acres or 388 square miles, and is bounded on the east by the Sierra Nevada, on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by the American River, and on the south by the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. These perennial rivers generally create a groundwater divide in the shallow subsurface. It is clear that there is interaction between groundwater of adjacent subbasins at greater depths (DWR 2006).

6 Conjunctive use is the long-term use of surface water and groundwater resources to maximize total water availability in a region. In general, surface water supplies are used to meet water supply demands in most water years, while an aggressive groundwater recharge program uses surplus surface water to replenish groundwater with the goal of having additional groundwater in storage that can be used during dry years.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-8 PLNP2018-00284
The Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan represents a critical step in establishing a framework for maintaining a sustainable groundwater resource for the various users overlying the basin in Sacramento County between the American and Cosumnes Rivers. The Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan documented the estimated long-term average annual sustainable yield of the Central Basin to be 273,000 AFY, while extractions were estimated at 250,000 AFY (Water Forum and Sacramento County Water Agency 2006).

The management plan identifies measures to maintain pumping levels within the sustainable yield, including reduction of demand, conjunctive use with groundwater banking and exchange opportunities, and aquifer storage and recovery projects (Water Forum and Sacramento County Water Agency 2006).

RIVERARC PROJECT
The City is participating as a partner in the RiverArc Project, a multi-agency effort to enhance water supply diversity and reliability on a regional scale. While providing additional water supply options for its stakeholders, the RiverArc Project would increase the sustainability of regional groundwater supplies and provide additional environmental protection in the American River watershed.

The RiverArc Project would divert water from the Sacramento River to offset the water currently diverted from the American River and would deliver that water to a new regional water treatment plant. That water would then be distributed through existing and new pipelines to local water agencies, including the City of Sacramento. For the City of Sacramento, the RiverArc Project would enable the City to divert surface water when the Hodge Flow restrictions are in place on the American River. A new water treatment plant could also be used during peak periods, which would increase water supply reliability in the North Natomas area.

The drought from 2011 to 2017 reinforced the need for this project. Supportive stakeholders and water agencies are working to identify and secure project development funding that may not exist in the future. This includes Proposition 1 funding and additional funding opportunities at the federal, state, and local levels.

The new water treatment plant for the RiverArc Project would be constructed in three phases. Phase 1 would have the capacity to treat 10 to 40 mgd and is scheduled to start in 2026 and continue to 2030. Phase 2 would add an additional 30 to 60 mgd in treatment capacity and is scheduled to begin in 2040 or later. Phase 3 would build out the treatment plant’s capacity and is scheduled to start in 2050 or later. The additional capacity added during this phase would be determined based on the water supply needs of the region. It is anticipated that the current project phases and capacities will be further refined as regional water agencies continue to evaluate their water demands and the sustainability and reliability of their water supplies (Placer County Water Agency 2024).
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-9 PLNP2018-00284

WATER DEMAND
Retail water demand in the City of Sacramento is primarily residential, but also includes commercial, institutional, and raw water for landscape irrigation. Generally, water demand decreased from 2000 to 2010 because of a combination of factors: increased conservation efforts, deployment of water-conserving fixtures, replacement of leaky pipelines, increased public awareness of California’s multi-year drought and dry conditions, effects of the economic recession (commencing in 2008), and the City’s meter retrofitting program. As of December 2020, 99 percent of the City’s water connections were metered (City of Sacramento 2021).

As of December 2020, which is the date of the most current information available, the City served 142,946 retail customer connections. This customer connection count does not include fire service connections. Actual retail water demand by type of use by customer sector, such as residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial) in 2020 was 100,483 AF (City of Sacramento 2021).

The City also wholesales water to other regional agencies including Sacramento International Airport, Sacramento Suburban Water District, California American Water Company, and Sacramento County Water Agency.

Table UT-4 provides a projection of the City’s total water demands for 2025 through 2045. Table UT-5 presents a summary of water demands and available supply during multiple dry years. As discussed in the City’s UWMP, the available water supply figures shown in Table UT-4 conform to the requirements of the Water Forum Agreement, including Hodge Flow requirements (discussed previously).

Table UT-4: City of Sacramento Maximum Total Water Demands through 2045 (acre-feet per year)
Water Use 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable and Raw Water 107,432 113,809 120,187 126,564 132,942 Recycled Water 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Total 108,432 114,809 121,187 127,564 133,942
SOURCE: City of Sacramento 2021: 4-3, Tables 4-8 and 4-9.

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The City of Sacramento provides more than 45 billion gallons of water for drinking, household use, fire suppression, landscaping, and commercial and industrial uses. The distribution system is a pipeline network, in which surface water and groundwater is mixed within the system. The Department of Utilities operates and maintains the City’s two water treatment plants, eight pump stations, many storage reservoirs, 28 municipal wells, thousands of hydrants, and nearly 1,800 miles of pipeline to convey water to homes and businesses throughout the City (City of Sacramento 2021). 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-10 PLNP2018-00284
Table UT-5: Comparison of City of Sacramento Multiple-Dry-Year Supply and Demand, 2025 through 2045 (acre-feet per year)
Year
Scenario
Water
Supply or
Demand 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year,
Multiple-DryYear Scenario
Supply Total 333,200 350,200 350,200 350,200 350,200
Demand Total 108,432 114,809 121,187 127,564 133,942
Excess Supply 224,768 235,391 229,013 222,636 216,258
Second Year,
Multiple-DryYear Scenario
Supply Total 333,200 350,200 350,200 350,200 350,200
Demand Total 109,707 116,085 122,462 128,840 138,397
Excess Supply 223,493 234,115 227,738 221,360 211,803
Third Year,
Multiple-DryYear Scenario
Supply Total 333,200 350,200 350,200 350,200 350,200
Demand Total 110,983 117,360 123,738 130,115 142,853
Excess Supply 222,217 232,840 226,462 220,085 207,347
Fourth Year,
Multiple-DryYear Scenario
Supply Total 333,200 350,200 350,200 350,200 350,200
Demand Total 112,258 118,636 125,013 131,391 147,308
Excess Supply 220,942 231,564 225,187 218,809 202,892
Fifth Year,
Multiple-DryYear Scenario
Supply Total 333,200 350,200 350,200 350,200 350,200
Demand Total 113,534 119,911 126,289 132,666 151,764
Excess Supply 219,666 230,289 223,911 217,534 198,436
SOURCE: City of Sacramento 2021: 7-13, Table 7-11.

WATER TREATMENT
The City owns and operates two water diversion and treatment facilities: the SRWTP on the Sacramento River and the FWTP on the American River. These treatment plants operate as demands dictate; treatment is directly related to consumer demands.

The SRWTP, located just downstream of the Sacramento River’s confluence with the American River on the east side of the Sacramento River, south of Richards Boulevard and north of the Railyards redevelopment area, has a permitted treatment capacity of 160 mgd. The City is currently evaluating further expansion of the SRWTP to increase the diversion and treatment capacity to 310 mgd (City of Sacramento 2021).

The FWTP, located on the south bank of the Lower American River, has a permitted capacity of 160 mgd, with a peak hydraulic flow of 200 mgd. As discussed previously above, there are restrictions on how much water can be diverted at the FWTP under certain flow conditions in the Lower American River. The City’s current maximum surface water treatment capacity is 320 mgd. In 2020, City treated and delivered 100,483 AF (or 89.7 mgd), of which 20,429 AF (or 18.2 mgd) was groundwater. 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-11 PLNP2018-00284

WATER STORAGE
Stored water is used to meet water demands during periods when peak-hour demand exceeds maximum daily supply rates. These high-demand periods usually occur for four to six hours during hot summer days, and for potentially longer periods during large fire events.

The City currently has 17 storage facilities. Twelve storage reservoirs are located throughout the city, with a combined capacity of 49 million gallons (MG). The City also has five finished water storage facilities at its water treatment plants: two at the FWTP and three at SRWTP. The reservoirs at the water treatment plants have a combined capacity of approximately 45 MG. Total treated water in storage is 89 MG (City of Sacramento 2021).

WATER DISTRIBUTION
The City conveys water using its system of larger transmission pipelines, which are at least 16 inches in diameter, and smaller distribution mains, which range from 4 to 12 inches in diameter. Transmission pipelines are used solely to convey large volumes of water; they are generally not tapped for water or fire services. In total, the City manages approximately 1,800 miles of water pipelines (City of Sacramento 2021).

The NCMWC currently serves its agricultural customers in the western portion of the UWSP area with an existing 30-inch pipeline located a quarter mile to the east of Garden Highway, while the City of Sacramento currently serves domestic customers within the eastern portion of the UWSP area with an existing 24-inch transmission line in El Centro Road and San Juan Road that connects with the 1.5 MG El Centro water storage tank located approximately two miles north of the plan area and the 1.5 MG San Juan water storage tank located directly northeast of the UWSP area at the intersection of San Juan Road and West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). The Northlake project (formerly Greenbriar), which is currently under construction, will complete a 24-inch connection from the El Centro tank east to the Elkhorn Pump Station located at the intersection of Elkhorn Boulevard and Natomas Boulevard in the City of Sacramento, thus improving the capabilities of the City of Sacramento’s looped water main system.

WASTEWATER
Wastewater is collected throughout Sacramento County and is conveyed through Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) local sewer systems to the regional interceptor system for treatment at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWWTP) in Elk Grove, which is owned and operated by SacSewer.

TREATMENT
SacSewer provides regional wastewater conveyance and treatment services to commercial, residential, and industrial end users in the City of Sacramento, and in unincorporated Sacramento County and the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and West Sacramento, as well as the communities of Courtland and Walnut Grove. The existing SRWWTP currently maintains a maximum average dry- 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-12 PLNP2018-00284
weather treatment capacity of 181 mgd (Carollo 2008). As of 2023, actual average dryweather flow (ADWF) for the facility was approximately 135 mgd, substantially lower than the facility’s capacity (SacSewer 2023a). Treated effluent is discharged into the Sacramento River.

In 2010, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) released a draft targeted permit for the SRWWTP that targeted ammonia reductions from the existing SRWWTP facility. The SRWWTP currently maintains secondary-level treatment processes. To meet these target requirements and other anticipated future discharge requirements, SacSewer is upgrading the SRWWTP. The new system, referred to as the EchoWater Project, is fully operational and commenced operations in 2023. With completion of the EchoWater Project, the SRWWTP produces high-quality effluent for discharge to the Sacramento River and will increase recycled water use and reuse through the deployment of new treatment technologies and facilities. However, the upgrades associated with the EchoWater Project will only increase the quality of effluent discharged into the Sacramento River; the upgrades will not result in a net increase in the permitted capacity of the SRWWTP.

CONVEYANCE
SacSewer owns and operates 5,000 miles of lateral and main wastewater pipelines and is responsible for the day-to-day operations and maintenance of those pipelines and over 100 pump stations (SacSewer 2023b). SacSewer provides service to 1.6 million people in the Sacramento region, including the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County; the cities of Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove; portions of the cities of Folsom and Sacramento; and the communities of Courtland and Walnut Grove.

In these areas, SacSewer provides sewer collection service to residential, commercial, and industrial customers.

An existing 24-inch sewer conveyance line currently flows from outside the UWSP area south along El Centro Road into a 33-inch sewer line located at the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road that flows approximately 1.6 miles east along San Juan Road to the New Natomas Pump Station, which is generally located northeast of the I-5 and I-80 interchange and operated by SacSewer.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE
The UWSP area is located within the Natomas Basin, a low-lying area east of the Sacramento River, north (upstream) of its confluence with the American River. The basin is served by a series of canals and pump stations. In the undeveloped areas of Natomas, canals and drains serve the dual purpose of providing flood control and irrigation water. As discussed above, irrigation water is provided to the UWSP area by the NCMWC, a private water company whose service area includes the entire Natomas Basin. Drainage and flood control for the Natomas Basin is provided by Reclamation District (RD) 1000, a public agency that has a coinciding service area and several jointuse facilities with the NCMWC. RD-1000 operates the primary drainage canals within the Natomas Basin and is responsible for conveying and pumping urban and non-urban stormwater runoff from the basin. Runoff from developed and existing agricultural lands 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-13 PLNP2018-00284
within the Natomas Basin flows into numerous local drainage ditches that ultimately drain into the primary RD-1000 canals.

The nearest RD-1000 facility is the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), which is located along the eastern edge of the UWSP area. There are two existing pump stations in the UWSP area that pump runoff into this facility, the San Juan Pump Station, which is located directly southwest of the intersection of San Juan Road and West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal), and the Riverside Pump Station, which is located about a quarter mile to the north, also on the westside of West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal). Existing stormwater runoff is conveyed to these pump stations via a system of existing irrigation and drainage ditches that are maintained by the NCMWC and in many cases by RD1000.

SOLID WASTE

DISPOSAL
The Sacramento County Department of Waste Management and Recycling (DWMR) provides solid waste services to the unincorporated portions of Sacramento County.

Sacramento County owns and operates the Kiefer Landfill, located at Kiefer Boulevard and Grant Line Road. Kiefer Landfill is 1,084 acres in size, with a permitted disposal area of 660 acres. Kiefer Landfill is the primary solid waste disposal facility in the County. Kiefer Landfill is classified as a Class III municipal solid waste landfill facility and is permitted to accept general residential, commercial, and industrial refuse for disposal, including municipal solid waste, construction waste, green materials, agricultural debris, dead animals, and other designated debris. The Kiefer Landfill receives over 700,000 tons of waste per year. Kiefer Landfill is permitted to accept a maximum of 10,815 tons per day of solid waste and currently has a design capacity of approximately 117 million cubic yards. The Kiefer Landfill has 75 million cubic yards of remaining capacity and is expected to be operational until 2098. (Hoseit, pers. comm. 2021.)

COLLECTION/PROCESSING
Sacramento County also owns and operates the North Area Recovery Station (NARS) located in North Highlands. The NARS is 23 acres in size and accepts waste from the general public, businesses, and private waste haulers. The facility has a permitted capacity of processing 2,400 tons per day (Hoseit, pers. comm. 2021). In 2020, the NARS processed an average of 1,200 tons per day of recyclables, trash, yard waste, and construction waste (Hoseit, pers. comm. 2022a).

There are various other transfer stations and small privately owned landfills throughout Sacramento County, located mainly within the boundaries of the City of Sacramento.

These include three additional facilities other than NARS that process construction waste. These facilities are Florin Perkins Public Disposal, located at 4201 Florin Perkins Road, L and D Landfill and Material Recovery Facility (L and D Landfill), located at 8635 Fruitridge Road, and Sierra Waste Recycling and Transfer Station (Sierra Waste), located at 8260 Berry Avenue. Florin Perkins Public Disposal recycles 75 – 95 percent of all construction waste and meets all local recycling requirements as well as CalGreen 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-14 PLNP2018-00284
requirements. The recycling program at L and D Landfill includes a full-service operation for construction and other related industries and includes certified C&D recycling, concrete and asphalt reclamation, soil recycling, beneficial reuse of many inert materials, and final disposal as landfill. Sierra Waste accepts commercial and residential solid waste, including construction waste, inert debris, recycled materials, non-curbside collected green waste, wood waste products, and mixed-material waste.

Residential (not multi-family) solid waste in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County is collected by the Sacramento County DWMR. County DWMR does not provide solid waste collection (including recycling or organics) for commercial business and multi-family residential units. Solid waste for commercial and multi-family customers is collected by private franchised haulers. Solid waste collected by the commercial haulers is either taken to a transfer station and then transported to a landfill, or taken directly to a landfill.

Commercial and multi-family wastes in unincorporated Sacramento County are taken to a variety of landfills within Sacramento County, as long as they are compliant with the County DWMR’s regulations for commercial waste hauling. A majority of the residential solid waste collected is taken to the NARS, where it is sorted for transport to a landfill (County DWMR 2022).

ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

ELECTRICITY
Electrical service to the UWSP area is provided by Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). SMUD is responsible for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electrical power to its 900-square-mile service area, which includes most of Sacramento County and a small portion of Placer County. SMUD gets its electricity from diverse and competitively priced resources, including hydropower generation; cogeneration plants; advanced and renewable technologies such as wind, solar, and biomass/landfill gas power; and power purchased on the wholesale market.

An existing SMUD 69 kilovolt (kV) transmission line currently extends from South Natomas across I-80 to El Centro Road where to continues north along El Centro Road and connects to an existing electric substation located just off-site at the intersection of Arena Boulevard and El Centro Road before continuing north and east from this location. SMUD has plans to construct an additional 69 kV transmission line in the UWSP area that would generally run in a northwesterly direction along the West Drainage Canal to San Juan Road, where it would turn west and terminate in the vicinity of El Centro Road. Portions of this line would fall within the boundaries of the UWSP.

However, this facility has long been envisioned by SMUD and would be constructed regardless of whether the UWSP is approved. The facility therefore not a part of the UWSP project since it has independent utility from the project. As such, the impacts of constructing this facility are not evaluated in this EIR. 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-15 PLNP2018-00284
In addition, an existing Western Area Power Administration 120 kV transmission line currently traverses the UWSP area, extending from South Natomas across I-80 to Bryte Bend Road where it continues south along Bryte Bend Road across the Sacramento River Into West Sacramento. The 120 kV transmission towers are spaced approximately 600 feet apart on center.

NATURAL GAS
Natural gas service to the UWSP area is currently supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), a publicly traded utility that provides electricity and natural gas distribution, electricity generation, transportation and transmission, natural gas procurement, and storage throughout Northern California. The utility company is bound by contract to update its systems to meet any additional demand. PG&E serves 48 counties in California with a total service area of approximately 70,000 square miles in Northern and Central California. PG&E provides services with 42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transportation pipelines (PG&E 2022).

An existing natural gas main enters the UWSP area from the west after crossing under the Sacramento River and then crosses twice beneath I-80, before it traverses north within El Centro Road and exits the UWSP area at Arena Boulevard.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Telecommunications service to Natomas is provided by several providers, including Comcast and AT&T (Wood Rodgers 2021a). These providers provide local and longdistance phone, high-speed internet, and cable television service and generally complete upgrades to their existing distribution systems as the need arises to meet customer demand.

REGULATORY SETTING

FEDERAL
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) established primary drinking water standards in Clean Water Act Section 304; states are required to ensure that potable water for the public meets these standards. Standards for 81 individual constituents have been established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1986.

USEPA may add additional constituents in the future.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
USEPA administers the Safe Drinking Water Act, the primary federal law that regulates the quality of drinking water and establishes standards to protect public health and safety. The California Department of Public Health implements the Safe Drinking Water Act and oversees the quality of public water systems statewide. The California 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-16 PLNP2018-00284
Department of Public Health establishes legal drinking water standards for contaminants that could threaten public health.

CLEAN WATER ACT
Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 503, as well as California Code of Regulations Title 23 and standards established by the RWQCBs, regulate the disposal of biosolids. The main purpose of these regulatory measures is to ensure appropriate limits for effluent discharge to surface waters. These limits affect the sizing and treatment capacities of wastewater utilities that serve communities in California. Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 402 contain general requirements regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and Section 307 describes the factors that USEPA must consider in setting effluent limits for priority pollutants.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D (United States Code Title 42, Section 6901 et seq.), contains regulations for municipal solid waste landfills and requires states to implement their own permitting programs incorporating the federal landfill criteria. The federal regulations address the location, operation, design, groundwater monitoring, and closure of landfills. The USEPA waste management regulations are codified in Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Parts 239–282. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D is implemented by Public Resources Code Title 27, approved by USEPA.

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.

STATE

DRINKING WATER QUALITY
As part of its efforts to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act, the California Department of Public Health inspects and provides regulatory oversight for public water systems in California. In the Sacramento area, the Central Valley RWQCB also has responsibility for protecting the beneficial uses of the state’s waters, including groundwater; these beneficial uses include municipal drinking water supply, as well as various other uses.

Public water system operators are required to monitor their drinking water sources regularly for microbiological, chemical, and radiological contaminants to show that drinking water supplies meet the regulatory requirements listed in California Code of Regulations Title 22 as primary maximum contaminant levels. Primary standards are developed to protect public health and are legally enforceable. Among these contaminants are approximately 80 specific inorganic and organic contaminants and six radiological contaminants that reflect the natural environment, as well as human 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-17 PLNP2018-00284
activities. Examples of potential primary inorganic contaminants are aluminum and arsenic, while radiological contaminants can include uranium and radium.

Public water system operators are also required to monitor for a number of other contaminants and characteristics that deal with the aesthetic properties of drinking water. These are known as secondary maximum contaminant levels. Secondary standards are generally associated with qualities such as taste, odor, and appearance, but these are generally non-enforceable guidelines. However, in California, secondary standards are legally enforceable for all new drinking water systems and new sources developed by existing public water suppliers. The public water system operators are also required to analyze samples for unregulated contaminants, and to report other contaminants that may be detected during sampling.

CALIFORNIA MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE
The California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) sets restrictions on outdoor landscaping. Because the Sacramento County is a “local agency” under the MWELO, it must require project applicants to prepare plans consistent with the requirements of the MWELO for review and approval by the County. The MWELO was most recently updated by the DWR and approved by the California Water Commission on July 15, 2015. All provisions became effective on February 1, 2016. The revisions, which apply to new construction with a landscape area greater than 500 square feet, reduced the allowable coverage of high-water-use plants to 25 percent of the landscaped area. The MWELO also requires use of a dedicated landscape meter on landscape areas for residential landscape areas greater than 5,000 square feet or nonresidential landscape areas greater than 1,000 square feet and requires weatherbased irrigation controllers or soil-moisture based controllers or other self-adjusting irrigation controllers for irrigation scheduling in all irrigation systems.

URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING ACT
California Water Code Section 10610 et seq. requires all public water systems providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 AFY, to prepare an UWMP. UWMPs represent key water supply planning documents for municipalities and water purveyors in California, and often form the basis of water supply assessments, or WSAs (see below) prepared for individual projects.

UWMPs must be updated at least every five years on or before December 31, in years ending in five and zero.

WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
California Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 requires that a WSA be prepared for a proposed plan, as defined in the statute, to ensure that long-term water supplies are sufficient to meet the project’s demands in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years for a period of 20 years. Preparation of a WSA is required if a proposed action meets the statutory definition of a “project,” which includes at least one of the following (Water Code Section 20912[a]):
 A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units (DU). 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-18 PLNP2018-00284
 A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.  A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
 A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.  A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in the above list items.

Completion of a WSA requires the collection of proposed water supply data and information relevant to the project in question, an evaluation of existing/current use, a projection of anticipated demand sufficient to serve the project for a period of at least 20 years, the delineation of proposed water supply sources, and an evaluation of water supply sufficiency under single-year and multiple-year drought conditions.

WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF WATER SUPPLY
Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(1) requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. The written verification is designed as a “fail-safe” mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large subdivision occurs early in the planning process. This verification must also include documentation of historical water deliveries for the previous 20 years, as well as a description of reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed subdivision on the availability of water resources of the region. Government Code Section 66473.7(b)(1) states:

The legislative body of a city or county or the advisory agency, to the extent that it is authorized by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative map, shall include as a condition in any tentative map that includes a subdivision a requirement that a sufficient water supply shall be available. Proof of the availability of a sufficient water supply shall be requested by the subdivision applicant or local agency, at the discretion of the local agency, and shall be based on written verification from the applicable public water system within 90 days of a request.

In other words, as a result of the information contained in the written verification, the city or county may attach conditions to assure that an adequate water supply is available to serve the proposed plan as part of the tentative map approval process. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.7(i), additional water supply verification is not required for:

Any residential project proposed for a site that is within an urbanized area and has been previously developed for urban uses, or where the immediate contiguous properties surrounding the residential project site are, or previously 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-19 PLNP2018-00284
have been, developed for urban uses, or housing projects that are exclusively for very low- and low-income households.

CALIFORNIA WATER CONSERVATION ACT
The California Water Conservation Act, enacted in November 2009, required each urban water supplier to select one of four water conservation targets contained in California Water Code Section 10608.20, with the statewide goal of achieving a 20 percent reduction in urban per-capita water use by 2020.

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2014
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) became law on January 1, 2015 and applies to all groundwater basins in the state (Water Code Section 10720.3). (The SGMA comprises three separate bills: Senate Bill [SB] 1168, SB 1319, and Assembly Bill [AB] 1739. All three were signed into law by Governor Edmund G.

Brown, Jr. on September 16, 2014.) By enacting the SGMA, the Legislature intended to provide local agencies with the authority and the technical and financial assistance necessary to sustainably manage groundwater within their jurisdictions (Water Code Section 10720.1).

Pursuant to the SGMA, any local agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities for a groundwater basin may elect to be a “groundwater sustainability agency” for that basin (Water Code Section 10723). Local agencies had until January 1, 2017, to elect to become or form a groundwater sustainability agency (GSA). In the event a basin is not within the management area of a GSA, the county within which the basin is located will be presumed to be the GSA for the basin.

However, the county may decline to serve in this capacity (Water Code Section 19724).

In October 2015, the SGA Board submitted a notification of its intention to become the GSA for the Sacramento County portion of the North American Subbasin. In late January 2016, following a 90-day comment period, SGA was designated as the exclusive GSA for its management area. SGA coordinated with representatives throughout the North American Basin to ensure that effective GSAs were formed covering the entire subbasin by June 30, 2017. The Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Emergency Regulations for evaluating GSPs, the implementation of GSPs, and coordination agreements were adopted by the California Department of Water Resources and approved by the California Water Commission on May 18, 2016.

Groundwater authorities have additional powers under the SGMA to manage groundwater within the basin, including, for example, the power to: conduct investigations of the basin, require registration of groundwater extraction facilities and metering of groundwater extractions, regulate groundwater extractions from individual groundwater wells or wells generally, and assess fees on groundwater extractions (see, generally, Water Code Section 10725 et seq.). The SGMA also provides local agencies with additional tools and resources to ensure that the state’s groundwater basins are sustainably managed.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-20 PLNP2018-00284
SGMA also requires the California Department of Water Resources to categorize each groundwater basin in the state as high, medium, low, or very low priority (Water Code Sections 10720.7 and 10722.4). The North American Subbasin has been categorized as high priority. All basins designated as high- or medium-priority basins must be managed by a GSA under a GSP that complies with Water Code Section 10727 et seq.

NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES is a federal program that has been delegated to the State of California for implementation through the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine RWQCBs, collectively called the Regional Water Boards. Each NPDES permit for point-source discharges defines threshold limits of allowable concentrations of pollutants contained in discharges. SacSewer treats wastewater at the SRWWTP and then discharges the treated effluent into the Sacramento River near the town of Freeport. These discharges are subject to the NPDES permit program, which protects the beneficial uses of surface waters that could be used for drinking, fishing, swimming, agriculture, and other activities. NPDES permit number CA0077682 for the SRWWTP was issued in 2016.

INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACT (ASSEMBLY BILL 939)
Regulations affecting solid waste disposal in California are included in Public Resources Code Title 14, the Integrated Waste Management Act, which was originally adopted in 1989. AB 939 was designed to increase landfill life by diverting solid waste from landfills in the state and conserving other resources through increasing recycling programs and incentives. AB 939 requires counties to prepare integrated waste management plans to implement landfill diversion goals and requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt source reduction and recycling elements. These elements must set forth a program for management of solid waste generated with the jurisdiction of the respective city or county. Each source reduction and recycling element must include, but is not limited to, all of the following components for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction of the plan:
 Waste characterization
 Source reduction
 Recycling
 Composting
 Solid waste facility capacity
 Funding
 Special waste
The Source Reduction and Recycling Element programs are designed to achieve landfill diversion goals by encouraging recycling in the manufacture, purchase and use of recycled products. AB 939 also requires California cities to implement plans designed to divert the total solid waste generated within each jurisdiction by 50 percent based on a 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-21 PLNP2018-00284
base year of 2000. The diversion rate is adjusted annually for population and economic growth when calculating the percentage achieved in a particular jurisdiction.

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 41780
The California Legislature set the policy goal for the state that not less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020.

Furthermore, a 50 percent diversion rate was to be enforced for local jurisdictions.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1220
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) and the State Water Resources Control Board completed a parallel rulemaking as a result of AB 1220 (Chapter 656, Statutes of 1993). AB 1220 required clarification of the roles and responsibilities of the two boards, the RWQCB’s and CalRecycle’s local enforcement agencies in regulating solid waste disposal sites. The approved Title 27 regulations combine prior disposal site/landfill regulations of CalRecycle and the State Water Resources Control Board that were maintained in California Code of Regulations Title 14 and Title 23, Chapter 15 (which contains requirements for disposal of hazardous waste).

The purpose of these CalRecycle standards is to protect public health and safety and the environment. The regulations apply to active and inactive disposal sites, including facilities or equipment used at the disposal sites. These standards make clear that primary responsibility for enforcing state minimum standards rests with the local enforcement agency in cooperation with the RWQCB or other oversight agency.

Subchapters of Title 27 include all of the following:
 Operating criteria for landfills and disposal sites.
 Requirements to have enough materials to cover waste to prevent a threat to human health and the environment.
 Requirements for operations at solid waste facilities for the handling of waste and equipment needs of the site.
 Requirements for controlling activities on-site.
 Requirements for controlling landfill gas created from the decomposition of wastes on-site.
 Requirements for the owner/operator of a facility to properly operate the site to protect the site from fire threat.

ASSEMBLY BILL 341
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the disposal of recyclables in landfills, AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) requires local jurisdictions to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs. Businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of solid waste per week or multifamily dwellings of five units or more must arrange for recycling services. To comply with AB 341, jurisdictions’ commercial recycling 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-22 PLNP2018-00284
programs must include education, outreach, and monitoring of commercial waste generators and report on the process to CalRecycle. Jurisdictions may enact mandatory commercial recycling ordinances to outline how the goals of AB 341 will be reached. For businesses to comply with AB 341, they must arrange for collection of recyclables through self-hauling, subscribing to franchised haulers for collection, or subscribing to a recycling service that may include mixed-waste processing that yields diversion results comparable to source separation (CalRecycle 2021).

ASSEMBLY BILL 1826
To further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from disposal of organics materials in landfills, AB 1826 (Chapter 727, Statutes of 2014) required businesses to recycle their organic waste beginning on April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of solid waste generated per week. Similar to AB 341, AB 1826 requires jurisdictions to implement an organic waste recycling program that includes the education, outreach, and monitoring of businesses that must comply. Organic waste refers to food waste, green waste, landscaping and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper that is mixed with food waste.

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
The California Public Utilities Commission regulates the design, installation, and management of California’s public utilities, including electric, natural gas, water, transportation, and telecommunications. The California Public Utilities Commission 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 CODE OF REGULATIONS
New buildings constructed in California must comply with the standards contained in Title 20, Energy Building Regulations, and Title 24, California Building Standards Code, known as CALGreen. Part 6 of Title 24 contains California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. These regulations were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
On May 9, 2018, the California Energy Commission 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.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-23 PLNP2018-00284
LOCAL
SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2030 GENERAL PLAN
The following policies from the Agricultural, Conservation, Energy, Land Use, and Public Facilities elements of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan are applicable to the proposed UWSP.

AGRICULTURE
AG-27 The County shall actively encourage groundwater recharge, water conservation and water recycling by both agricultural and urban water users.

CONSERVATION
CO-1 Support conjunctive use water supply for development.

CO-7 Support the Water Forum Agreement Groundwater Management Element.

Prior to approving any new development water supply plan shall be approved that demonstrates consistency with an adopted groundwater management plan.

CO-9 Developments in areas with significant contamination shall utilize remediated groundwater as part of their water supply when feasible.

CO-14 Support the use of recycled wastewater to meet non-potable water demands where financially feasible.

CO-16 Ensure developments are consistent with the County Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which shall be updated as needed to conform to state law.

CO-22 Support water management practices that are responsive to the impacts of Global Climate Change such as groundwater banking and other water storage projects.

CO-23 Development approval shall be subject to a finding regarding its impact on valuable water-supported ecosystems.

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.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-24 PLNP2018-00284
CO-36 Water supply entitlements will be granted on a first come first serve basis to optimize the use of available water supplies.

ENERGY
EN-1 Develop standards which would reduce the energy required to maintain interior spaces in the comfort zone, including such standards as tree planting and proper orientation of dwellings.

EN-2 Inform the public of the need and of ways to conserve energy in the home.

EN-11 Promote the location within the Sacramento area of those industries which are labor intensive, utilize solar energy systems, and are consistent with other policies in terms of environmental protection.

EN-12 Encourage industry located or locating in the Sacramento area to participate in cogeneration of power.

EN-14 Develop or revise design standards relating to building solar orientation, landscaping, impervious surfaces, and parking space requirements to conserve 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.

EN-17 Support the development and improvement of solar space cooling systems.

EN-18 Develop and implement standards for the protection of the solar rights of property owners.

LAND USE
LU-73 Sewer and water treatment and delivery systems shall not provide for greater capacity than that authorized by the General Plan.

PUBLIC FACILITIES
PF-2 Municipal and industrial development within the Urban Service Boundary but outside of existing water purveyors’ service areas shall be served by either annexation to an existing public agency providing water service or by creation or extension of a benefit zone of the SCWA [Sacramento County Water Agency].

PF-4 Connector fees for new development shall cover the fair share of costs to acquire and distribute surface water to the urban area.

PF-5 New treatment facilities and all facility operations shall be funded by beneficiaries.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-25 PLNP2018-00284
PF-6 Interceptor, trunk lines, and flow attenuation facilities shall operate within their capacity limits without overflowing.

PF-7 Although sewer infrastructure will be planned for full urbanization consistent with the Land Use Element, an actual commitment of additional sewer system capacity will be made only when the land use jurisdiction approves development to connect and use the system.

PF-8 Do not permit development which would cause sewage flows into the trunk or interceptor system to exceed their capacity.

PF-9 Design trunk and interceptor systems to accommodate flows generated by full urban development at urban densities within the ultimate service area.

System design may take into consideration land that cannot be developed for urban uses due to long-term circumstances including but not limited to conservation easements, floodplains, public recreation areas etc. This could include phased construction where deferred capital costs are appropriate.

PF-10 Development along corridors identified by the Sanitation Districts in their Master Plans as locations of future sewerage conveyance facilities shall incorporate appropriate easements as a condition of approval.

PF-13 Public sewer systems shall not extend service into agricultural-residential areas outside the urban policy area unless the Environmental Health Department determines that there exists significant environmental or health risks created by private disposal systems serving existing development and no feasible alternatives exist to public sewer service.

PF-14 Independent community sewer systems shall not be established for new development.

PF-15 Support CSD-1 and SRCSD policies to fund new trunk and interceptor capital costs through connection fees for new development.

PF-16 Support SRCSD policy to fully fund treatment plant operation through monthly service charges to system users. Fund treatment plant expansion and upgrades and existing trunk and interceptor replacements or improvements through connection fees or other revenue sources.

PF-18 New development projects which require extension or modification of the trunk or interceptor sewer systems shall be consistent with sewer facility plans and shall participate in established funding mechanisms. The County should discourage development projects that are not consistent with sewer master plans or that rely upon interim sewer facilities, particularly if the costs of those interim facilities may fall on ratepayers. Prior to approval of a specific Commercial Corridor redevelopment project which requires extension or modification of the trunk or interceptor sewer systems, a sewer study and financing mechanism shall be prepared and considered along with the 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-26 PLNP2018-00284
proposed Corridor redevelopment project, in consultation with the Sacramento Area Sewer District.

PF-19 Extension or modification of trunk or interceptor sewer systems that are required for new developments shall be consistent with sewer facility plans and shall participate in an established funding mechanism. New development that will generate wastewater for treatment at the SRWTP shall not be approved if treatment capacity at the SRWTP is not sufficient to allow treatment and disposal of wastewater in compliance with the SRWTP’s NPDES Permit.

PF-23 Solid waste collection, handling, recycling, composting, recovery, transfer and disposal fees shall recover all capital, operating, facility closure and maintenance costs.

PF-24 Solid waste disposal fees and rate structures shall reflect current market rates and provide incentives for recovery.

SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION POLICIES, STANDARDS,

AND PROCEDURES
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission Policies, Standards, and Procedures require that any proposed annexations are consistent with applicable service elements of the Sphere of Influence of any affected agencies, and that adequate services be provided within the time frame needed for the inhabitants of the annexation area (Section I, Standard Number 4). A Municipal Services Review is prepared to meet these requirements. In addition, the Local Agency Formation Commission requires that any annexation provides for the lowest cost and highest quality of urban services (Section I, Standard Number 5). Where local policies may be silent, the Commission will make findings pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY STORMWATER ORDINANCE
The Sacramento County Water Resources Department is responsible for reviewing drainage plans and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the proposed UWSP.

Drainage design standards for the proposed development are based on Chapter 9, Storm Drainage Design, from the Sacramento County Improvement Standards, and from discussions with the Project team and RD-1000. Stormwater Quality standards are based on the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region. The County has established a Stormwater Ordinance (Sacramento County Code 15.12).

The Stormwater Ordinance 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.

STORMWATER QUALITY DESIGN MANUAL FOR THE SACRAMENTO REGION The Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership, which includes the County of Sacramento and the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento, has prepared the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-27 PLNP2018-00284
Sacramento Region (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Design Partnership 2018). This manual is intended to satisfy the regulatory requirements of each jurisdiction’s respective municipal stormwater permits. The manual outlines planning tools and requirements to reduce urban runoff pollution to the maximum extent practicable from new development and redevelopment projects.

New development is required to include treatment of urban runoff using the BMPs defined in the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region. The BMPs include a number of options for treatment, from simple grassy swales and rain gardens to more complex systems that use cisterns, pumps, and sand filters.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT & RECYCLING The County DWMR manages the operations, maintenance, and development of the solid waste management system within unincorporated portions of Sacramento County.

The County DWMR provides solid waste residential curbside pickup services for garbage, recycling, organics, and bulky waste collection to households in the unincorporated areas; provides transfer and disposal services for household hazardous waste, residential, commercial, and self-haul customers at the NARS and Keifer Landfill; and, through its ordinances, regulates collection by franchised haulers for commercial solid waste and recycling for businesses and commercial properties.

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 utilities may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:
 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
 Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;  Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;  Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or
 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-28 PLNP2018-00284

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

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
WATER

WATER SUPPLY
The City’s Water Study Design Manual contains the Water System Design Criteria, a summary of recommended potable-water system performance and operational criteria.

The Water System Design Criteria provides a table of gross unit water use factors for various land uses. The demands are divided into two categories of water use factors:
residential and nonresidential. The residential factors are based on acre-feet per year per dwelling unit (AFY/DU) and the nonresidential factors are based on AFY per acre.

For the proposed UWSP, dwelling units are comprised of low, medium and high density residential. Nonresidential water use factors are distributed to each of the commercial areas based on type of facility and services provided or performed at this facility. Based on the Water System Design Criteria, water use factors for development allowed under the proposed UWSP were derived. A water supply assessment, or WSA, prepared by the City of Sacramento for the proposed UWSP calculates water demand under all water year types including normal, single dry, and multiple dry years over a 20-year planning horizon. The WSA was adopted by the City of Sacramento City Council at its December 6, 2022, meeting.

Water demand for the proposed UWSP was compared to water supplies available to the City, in accordance with City procedures, and a determination was made regarding the sufficiency of supply for the proposed UWSP using the WSA (see Appendix UT-1).

Based on the City’s water use factors discussed above, land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate a water demand of approximately 4,313 AFY (see Table UT-6).

WATER DISTRIBUTION
The water distribution infrastructure required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP was reviewed to determine if its construction and installation would cause significant environmental effects.

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT CAPACITY
The amount of wastewater generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP was compared to available wastewater treatment capacity at the SRWWTP.

SacSewer’s standards were utilized to determine wastewater flows generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-29 PLNP2018-00284
Table UT-6: Water Demand for the Proposed UWSP
Proposed Development
Residential
Water Use
Factor
Non-residential
Water Use
Factor
Water
Demand
(AFY)

RESIDENTIAL

LOW DENSITY
Rural Residential 197 DUs 0.61 -- 120
Suburban Neighborhood 2,366 DUs 0.61 -- 1,443
Traditional Neighborhood 1,063 DUs 0.61 -- 649

MEDIUM DENSITY
Urban Neighborhood 749 DUs 0.39 -- 292

HIGH DENSITY
Traditional Neighborhood 911 DUs 0.12 -- 109

MIXED USE
Traditional Center 791 DUs 0.19 -- 151
Urban Center 3,279 DUs 0.15 -- 492

NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Commercial 47.1 Acres -- 1.5 AF/acre 71
Public/Quasi-Public 141.1 Acres -- 2.0 AF/acre 282
Parks and Recreation Areas 120.5 Acres -- 3.0 AF/acre 362 Open Space 154.2 Acres -- 0 0
Other Water Use 342
TOTAL 4,313
NOTES: AFY = acre-feet per year; DUs = dwelling units
SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates 2022.

The proposed UWSP is estimated to create a sewer demand of 13,215 equivalent single-family dwelling units (ESDs) based on SacSewer’s methodology for planning level ESD calculations (see Table UT-7). Typically planning level ESDs are based upon a minimum of 6 dwelling units per acres. However, the land use plan indicates densities in several land use categories exceeding this minimum. Table UT-7 shows the ESDs per acres utilized for ESD calculations and the total ESDs calculated by land use. A factor of 1 ESD per residential unit was selected based on the nature of the proposed 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-30 PLNP2018-00284
UWSP’s low-density urban infill residential. This factor, when multiplied by 310 gallons per day per ESD, yields a sewer generation rate of 310 gallons per day per residential unit. For residential land uses, sewer densities ranged from 6 to 40 dwelling units per acre, while for nonresidential uses a sewer density of 6 units per acres was used for schools, general office, and commercial buildings per SacSewer’s standards.

Table UT-7: UWSP Land Use and Sewer ESDs
Proposed
Land Use Land Use Description
Area
(ac)
Sewer Density
(du/ac) ESDs
VLDR Very Low Density Residential 160.9 6 965
LDR Low Density Residential 431.5 6 2,589
LMDR Low/Medium Density Residential 138.6 8 1,109
MDR Medium Density Residential 62.5 12 750
HDR High Density Residential1 36.4 18.75 683
VHDR Very High Density Residential1 22.6 26.25 593
CMU Commercial Mixed Use 83.2 40 3,328
E/HC Employment/Highway Commercial 52.9 6 317
S School2 146.1 6 877
OS Open Space 141.8 6 851
AG AG-Cropland3 410.2 0 0
AR AG-Residential3 84.2 0 0
UF Urban Farm/Greenbelt 45.0 6 270
P Park 73.5 6 441
W Water (Basin/Canal) 15.0 6 90
LC Landscape Corridor 35.6 6 214
ROADS Major Roads A 126.5 6 943
ROADS Major Roads B (within AG-Buffer3) 0 0 0
TOTAL 2,067.7 14,020
NOTES:
1 Sewer density for HDR & VHDR are 75 percent actual dwelling units per acre. 2 School ESDs are adjusted as necessary by methodologies provided is SASD Standards Section 201.1.5.
3 AR, AG and AG-buffer road areas will be outside the annexation of SASD’s service so are not included the ESD calculations.

SOURCE: Wood Rodgers 2021b
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-31 PLNP2018-00284
Based on an average dry-weather flow (ADWF) of 310 gallons per day per ESD, it is estimated that the development allowed under the proposed UWSP at buildout would produce a wastewater demand of 4.27 mgd ADWF and 9.23 mgd peak wet-weather flow.

WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE
The wastewater conveyance infrastructure required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP was reviewed to determine if its construction and installation would cause significant environmental effects.

DRAINAGE/STORMWATER
The storm drain infrastructure required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP was reviewed to determine if its construction and installation would cause significant environmental effects.

SOLID WASTE
The estimated amount of solid waste generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP was compared to available processing capacity at the NARS and available disposal capacity at the Keifer Landfill. Solid waste generation rates provided by CalRecycle were utilized to determine the estimated amount of solid waste generated under the proposed UWSP. Based on these rates, development allowed under the proposed UWSP at buildout would generate approximately 17,687 tons of solid waste per year (see Table UT-8), or 335,378 cubic yards per year, which equates to approximately 48.5 tons pf solid waste per day or 918.8 cubic yards per day.

Table UT-8: Solid Waste Generation for the Proposed UWSP Land Use Generation Rate
Dwelling
Units
Commercial
Area (sf) or
Students
Annual Solid
Waste Generation
(Tons/Year)
Residential 1.1 tons/dwelling unit/
year
9,356 N/A 10,292
Commercial
(Town Center) 13 lbs/1000 sf ft/day N/A 3,000,000 7,118 Schools (K-8;
K-12; K-14) 1 lbs/student/day N/A 3,000 278
Totals 9,356 3,003,000 17,686.60
SOURCE: CalRecycle 2022.

ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
The electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP was reviewed to determine if its construction and installation would cause significant environmental effects. 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-32 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT UT-1: CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE COULD RESULT IN

ADVERSE PHYSICAL EFFECTS
WATER

TREATMENT
The City owns and operates two water diversion and treatment facilities: the SRWTP on the Sacramento River and the FWTP on the American River. These treatment plants operate as demands dictate; treatment is directly related to consumer demands.

The SRWTP is located just downstream of the Sacramento River’s confluence with the American River on the east side of the Sacramento river, south of Richards Boulevard and north of the Railyards redevelopment area. The SRWTP has a permitted treatment capacity of 160 mgd.7 The City is currently evaluating further expansion of the SRWTP to increase the diversion and treatment capacity to 310 mgd. 8 The FWTP, located on the south bank of the Lower American River, has a permitted capacity of 160 mgd, with a peak hydraulic flow of 200 mgd. As discussed previously, there are restrictions on how much water can be diverted at the FWTP under certain flow conditions in the Lower American River. The City’s current maximum surface water treatment capacity is 320 mgd. In 2020, City treated and delivered 100,483 AF (or

89.7 mgd), of which 20,429 AF (or 18.2 mgd) was groundwater.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would demand 4,313 AFY (see Table UT-6) or 3.85 mgd, of water that would require treatment prior to delivery within the UWSP area. The SRWTP and FWTP have a maximum combined capacity of 360 mgd (403,398 AFY) if operated continuously. Based on Sacramento’s 2020 water demand of 275 mgd, the treatment plants have a combined excess capacity of 85 mgd, and thus the demand associated with the proposed UWSP represents roughly 0.05 percent of this excess capacity. As a result, no additional water treatment capacity would need to be constructed to accommodate the increase in water demand anticipated under the proposed UWSP, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

DISTRIBUTION
Buildout of the proposed UWSP would require a water storage tank site southwest of the intersection of Bryte Bend Road and San Juan Road. From this facility, a 24-inch transmission main is proposed to connect from the existing 24-inch transmission main in San Juan and El Centro roads. Finally, a series of 16-inch or 24-inch transmission

7 City of Sacramento. 2021. City of Sacramento 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Jointly prepared by City of Sacramento and West Yost Associates. June 2021. Page 3-8. 8 City of Sacramento. 2021. City of Sacramento 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Jointly prepared by City of Sacramento and West Yost Associates. June 2021. Page 3-8. 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-33 PLNP2018-00284
mains are planned to serve the Development Area via a system of looped pipelines in major roadway corridors (see Plate PD-16). None of the required improvements to the water distribution system would occur offsite.

The potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these on-site improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR, including Chapter 6, Air Quality; Chapter 7, Biological Resources; Chapter 9, Cultural Resources; Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology; Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation; and Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of water distribution facilities to the maximum extent feasible. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the construction and installation of water distribution facilities. In addition, future facilities would be required to comply with the County’s requirements for construction projects, including but not limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. Therefore, the impact related to the construction of water distribution facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

WASTEWATER

TREATMENT
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would increase wastewater flows by approximately 4.27 mgd ADWF and 9.23 mgd peak wet-weather flow. The SRWWTP has a current excess capacity of up to 46 mgd, and thus the demand associated with the proposed UWSP represents roughly 8.7 percent of this excess capacity. In addition, SacSewer expects per capita consumption to fall 25 percent over the next 20+ years through the ongoing installation and use of water meters, as well as compliance with conservation mandates such as the state Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7).

As a result, substantial water conservation is expected throughout SacSewer’s service area, and the SRWWTP’s existing 181 mgd ADWF treatment capacity would be sufficient for at least 40 more years. As a result, no additional wastewater treatment capacity would need to be constructed to accommodate the increase in wastewater generation anticipated under the proposed UWSP, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

CONVEYANCE
Buildout of the proposed UWSP would require a sewer pump station near the intersection of Street 8 and El Centro Road along with a 1.8-mile force main that is aligned to run north along El Centro road and east along San Juan Road, parallel to the existing sewer trunk line in San Juan Road. This force main would connect to the New 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-34 PLNP2018-00284
Natomas Pump Station located 1.6 miles to the east outside the UWSP area operated by SacSewer. In addition, an 18-inch sewer trunk line is proposed to extend south from the new sewer pump station down El Centro Road to serve the southern portion of the Development Area. Finally, a 30-inch sewer trunk line would extend west on Street 7 to Bryte Bend Road from the new sewer pump station, where it would split to serve the westerly and northerly portions of the Development Area while a 12-inch sewer trunk line would extend east on Street 7 from the new sewer pump station to serve the easterly portion of the Development Area (see Plate PD-15).

The potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these on- and off-site improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR, including Chapter 6, Air Quality; Chapter 7, Biological Resources; Chapter 9, Cultural Resources; Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology; Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation; and Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of wastewater conveyance facilities to the maximum extent feasible. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the construction and installation of waste conveyance facilities. In addition, future facilities would be required to comply with the County’s requirements for construction projects, including but not limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. Therefore, the impact related to the construction of wastewater conveyance facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

STORMWATER/DRAINAGE
In order to manage stormwater flows within the UWSP area, a new on-site storm drain system including collection, detention basins, conveyance pipelines and proposed pump stations would need to be constructed and installed to serve future development (see Plate PD-17). In addition, the banks of the levees at the San Juan Pump Station and the Riverside Pump Station would be reinforced at these locations to prevent erosion due to an increase in the amount of stormwater entering the West Drainage Canal (Witter Canal) from the UWSP area.

The potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these on- and off-site improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR, including Chapter 6, Air Quality; Chapter 7, Biological Resources; Chapter 9, Cultural Resources; Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology; Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation; and Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of storm drainage facilities to the maximum extent feasible.

There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the construction and installation of storm drainage facilities. In addition, future facilities 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-35 PLNP2018-00284
would be required to comply with the County’s requirements for construction projects, including but not limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. As a result, the impact related to the construction of storm drain facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

ELECTRICITY
Two new electric substations would be required to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP. Substation No. 1 would be located southwest of the intersection of proposed Street 2 and El Centro Road in close proximity to the existing 69kV line and is anticipated to serve the Town Center District and the surrounding residential areas on the southerly portion of the Plan Area. Substation No. 2 is proposed southeast of the intersection of El Centro Road and San Juan Road. In addition, a backbone electrical system would be constructed to deliver electricity from the proposed substations to future development allowed under the proposed UWSP (see Plate PD-18). None of the required improvements to the electrical distribution system would occur offsite.

The potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these on-site improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR, including Chapter 6, Air Quality; Chapter 7, Biological Resources; Chapter 9, Cultural Resources; Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology; Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation; and Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of electrical distribution facilities to the maximum extent feasible. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the construction and installation of electrical distribution facilities. In addition, future facilities would be required to comply with the County’s requirements for construction projects, including but not limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. For these reasons, the impact related to the construction of onsite and off-site electrical distribution facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

NATURAL GAS
Existing natural gas infrastructure in the UWSP area may be plumbed along arterial and collector streets to serve commercial uses and the high school and community college sites within the Development Area. Natural gas would not be extended to single-family homes, as the UWSP is pursuing a goal of Net Zero Energy design. None of the required improvements to the natural gas distribution system would occur offsite.

The potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these on-site improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR, 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-36 PLNP2018-00284
including Chapter 6, Air Quality; Chapter 7, Biological Resources; Chapter 9, Cultural Resources; Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology; Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation; and Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of natural gas distribution facilities to the maximum extent feasible. There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the construction and installation of natural gas distribution facilities. In addition, future facilities would be required to comply with the County’s requirements for construction projects, including but not limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. As a result, the impact related to the construction of natural gas distribution facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
New telecommunications infrastructure would be necessary to serve the technological needs of proposed development in the UWSP area. None of the required improvements to the telecommunications system would occur offsite.

The potential impacts associated with the construction and installation of these improvements are considered throughout the technical chapters of this Draft EIR, including Chapter 6, Air Quality; Chapter 7, Biological Resources; Chapter 9, Cultural Resources; Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology; Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation; and Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources. Project-specific mitigation measures for construction identified for each topical issue would reduce potential significant impacts associated with construction and installation of new telecommunications infrastructure to the maximum extent feasible.

There are no environmental impacts that would occur specifically related to the construction and installation of new telecommunications infrastructure. In addition, future facilities would be required to comply with the County’s requirements for construction projects, including but not limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. Therefore, the impact related to the construction of telecommunications facilities would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE
None required.

IMPACT UT-2: RESULT IN A PROJECT WATER DEMAND THAT CANNOT BE

MET BY SUPPLY
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be required to comply with water conservation, reuse, and efficiency standards under CALGreen. To this end, development would use low-flow/high-efficiency plumbing fixtures, and landscaping in the project area would be designed and maintained for low water use and appropriate 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-37 PLNP2018-00284
site conditions and methods for reducing water demand. Compliance with these measures may reduce the project’s water demand to less than 4,313 AFY.

The increase in water demand under the proposed UWSP would represent an increase of approximately 0.05 percent relative to the City of Sacramento’s total 2020 water demand of 100,483 AF. As shown in Table UT-1 and discussed above, the City has surface water rights to divert up to 326,800 AFY from the American and Sacramento Rivers and had a groundwater pumping capacity of 20,429 AFY in 2020. Thus, the total available water supply for the city of Sacramento in 2020 was more than 346,000 AF and is sufficient to meet demand generated by the proposed UWSP in normal precipitation years.

The City’s surplus water supply is projected to range from 224,768 AFY in 2025 to 216,258 AFY in 2045 during a single dry year or the first year of a multiple-dry-year drought (see Table UT-5). Buildout of the proposed UWSP is anticipated to occur before 2045, when the City’s surplus water supply is projected to be 198,436 AFY in the fifth year of multi-year drought. Therefore, the increase in water demand resulting from development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be approximately 2.17 percent of the City’s surplus water supply in 2045. Thus, as shown in Table UT-5, the City of Sacramento would have adequate planned water supply to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, as confirmed by the WSA prepared for the proposed UWSP. Therefore, the impact of the proposed UWSP on water supply resources would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT UT-3: RESULT IN A PROJECT SEWER DISPOSAL DEMAND THAT

CANNOT BE MET BY DISPOSAL OR CONVEYANCE CAPACITY
As discussed above, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would increase wastewater flows by approximately 4.27 mgd ADWF and 9.23 mgd peak wet-weather flow. However, this increase in wastewater flow would not exceed the current excess capacity of up to 46 mgd at the SRWWTP. In addition, SacSewer expects per capita consumption to fall 25 percent over the next 20+ years through the ongoing installation and use of water meters, as well as compliance with conservation mandates such as the state Water Conservation Act of 2009 (SB X7-7). As a result, substantial additional conservation is expected throughout SacSewer’s service area, and the SRWWTP’s existing 181 mgd ADWF treatment capacity would be sufficient to treat wastewater generated by existing and future land uses for at least 40 more years. Thus, no additional wastewater treatment capacity would need to be constructed to accommodate the increase in wastewater generation anticipated under the proposed UWSP, and this impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-38 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT UT-4: RESULT IN A PROJECT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DEMAND

THAT CANNOT BE MET BY LANDFILL CAPACITY

CONSTRUCTION
Project construction would generate various types of construction waste: scrap lumber, scrap finishing materials, various scrap metals, and other recyclable and non-recyclable construction-related wastes. Construction waste would be managed in accordance with ordinances promulgated by the DWMR —in particular, in accordance with DWMR’s requirement that haulers achieve at least 30 percent recycling rate and up to 50 percent pursuant to AB 939. Recyclable construction materials—concrete, metals, wood, and other materials—would be diverted to recycling facilities.

Development in the UWSP area would comply with County requirements to divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction waste to a certified recycling processor.

Adhering to these requirements would minimize the total volume of demolition and construction waste that would be landfilled but would not avoid disposal of all construction waste in local landfills. Construction solid waste could be delivered to one or more of the following facilities: NARS, Florin-Perkins Public Disposal, L and D Landfill, or Sierra Waste. Use of these facilities would be short-term, and the volume of material would represent a relatively minor component of daily input to these facilities.

Therefore, new or expanded solid waste management or disposal facilities would not be required to accommodate project-related construction, and thus no adverse physical environmental effects would occur. As a result, potential construction-related impacts of the proposed UWSP on solid waste facilities that process construction waste would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

OPERATION
Operation of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate municipal solid waste. Waste from operations would include household, commercial, residential, and office wastes. As shown in Table UT-8, development anticipated under the proposed UWSP would generate approximately 17,687 tons of solid waste per year or 335,378 cubic yards per year, which equates to approximately 48.5 tons of solid waste per day or 918.8 cubic yards per day.

Waste generated by development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be collected and transported to NARS for processing and then on to Kiefer Landfill for disposal. Solid waste would be either recycled in accordance with state and County programs and requirements, composted as organic materials or landfilled at the Kiefer Landfill.

The NARS currently processes 1,200 tons of solid waste per day and is permitted to receive up to 2,400 tons per day. Project-related waste would represent an increase of 20 - Utilities
Upper Westside Specific Plan 20-39 PLNP2018-00284
approximately four percent over the amount of solid waste currently processed at the facility and about two percent of the facility’s permitted capacity. As a result, sufficient solid waste processing capacity would be available to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP.

Kiefer Landfill currently has approximately 75 million cubic yards9 of available capacity and is expected to be operational until 2098. Project-related wastes would represent less than one-third of a percent (<0.01 percent) of total annual capacity of Kiefer Landfill or 0.44 percent of available capacity. Therefore, sufficient landfill disposal capacity would be available to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP.

Based on the above, the proposed UWSP would not require new or expanded solid waste management or disposal facilities. Because there would be no need to expand or create new landfill or solid waste management facilities, there would be no related physical environmental effects. Therefore, the operational impact of the proposed UWSP on landfill capacity would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

IMPACT UT-5: CONFLICT WITH SOLID WASTE REGULATIONS
As previously discussed, the DWMR oversees solid waste, recycling, and disposal needs in the greater Sacramento area. The DWMR regulates commercial solid waste collection by franchised haulers through ordinances. DWMR ordinances include the requirement that franchised haulers achieve at least 30 percent recycling rate and up to 50 percent pursuant to AB 939 and offer recycling services to businesses and multifamily dwelling units. Because the haulers serving the UWSP area would be regulated by DWMR, they would be in compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would not conflict with solid waste regulations and impacts are considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.

9 One cubic yard is equivalent to approximately 0.1125 tons un-compacted, or approximately 0.375 tons compacted, as waste would arrive at the landfill from trucks or other transport equipment.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 21-1 PLNP2018-00284
21 OTHER RESOURCE TOPICS

INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes environmental topics listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, including mineral resources and wildfire, that would either not be affected by the proposed plan or would involve impacts of the UWSP that would be clearly less than significant.

MINERAL RESOURCES
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts on mineral resources may be considered significant if implementation of the proposed plan would:
 Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state; or
 Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

OVERVIEW
Mineral resources present within Sacramento County include sand, gravel, clay, gold, silver, peat, topsoil, lignite, natural gas and petroleum. However, aggregate (sand and gravel) and natural gas are the principal mineral resources that are currently in production. Aggregate deposits are primarily located in the southeastern portion of the county within the Old American River channel south of Rancho Cordova while natural gas production areas are located in the far southwestern portion of the county in the Delta (County of Sacramento 2017).

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 requires the State Geologist to classify land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) based on the known or inferred mineral resource potential of that land. A majority land in Sacramento County is classified as either MRZ-1, defined as areas where available geologic information indicates that little likelihood exists for the presence of significant mineral resources, and MRZ-3, areas containing mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resource significance. Only portions of land along the American River corridor and in the center of the County, south of the American River, are classified as MRZ-2, areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where geologic information indicates that significant inferred resources are present (County of Sacramento 2010).

According to the Mineral Land Classification Map of Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate Resources in Sacramento County (Dupras 1999a) and the Selected Historic 21 - Other Resource Topics
Upper Westside Specific Plan 21-2 PLNP2018-00284
and Active Mining Operations in Sacramento County (Dupras 1999b), resources published by the California Geological Survey, there are no significant mineral resources or active mining operations in or near the UWSP area. Likewise, based on these conditions, the entire UWSP area has been classified by the State geologist as MRZ-1 (County of Sacramento 2010). Finally, according to information from the Geologic Energy Management Division, no active or inactive natural gas wells are located within the UWSP area (CalGEM 2022).

IMPACT: LOSS OF AVAILABILITY OF A KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE OR

LOCALLY KNOWN MINERAL RESOURCE SITE
As described above, there are no significant mineral resources or active mining operations in or near the UWSP area and the area is classified as MRZ-1 by the State geologist. Furthermore, the UWSP area has also not been identified as an area likely to produce natural gas. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed UWSP would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site, and no impact would occur.

WILDFIRE
For purposes of this EIR and consistent with the criteria presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to wildfire may be considered significant if, for projects located in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, implementation of the proposed plan would:
 Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
 Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
 Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
 Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

OVERVIEW
With large areas of the state burning annually, often at great cost to life and property, wildfire has become a significant concern in much of California over the last two decades. These events are most often associated with rural and suburban areas adjacent to or directly within areas where a combination of vegetation, terrain, climate, and weather heighten the risk of wildfire and make control of wildfire difficult. These 21 - Other Resource Topics
Upper Westside Specific Plan 21-3 PLNP2018-00284
areas, commonly referred to as the Wildland-Urban Interface, present specific risks and challenges associated with wildfire. These conditions are being exacerbated by the effects of climate change, which has resulted in prolonged fire seasons and an increase in the severity of climate, weather, and fuel conditions that increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has considered each of these criteria in its preparation of Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps for each of California’s counties. Where areas of higher wildfire risk are present, these zones are categorized as moderate, high, or very high. Of particular interest to this topic is the presence of fire hazard severity zones within areas where CAL FIRE has responsibility for fire protection. These areas are referred to as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and are typically located in the rural and nonurbanized areas of the state. In contrast, most of the urbanized areas of the state lie within Local Responsibility Areas, where local city fire departments and organized fire districts have fire protection responsibility. The UWSP area is located within an SRA, but as noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, fire protection and prevention services are currently provided by the City of Sacramento Fire Department through a contract with the Natomas Fire Protection District. It is anticipated that this arrangement would remain in place if the UWSP is approved. As such, the UWSP area is located within an SRA, but fire protection services are contractually provided by a local fire protection agency. This is a common arrangement in many areas of California, particularly in the rural and semi-rural areas immediately surrounding urbanized cities, as is the case with the UWSP area.

With respect to the conditions described above that contribute to heightened wildfire risk, these conditions are not present within the UWSP area. According to fire history maps compiled by CAL FIRE, there have been no recorded wildfires in the area since record-keeping began more than 100 years ago (CapRadio 2024). While the area is located within an SRA, with fire protection services provided by a contracted local agency, no portion of the UWSP is located within a fire hazard severity zone, and neither are any adjoining areas. The nearest designated fire hazard severity zone to the UWSP area is 20 miles to the east, in the lower Sierra Nevada Foothills. The UWSP area itself is primarily occupied by agricultural uses and is crisscrossed by roadways and irrigation canals and ditches. Woody and flammable vegetation of the types associated with high wildfire danger (e.g., scrub vegetation, woodlands, and timber) are not present in the area. With respect to the vicinity surrounding the UWSP area, the riparian area along the Sacramento River to the west contains marginal wildfire fuels, but under existing conditions there are no substantial fuels present to carry fire from the riparian area to the UWSP area and the proposed 534-acrea Agricultural buffer to the west of the Development Area would maintain that condition. Urbanized areas lie to the south, east, and north of the UWSP area and thus are devoid of high-risk characteristics. Owing to the area’s flat terrain, lack of flammable vegetation, and existing land uses, the area’s risk relevant to wildfire is low. 21 - Other Resource Topics
Upper Westside Specific Plan 21-4 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT: SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN
Individual development projects constructed and operated within the UWSP area would be required to comply with applicable County requirements concerning ingress and egress, emergency access, and minimum roadway design requirements. While additional traffic volumes could be expected with the construction of more housing and other uses, the County would be required to periodically update its emergency response and evacuation plan(s) in response to changing conditions, as required in the County’s General Plan and State law.
1 This periodic reevaluation would address these changed conditions, and would adjust the evacuation plans accordingly, thus rendering this impact less than significant.

IMPACT: EXPOSURE TO POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FROM A WILDFIRE As noted in the overview discussion above, the UWSP area does not present features associated with enhanced wildfire risk. The area’s flat terrain, its absence of vegetation conducive to the spread of wildfire, and existing land uses present a low risk of wildfire for the area. The residential, commercial, and other land uses proposed as part of the UWSP would not increase the area’s susceptibility to wildfire, and thus would not exacerbate wildfire risks. This impact would be less than significant.

IMPACT: INSTALLATION OR MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT MAY

EXACERBATE FIRE RISK OR THAT MAY RESULT IN TEMPORARY OR ONGOING

IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
As noted above, the area is at low risk for wildfire, and the land uses proposed as part of the UWSP would not change that condition. Roads, fuel breaks, and other features associated with abating wildfire risk would not be required. There would therefore be no exacerbation of wildfire risks or ongoing impacts associated with wildfire risk abatement activities. This impact would be less than significant.

1 General Plan Policies SA-31 through SA-34 contain requirements for periodic updates to the County’s Emergency Response Plan, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, coordination with local agencies and jurisdictions on emergency response and evacuation, and public education concerning emergency response procedures. At the State level, AB 747 (2019) requires that the safety elements within general plans be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify evacuation routes and their capacity, safety, and viability under a range of emergency scenarios. Since safety elements are required to be updated at the same time as housing elements, and since housing elements are required to be updated on a five to eight-year timetable, the County’s evacuation routes and procedures would also necessarily be updated on a regular basis.
21 - Other Resource Topics
Upper Westside Specific Plan 21-5 PLNP2018-00284
IMPACT: EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO SIGNIFICANT RISKS AS A

RESULT OF RUNOFF, POST-FIRE SLOPE INSTABILITY, OR DRAINAGE CHANGES As noted above, the area is at low risk for wildfire, and the land uses proposed as part of the UWSP would not change that condition. Accordingly, there would be no exposure of people or structures to post-fire impacts like downslope flooding, landslides, or drainage changes because the area is flat. This impact would be less than significant.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-1 PLNP2018-00284
22 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

INTRODUCTION
A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created by the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts.

The beginning of the cumulative impact analysis includes a description of the cumulative analysis methodology and the geographic or temporal context in which the cumulative impact is analyzed (e.g., the Sacramento County, the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, other activity concurrent with project construction). In some instances, a projectspecific impact may be considered less than significant, but when considered in combination with other cumulative projects or activities, the impact may be considered significant or potentially significant.

As noted above, where a cumulative impact is significant when compared to existing or baseline conditions, the analysis must address whether the project’s contribution to the significant cumulative impact is “considerable.” If the contribution of the project is considerable, then the EIR must identify potentially feasible measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to a less-than-considerable level.

If the project’s contribution is not considerable, it is considered less than significant, and no mitigation of the project contribution is required.

METHODOLOGY
The CEQA Guidelines suggest that the analysis of cumulative impacts for each environmental factor can employ one of two methods to establish the effects of other past, current, and probable future projects. A lead agency may select a list of projects, including those outside the control of the agency, or alternatively, a summary of projections. These projections may be from an adopted general plan or related planning document, or from a prior environmental document that has been adopted or certified, and these documents may describe or evaluate regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

In this Draft EIR, a combination of these two methods is used depending upon the specific resource area being analyzed. To evaluate traffic and traffic-related air quality and traffic-related noise impacts, the impacts were evaluated using the projected growth in traffic through 2040 based on SACOG projections. Other impacts, such as construction air and noise impacts, were evaluated using a list of recently approved and/or proposed projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area that are not yet constructed, are not yet occupied, or are very newly constructed. This development includes growth under projects proposed and adopted by the City of Sacramento and Sacramento County in north Natomas and the Central City. Plate CI-1 shows the location of projects 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-2 PLNP2018-00284
within the vicinity of the UWSP area while Table CI-1, below, includes a comprehensive list of projects in unincorporated portions of southeast, southcentral, and northwest Sacramento County and incorporated portions of Sacramento County (Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento) as wells as projects in nearby Placer and Sutter counties that border Sacramento County.

Table CI-1: Cumulative Project List
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status

UNINCORPORATED SACRAMENTO COUNTY
1 Vineyard Springs
Comprehensive
Plan
South-central portion of
Sacramento County
2,650 acres bounded by Gerber
Road to the north, Calvine Road
to the south, Excelsior Road on
the east, and Bradshaw Road
on the west
Approved
2000
2 North Vineyard
Station Specific
Plan
South-central portion of
Sacramento County
1,594 acres bound by Florin
Road to the north, Gerber Road
to the south, Vineyard Road to
the east, and Elder Creek on the
west
Approved
1998
3 Florin Vineyard
Gap Community
Plan
Within the community plan
areas of Vineyard and
South Sacramento
3,872 acres bounded by Elder
Creek Road on the north,
Bradshaw Road on the east,
Churchill Downs neighborhood
to the south, and Union Pacific
Railroad tracks on the west
Approved
2010
4 Mather Airport
Master Plan
10425 Norden Ave,
Mather, CA
Establishes a program for
modifications of existing
facilities and development of
new facilities through 2035
Approved
2014,
Amended
2016
5 Cordova Hills Southeastern Sacramento
County
2,669 acres east and adjacent
to Rancho Cordova
Approved
2013
6 Easton Project,
including
Glenborough at
Easton and Easton
Place
Within Cordova
Community Planning Area
1,391 acres south of U.S. 50
and east of Rancho Cordova
Approved
2008
7 NewBridge
Specific Plan
Eastern Sacramento
County along Jackson
Road
1,095 acres Approved
2020
8 Mather South
Community Master
Plan
Eastern Sacramento
County along Jackson
Road
884 acres located northeast of
the Plan Area
Approved
2020
9 Jackson Township
Specific Plan
Eastern Sacramento
County along Jackson
Road
1,391 acres located between
NewBridge and West Jackson
Approved
2022
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-3 PLNP2018-00284
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status
10 West Jackson
Highway Master
Plan
Eastern Sacramento
County along Jackson
Road
5,900 acres east of South Watt
Avenue, north of Elder Creek
Road, south of Kiefer
Boulevard, and west of
Excelsior Road
In Process
11 Capitol SouthEast
Connector
Expressway
Link I-5 and SR-99 South
of Elk Grove to U.S. 50
East of El Dorado Hills
Designed to provide congestion
relief
Preliminary
design
12 Stoneridge Quarry Eastern Sacramento
County south of U.S. 50
Quarry mining and processing
of materials on 619 acres of a
1,360-acre property
Approved
2011
13 Teichert Quarry Eastern Sacramento
County south of U.S. 50
Quarry mining and operation of
a processing plant on 380 acres
of a 584-acre property for 25
years
Approved
2010
14 Milgate Quarry Eastern Sacramento
County south of U.S. 50
Quarry mining on 194 acres for
50 years
Currently
Inactive
15 Granite White
Rock North Mine
Between Folsom
Boulevard (to the north)
and White Rock Road (to
the south), adjacent to
Easton and Glenborough
Mining 25 million tons of sand
and gravel on 2,125 acres over
20 years
In Process
16 Granite Vineyard
South Mine
Expansion
Between Elder Creek
Road (to the north) and
Florin Road (to the south)
Expansion of mining from 146
acres to 206 acres (for an
increase of 60± acres) on a 255-
acre property
In Process
17 Grandpark Specific
Plan*
Northwest Sacramento
County, east of SR-99,
north of Elkhorn Boulevard
Proposed Specific Plan for
5,675 acres
In Process
18 Metro Air Park* Northwest Sacramento
County, north of I-5
Approximately 1,867 acres,
Industrial/Office park
Approved
1993
19 Elverta Specific
Plan*
Northern Sacramento
county, bounded by Gibson
Ranch on the east,
U Street on the South,
various property lines
approximately 1,350 feet
west of Palladay Road on
the west
1,820 acres of residential, agres, commercial, parks, schoolsApproved 2007
20 Northborough
(within Elverta
Specific Plan)*
East of 16th Street in
Elverta Specific Plan
298 acres within Elverta Specific
Plan, including 1,127 residential
units, parks, and school
Approved
2017
21 Sacramento
International
Airport Master
Plan*
Northwest Sacramento
County, north of I-5
Updates a program for
modifications of existing
facilities and development of
new facilities through 2035
Approved
2022
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-4 PLNP2018-00284
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status
22 Metro Airpark East Northwest of SR-99 and
Elkhorn Boulevard
interchange
Proposed logistics center on
529-acre parcel
Currently
inactive
23 WattEV* Northwest Sacramento
County, south of I-5 within
Sacramento International
Airport Master Plan area
Publicly accessible Electric
Vehicle (EV) charging facility
that would be built on a 110-
acre parcel of land adjacent to I5 and proximate to SR-99 In process
24 Carli Mine
Expansion
11509 Florin Road, On
The North Side Of Florin
Road Between Eagles
Nest Road And Sunrise
Boulevard.

Expansion of 153 acres to
existing Carli Mine, and readymix plant.

Approved
2020
25 Aspen IV North Side Of Jackson
Road Approximately 2,000
Feet East Of Bradshaw
Road,
278 acres of aggregate mining Approved
2018
Approved
1991
26 Aspen V east side of Bradshaw
Road, approximately 1,300
feet south of Kiefer
Boulevard
Fully mined – reclamation will
occur at same time as Aspen VI.

Originally
approved in
1996
27 Aspen V a Eastern Sacramento
County south of Highway
50 Fully mined – reclamation will
occur at same time as Aspen VI.

Originally
approved in
1996
28 Aspen III South Southwest Corner Of
Fruitridge Road And
Mayhew Road
Sand and gravel mining along
881.7 acres of the 966.3 acres.

Amendment
Approved
2013
29 Aspen VI Northside of Jackson
Road, approximately 2,000
feet east of Bradshaw
Road
752.5 acres sand & gravel
mining
Approved
2018
30 Aspen IV South northeast corner of
Mayhew Road and Elder
Creek Road
570 acres of surface mining Approved
2013
31 Aspen V South South side of Jackson
Road, east of Bradshaw
Road
Aggregate surface mining on
193 acres of the 261 acres
project site
Originally
approved in
1999
32 Aspen 8 and 9 both sides of Elder Creek
Road approximately 4,000
feet east of Bradshaw
Road
353-acres of surface mining Approved
2016
33 Aspen 8 & 9
Expansion
both sides of Elder Creek
Road approximately 4,000
feet east of Bradshaw
Road
Additional 245 acres of surface
mining to Aspen 8 & 9
In progress
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-5 PLNP2018-00284
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA
34 Arboretum Within the Grant Line
North Planning Area
1,349 acres bounded by
Highway 16 to the south, Grant
Line Road to the east, Kiefer
Boulevard to the north, and
Sunrise Boulevard to the west
Currently
Inactive
35 Suncreek Specific
Plan
Located in southern
Rancho Cordova
1,265 acres located east of the
Folsom Canal
Approved
2013
36 Sunridge Ranch
Specific Plan
Located in southern
Rancho Cordova
2,606 acres south of Douglas
Road, east of Sunrise
Boulevard, and north of Grant
Line Road
Approved
2002
37 Rio del Oro
Specific Plan
Located in central Rancho
Cordova
3,828 acres south of White
Rock Road, east of Sunrise
Boulevard, and north of Douglas
Road
Approved
2010
38 Westborough
Specific Plan
Located in central Rancho
Cordova
1,695 acres north of White Rock
Road and including Rancho
Cordova Parkway
In Progress
39 Rancho Cordova
General Plan
City of Rancho Cordova All land uses assumed in the
City of Rancho Cordova
General Plan
Adopted
2006

CITY OF FOLSOM
40 Folsom South of
50 Specific Plan
Eastern Sacramento
County, south of U.S. 50
and west of Folsom city
limits
3,510 acres south of U.S. 50,
north of White Rock Road, east
of Prairie City Road, and west of
Sacramento/El Dorado County
Line
Approved
2011,
currently
under
construction

CITY OF SACRAMENTO
41 Aspen 1/New
Brighton
Eastern City of
Sacramento at County line
232 acres at the corner of
Jackson Road and Watt Avenue
Approved
2015
42 Innovation Park/
CNU Medical
Center Campus*
Located in northern City of
Sacramento
Reuse of the former Sleep Train
Arena in North Natomas,
includes California Northstate
University Medical Center
Campus.

Approved
2022
43 Northlake
(previously known
as Greenbriar)*
Northern City of
Sacramento, west of
SR-99, north of I-5
577± acres located at the
southwest corner of the
intersection of Elkhorn
Boulevard and SR-99.

Approved
2008
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-6 PLNP2018-00284
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status
44 Downtown/
Central City
Specific Plan*
Downtown Sacramento Generally bounded by the
Sacramento River to the west,
Business 80 to the east, the
American River on the north
(excluding the River District and
Railyards)
Approved
2018
45 Panhandle* Northeast City of
Sacramento
589± acres in the City of
Sacramento, which includes the
land north of Del Paso Road,
south of Elkhorn Boulevard, west
of Sorento Road/E. Levee Road,
and east of the developed
neighborhoods known as
Natomas Park and Regency
Park
Approved
2018
46 West Broadway
Specific Plan*
Central City of
Sacramento
292 acres area generally
bounded by the Sacramento
River on the west; U.S. 50 and
Broadway on the north; Muir
Way and 5th Street on the east;
and 4th Avenue on the south.

Approved
2020
47 Railyards Specific
Plan *
North of Downtown
Sacramento, east of I-5
244 acres formerly used by
Union Pacific Railroad, entitled
for dense urban residential
neighborhoods, a historic
museum, a shopping and market
district, a regional intermodal
transit station, a county
courthouse, a medical campus, a
soccer stadium, pedestrianoriented streets, shopping and entertainment complexes,
riverfront access, and high-rise
mixed-use buildings
Approved
2016
48 River District
Specific Plan*
North of Downtown
Sacramento, east of I-5
773 acres including a transitoriented mixed use urban
environment that would include
8,144 dwelling units, 3.956
million square feet of office,
854,000 square feet of retail/
wholesale, 1.463 million square
feet light industrial, and 3,044
hotel units.

Approved
2011
49 Delta Shores
MDR-6 & MDR-7
Project
North of Delta Shore
South Circle and south of
Cosumnes River
Boulevard
197-parcel residential project Approved
2023
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-7 PLNP2018-00284
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status
50 Airport South
Industrial Project*
Northern City of
Sacramento, south of I-5
Annexation from unincorporated
County to City of Sacramento
In process
51 Commerce Station
P06-018*
Del Paso Road and East
Commerce Parkway, east
of I-5
Planned 180-5-acre
development with 20.6-acre
regional shopping center and
155.8-acres of mixed uses.

Approved
2008

CITY OF ELK GROVE
52 Southeast
Industrial Area
East of Grant Line Road
and SR-99
Southeast Industrial Area (382
acres annexed to City of Elk
Grove in 2019), potential for
additional 189 acres to be
annexed in future
Approved
2019
53 Elk Grove
Crossing Specific
Plan
Within the Kammerer/
SR-99 Sphere of Influence
Area between the future
extension of Big Horn
Boulevard on the west and
the future extension of
Murphy’s Corral Road on
the east.
319 acres including high and
medium density residential,
commercial, office, retail,
entertainment, and light
industrial/”flex” uses.

In process
54 Southeast Policy
Area (SEPA) and
Lent Ranch/Elk
Grove Promenade
North of Kammerer Road,
east of Bruceville Road,
west of SR-99
1,200 acres including industrial/
”flex” uses, mixed use, offices,
parks, schools, and residential
uses. Approximately 270 acres
including commercial, office
uses. Projects have been
incorporated into the City’s
General Plan.

SEPA
approved
2014,
potential
changes
pending
55 Bilby Ridge South of Bilby Road, north
of the Planned Kammerer
Road extension, between
Bruceville Road and
Willard Parkway
484 acres planned for
residential, retail, service
commercial, schools, parks, and
open space
In process

SUTTER COUNTY
56 Sutter Pointe
Specific Plan*
Southern Sutter County.

Bound by Natomas Road
on the east and Powerline
Road on the west. The
northern boundary is
approximately 4 miles
north of the City of
Sacramento while the
southern boundary is
adjacent to the Sutter/
Sacramento county line.
7,528 acres including
approximately 49.7 million
square feet of industrial,
commercial, and business/
professional development; and
17,500 low-, medium-, and highdensity residential units.

Approved
2009
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-8 PLNP2018-00284
Project
Number Project Name Location Description Status

PLACER COUNTY
57 Placer Vineyards
Specific Plan
Southwestern Placer
County. Bound to the north
by Base Line Road, to the
south by the Sacramento
County line, to the west by
the Sutter County line and
Pleasant Grove Road, and
to the east by the Dry
Creek Parkway and
Walerga Road
5,230 acres including 14,132
residential units, 274 acres of
commercial uses, 919 acres of
park and open space land, and
851 acres of quasi-public uses
(i.e., public facilities/services,
schools, roadways, religious
facilities)
Approved
2007
58 Placer Ranch
Specific Plan
Terminus of Woodcreek
Oaks Boulevard north of
the City of Roseville
2,213-acre specific plan
containing 5,636 dwelling units
and 8.4-million square feet of
commercial, employment, and
university-related nonresidential uses.

Under
developme
nt
59 Sunset Area Plan Located between the cities
of Rocklin to the east,
Roseville to the south, and
Lincoln to the north
Mix of labor and employment
uses, associated with Placer
Ranch Specific Plan
Updated
approvals in
2019
60 Regional
University Specific
Plan
South of Pleasant Grove
Creek between Brewer
Road and the City of
Roseville
6,000-student university campus
and 3,232-unit associated
community development.

Developme
nt
Guidelines
adopted
2019
NOTES: I-5 = Interstate 5; SR-99 = State Route 99; U.S. 50 = U.S. Highway 50 * Located within the vicinity of the UWSP area
SOURCE: County of Sacramento 2024
80 Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR
Plate CI-1
Cumulative Projects Within the Vicinity of UWSP
SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, basemap, 2021; ESA, 2024
D150587.01 - Upper Westside Specic Plan EIR\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling-USE AZURE\Illustrator 0 3
Mile N
5 5
Garden Highway
El Centro Road
Arena Boulevard
Riego Road
W Elverta Road
Elkhorn Boulevard
8 9
8 2
16 12
13 15
4 14
17 6
1 8
9 10
7 12
11 5
16 13
15 14
3 UWSP Boundary
Natomas Basin Boundary
Approved Projects
1 Sacramento International
Airport Master Plan Update
2 Metro Air Park
3 Metro Airpark East
4 Grandpark
5 Elverta Specic Plan
6 Northborough
7 WattEV
8 Airport South Industrial Park
9 Northlake
10 Commerce Station
11 Innovation Park
12 Panhandle
13 River District
14 Railyards Specic Plan
15 Downtown
16 West Broadway
17 Sutter Pointe
Unincorporated Sacramento County
City of Sacramento
Sutter County
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-10 PLNP2018-00284

CUMULATIVE ISSUE AREAS
Cumulative impacts for each environmental resource topic area are discussed below.

Significance criteria, unless otherwise specified, are the same for cumulative impacts as project impacts for each environmental resource topic area. When considered in relation to other probable future projects, cumulative impacts for some resources could be significant and more severe than those caused by the proposed UWSP alone.

AESTHETICS

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative effects related to aesthetics, light, and glare varies depending on the specific environmental issue area being analyzed.

The geographic context for scenic vistas and visual resources includes the area that comprises the view shed of and from the UWSP area while the geographic context for light and glare considers other development in the surrounding area that could affect the same area as that affected by project-generated light.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

SCENIC VIEWS AND SCENIC VISTAS
As discussed in Chapter 4, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, scenic views and scenic vistas in the Sacramento region are typically elements of the broader viewshed, such as distant views of the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range. Scenic views and scenic vistas are usually background elements that can be seen from a range of viewpoints. These types of expansive and open views are considered part of the County’s visual heritage. Scenic views and scenic vistas are differentiated from scenic resources, which typically comprise distinct natural or built features within a specific area that act as the focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements. Accordingly, cumulative effects to scenic resources are addressed in the Visual Character impact discussion below.

Various plans, policies, and regulations include specific provisions for the protection of scenic views and scenic vistas. These include but are not limited to general plans, specific plans, zoning regulations, design requirements, design review programs, and design guidelines. Development standards such as height restrictions and minimum setback distances are among the most effective methods employed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to scenic views and scenic vistas. While recently approved and/or proposed projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) are required to adhere to applicable plans, policies, and regulations aimed to protect aesthetic resources, including scenic views and scenic vistas, it is nonetheless reasonable to assume that the introduction of new buildings, structures, and landscaping elements that would occur with implementation of these projects could block numerous existing scenic views. This impact would be more pronounced where vertical development would occur on areas currently comprised of largely flat agricultural land and rural residential communities to the north of the UWSP area, where 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-11 PLNP2018-00284
distant views of the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Range experienced by local residents and travelers are largely unobstructed. This blockage of scenic views and scenic vistas across an extensive and largely undeveloped area would be a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, while the proposed UWSP includes development standards and design guidelines to direct the buildout of the 1,532-acre Development Area to ensure high quality design and visual cohesion and consistency, development of the UWSP area would result in the construction of buildings, structures, and landscaping elements that could block distant views of the horizons in all directions from most areas within the UWSP area. Given the extent of urban development that would occur with implementation of the proposed UWSP and the largely undeveloped nature of the UWSP area, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to the significant cumulative impact on scenic views and scenic vistas would be considerable. Aside from implementation of development standards and design guidelines already required for the proposed UWSP, no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the magnitude of the visual changes that would occur. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

VISUAL CHARACTER
Cumulative development would construct new urban uses within or directly adjacent to existing urban uses. Future development under these projects would generally blend in with existing commercial and residential development and would not likely result in individual or cumulatively significant impacts related to degradation of visual character.

However, a substantial portion of cumulative growth in the vicinity of the UWSP area would occur on presently non-urbanized lands to the north of the UWSP area. This development includes growth contemplated under the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). The visual character of the lands on which these projects would be developed is very similar to the visual character of the UWSP area. Like the UWSP area, these lands are dominated by crop farming interspersed with rural communities and open space areas. While development on these lands would be required to comply with applicable plans, policies, and regulations aimed to ensure high-quality design and visual cohesion and consistency, the change in visual character experienced by local residents and travelers would be permanent and substantial, regardless of whether or not the new development would be visually appealing. This change in visual character across an extensive and largely undeveloped area would have a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed UWSP would result in the development of residential, commercial, mixed use, office, school, park, open space, roadways, and other urban uses, as well as creation of an agricultural buffer area on an approximately 2,066-acre site in unincorporated northwestern Sacramento County, which currently comprises mostly agricultural cropland, along with rural residential and commercial uses. While the proposed UWSP includes adoption of design guidelines and development standards aimed to ensure high quality design and visual cohesion and consistency, the change in visual character 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-12 PLNP2018-00284
would be permanent and drastic. Given the extent of urban development that would occur with implementation of the proposed UWSP and the largely undeveloped nature of the UWSP area, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to the significant cumulative impact on visual character would be considerable. Aside from implementation of development standards and design guidelines already required for the proposed UWSP, no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the magnitude of the visual changes that would occur. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

LIGHT OR GLARE
As previously noted, several recently approved and/or proposed projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area, such as specific plans in the Central City of the City of Sacramento, would develop new urban uses within or directly adjacent to existing urban uses that generally already contain many existing sources of light and glare. Future development under these projects would add new sources of light and glare, but the net increases in light and glare would not be anticipated to result in individual or cumulatively significant impacts. However, a substantial portion of cumulative growth in the vicinity of the UWSP area would occur on presently non-urbanized lands to the north of the UWSP area. This development includes growth contemplated under the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). Like UWSP area, the majority of the lands on which these projects would be developed consists of farm fields that are devoid of nighttime lighting and are dark at night. Rural residential uses and associated vehicular traffic on local roadways in these areas produce minimal amounts of light or illumination. Future development under these projects could result in the conversion of previously undeveloped land to urban uses in such a way that the additional sources of light and glare would noticeably change the aesthetic environment, especially with regard to diminished views of the night sky. This introduction of new sources of light and glare and the resultant change to the aesthetic environment across an extensive and largely undeveloped area would have a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 4, Aesthetics, of this Draft EIR, upon full buildout, the proposed UWSP would result in the urbanization of up to 1,532 acres with up to 9,356 housing units; more than 3 million square feet of commercial, retail, and office uses; as well as schools, parks, and associated roadways and parking lots. New uses and associated automobiles would introduce new sources of light to an area with relatively few lighting sources. In addition to new sources of light, the urbanization of up to 1,532 acres of sparsely developed land would also introduce new sources of glare from reflective elements such as glass and rooftop photovoltaic (PV) solar panels. Although spillover lighting, excessive lighting, and glare would be minimized due to the strict lighting standards that would be adopted as part of the project, implementation of the proposed UWSP would introduce a substantial amount of new lighting to an area that is currently rural and contains minimal lighting. Given the extent of urban development that would occur with implementation of the proposed UWSP and the largely undeveloped nature of the UWSP area, which includes minimal amounts of existing lighting or illumination, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to the significant cumulative impact related to production of light and glare would be considerable. Mitigation Measure AE-3 is 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-13 PLNP2018-00284
proposed to ensure that outdoor lighting associated with development allowed under the proposed UWSP is designed in accordance with Section 140.7, Prescriptive Requirements for Outdoor Lighting, in the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which specifies wattage allowance per lighting application based on lighting zones.

However, aside from implementation of development standards and design guidelines already required for the proposed UWSP, no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the magnitude of the visual changes that would occur. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Farmland and agricultural resources are important contributors to Sacramento County’s economy and land conservation efforts. The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use, conflicts with existing agricultural use and zoning, and other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use is Sacramento County.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

CONVERT FARMLAND TO NONAGRICULTURAL USE
Cumulative loss of agricultural land is a great concern in the State of California, especially within the Central Valley. This is a particular concern in Sacramento County, where approximately 11,320 acres of Important Farmland was lost between 2010 and 2020 (California Department of Conservation 2024). This is approximately five percent of the acres of Important Farmland that were present in 2010. Much of the cumulative development in unincorporated southeast, southcentral, and northwest Sacramento County (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) includes large portions of Important Farmland that would be converted to urban uses. As a result, cumulative development in the County would continue the trend of Important Farmland being converted to nonagricultural use, and thus would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP would convert approximately 1,372 acres of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

While the implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 would reduce the impact of farmland conversion by mitigating the loss of farmland at a 1:1 ratio consistent with Sacramento County General Plan Policy AG-5, there would be a substantial net loss of agricultural production within Sacramento County as a result of the proposed UWSP.

Due to the sizable acreage of farmland that would be converted to nonagricultural uses, implementation of the proposed UWSP would result in a considerable contribution to the cumulative loss of farmland, and this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

CONFLICT WITH EXISTING ZONING FOR AGRICULTURAL USE
Land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract is preserved exclusively for agricultural and open space uses. A standard contract refers to a typical 10-year contract. A super 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-14 PLNP2018-00284
contract refers to a 20-year contract. Therefore, land enrolled in the Williamson Act program protects the conversion of land to non-agricultural uses over a decade or more.

In the Sacramento Valley region, the acreage of land under Williamson Act contracts has increased five of the past six years, resulting in a net negligible change in acreage (County of Sacramento 2023a). However, Sacramento County has experienced a cumulative loss of farmland, or Williamson Act contracts have not been renewed, as urban development continues in the County. Projects considered in the cumulative list (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), particularly large specific plans on agricultural land, would have a cumulatively considerable impact on the further conversion of Williamson Act land throughout the County.

As discussed in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed changes to land use designations and allowable uses within the UWSP area would be permitted with approval of a General Plan amendment and approval of related amendments to the County Code. Because the entitlements requested as components of the proposed UWSP would change the zoning to make it consistent with the proposal, the proposed UWSP would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use within the UWSP area.

With regard to land within a Williamson Act contract, Sacramento County requires land within a Williamson Act contract be zoned for agricultural use. As discussed in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the UWSP area includes one parcel (APN 225-0190-024) under a Williamson Act contract, which would continue to be designated as Agricultural Cropland with implementation of the proposed UWSP and would be within the proposed agricultural buffer to the west of the Development Area.

Implementation of the proposed UWSP would not affect the zoning, contract status, or viability of the parcel under a Williamson Act contract within or in the vicinity of the UWSP area.

For these reasons, implementation of the proposed UWSP would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

OTHER CHANGES THAT COULD CONVERT FARMLAND TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE Sacramento County has experienced a tremendous amount of growth in recent decades. Development within the County as well as surrounding counties has reduced the amount of agricultural land in the area due to increased urban development. The County’s General Plan calls for the development of unincorporated areas to provide areas for the county to grow. Thus, existing agricultural land may be converted to nonagricultural uses, especially as adjacent properties become entitled for urban development. Most cumulative development in unincorporated southeast, southcentral and northwest Sacramento County (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) include large tracts of farmland. As growth and development expand, additional areas of agricultural land may be affected, and thus would result in a significant cumulative impact. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-15 PLNP2018-00284
As discussed in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP emphasizes policies that support the long-term preservation of agriculture and ensure that development pressures are avoided to the maximum extent feasible. For example, UWSP Policy 3-EE specifies the implementation and maintenance of an agricultural buffer to the west of the Development Area to preserve existing agricultural uses and farming operations, to allow visual separation between the Development Area and the Garden Highway/Sacramento River, and to create a transition to habitat mitigation areas located to the northeast. UWSP 3-FF specifies that the agricultural buffer would be outside of the County’s Urban Policy Area (UPA) and Urban Services Boundary (USB). UWSP Policy 3-GG specifies that uses within the agricultural buffer should be limited to those compatible with the rural character of the area, consistent with Section 3.4.4, Agricultural Buffer Uses, within the proposed UWSP, and the County’s Zoning Code. Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be concentrated within the established Development Area and necessary infrastructure to serve this development would not be sized to serve development offsite. As a result, implementation of the proposed UWSP would not result in a considerable contribution to the cumulative conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

AIR QUALITY

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for changes in the air quality environment due to development permitted under the proposed UWSP would be both regional and local. Ozone and PM10 would be the primary pollutants of regional concern as the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which includes Sacramento County, is currently in state and federal nonattainment for these pollutants. Dust and toxic air contaminants (TACs) would be the primary pollutants of local concern as project emissions could combine with the emissions of other projects within 1,000 feet of the UWSP area to negatively affect nearby sensitive receptors.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District (SMAQMD) has developed thresholds of significance in consideration of achieving attainment status under the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and has determined that projects with estimated emissions below these thresholds would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality degradation.

As discussed in Chapter 6, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, the project applicant would be required to adhere to SMAQMD rules and regulations for construction (e.g., Rule 403 related to fugitive dust and Rule 4040 related to Particulate Matter) and comply with SMAQMD Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices (BCECPs) to control dust, such as watering all exposed surfaces two times daily and maintaining at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-16 PLNP2018-00284
site. However, construction activities that would be associated with the proposed UWSP would result in NOx emissions that would exceed the applicable significance threshold; therefore, the project could potentially result in a significant incremental contribution towards cumulative air quality impacts. Consequently, all heavy-duty off-road dieselpowered construction equipment engines shall be California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final compliant or cleaner as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1a.

With this measure in place, project-related construction emissions of ozone precursors would not exceed the applicable mass emission thresholds established by SMAQMD.

As a result, construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would not be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS The SMAQMD directs lead agencies to use the region’s existing attainment plans as a basis for analysis of cumulative emissions. A project’s interference with such plans may be determined using the SMAQMD’s recommended thresholds of significance for ozone precursors, PM2.5, and PM10. Given the project’s required compliance with all applicable BMPs, the SMAQMD’s recommended cumulative thresholds are identical to its operational thresholds. Accordingly, if the proposed plan would result in an increase of ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 in excess of SMAQMD’s operational phase cumulative-level emissions threshold, which are equivalent to SMAQMD’s project-level operational emissions thresholds, the project could potentially result in a significant incremental contribution toward cumulative air quality impacts.

As discussed in Chapter 6, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, the project applicant would be required to comply with the provisions of the SMAQMD-approved Air Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed UWSP as required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1b. However, even with this requirement in place, project-related operational emissions of ozone precursors and NOx would still exceed the applicable mass emission thresholds established by SMAQMD. Therefore, operation of development allowed under the proposed UWSP could be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment, and this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE OF RECEPTORS TO TACS
The SMAQMD currently does not have thresholds of significance related to cumulative health risks, therefore the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) thresholds were used for this analysis. According to BAAQMD guidance, a project would have a cumulative significant impact if the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future TAC sources, plus the contribution from the project, exceeds a cancer risk of 100 in one million persons, a chronic non-cancer risk of 10.0, or an annual average PM2.5 concentration of 0.8 µg/m3.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-17 PLNP2018-00284

EXPOSURE OF EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The CARB has identified diesel particulate matter (DPM) from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC; thus, high volume freeways, stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic are identified as having the highest associated health risks from DPM. In addition, gasoline includes multiple TACs, which are released through various processes during the operation of gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs).

Such TACs include benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene, among others.

Following the guidance within the SMAQMD’s Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County (SMAQMD 2020) as well as guidance from the Toxics Committee of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) (CARB and CAPCOA 2022) the concentrations of pollutants from operation of the existing GDFs at the I-80 interchange with El Camino Avenue were calculated using AERMOD. The associated cancer risk and non-cancer hazard indices were calculated using the CARB’s Hotspot Analysis Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) Risk Assessment Standalone Tool (RAST). For this analysis, the primary TAC of concern is benzene. As such, potential health risks related to the exposure of receptors to benzene were considered.

Only the highest estimated pollutant concentrations at the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) were used in calculating cancer risk and hazard indices. Health risks to all other receptors would be lower than the health risks to the MEIR, because all other receptors would be exposed to lower concentrations of GDF-related pollutants as compared to the MEIR. Additionally, the estimation of health risks conservatively assumed that nearby receptors would be continuously exposed to pollutants from the GDF at the maximum estimated concentrations. This assumption would represent a scenario whereby a resident living nearby also attends one of the nearby schools and is therefore exposed to pollutants both at home and at school and, thereby, offers the most conservative approach to analysis. The existing receptors located to the south of the site, across Interstate 80 (I-80), could be exposed to increased multiple TACs, including DPM emissions associated with increased traffic on I-80 generated by the proposed UWSP.

Total cumulative cancer risk for existing off-site sensitive receptors would generally be the same as the cumulative cancer risks associated with the proposed on-site multifamily housing, presented in Table CI-2. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would result in potential health risks associated with the existing receptors located to the south of the site, across I-80, and a potentially significant impact would occur.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1b would be required. Also, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a would require that the specific plan design guidelines and development standards of the proposed UWSP include consideration of CARB’s land use siting recommendations found in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. In addition, installation of a minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV 13) filter in the HVAC systems for the existing sensitive receptors to the south of the project site, across I-80, would reduce the cancer risk for such receptors. However, because installation of such filters in the existing residences would require resident 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-18 PLNP2018-00284
approval, neither Sacramento County, nor the project applicant, can legally impose such improvements on private properties. Therefore, such a mitigation approach as outlined in Mitigation Measure AQ-4b would only be effective for residents that select to participate in the program, and it would be speculative to predict what the participation level would be.

Table CI-2: Cumulative Cancer Risk
Health Risk at MEIR
Maximum
Cancer
Risk (in a
million)
Chronic
Risk
(Hazard
Index)
Acute
Risk
(Hazard
Index)
PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Total Health Risk Existing
Conditions 173.8 0.15 0.74 0.17
Total Health Risk
Existing Plus Cumulative No
Project Conditions
287.4 0.18 0.74 0.10
Total Health Risk
Existing Plus Cumulative Plus
Project Conditions
331.8 0.19 0.74 0.35
Total Health Risk
Cumulative Plus Project
Contribution
158 0.04 0.00 0.18
SOURCE: Based on Raney June 2024 (Table 13).

In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1a would require the use of low emissions engines (i.e., Tier 4 Final) that would reduce the project’s generation of DPM emissions during construction. However, the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future TAC sources, plus the contribution from the proposed UWSP, would likely continue to exceed the cancer risk threshold of 100 in one million persons.

Therefore, the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE OF FUTURE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The cumulative potential health risks associated with the multi-family housing proposed near two existing GDFs at the I-80 interchange with El Camino Avenue and I-80 are presented in Table CI-2.

As presented in the table, the total cancer risk for cumulative conditions without the proposed UWSP would be 287 per one million, and the cumulative conditions with the proposed UWSP would be 332 cancer risks per million. Therefore, the risk would exceed the cumulative impact significance threshold of 100 in one million and the proposed UWSP would exacerbate existing conditions related to potential health risks associated with the proposed multi-family housing in close proximity to two existing GDFs and I-80. The cumulative impact would be potentially significant. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-19 PLNP2018-00284
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1b would be required during operation of the proposed UWSP. Also, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a would require that the specific plan design guideline and development standards of the proposed UWSP include consideration of CARB’s land use siting recommendations found in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ-4c, would require that a minimum MERV 13 filter be included in the central heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems for all sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of I-80. MERV 13 filters are rated to capture at least 85 percent of particles that are 1.3 to

3.0 microns in size, and over 90 percent of particles that are 3.0 to 10.0 microns in size.

Therefore, the inclusion of MERV 13 filters in sensitive land uses provided by the proposed UWSP would dramatically reduce resident PM2.5 exposure. In fact, the installation of upgraded MERV rating filters has been shown to reduce indoor PM2.5 exposure by 19 to 28 percent. A linear relationship exists between PM2.5 concentration and the associated cancer risk when all other variables, including exposure time, remain constant. Therefore, in the case of the proposed UWSP, a 19 to 28 percent reduction in PM2.5 concentration would equate to a 19 to 28 percent reduction in cancer risk. After installation of MERV 13 filters, the total cumulative plus project contribution cancer risk can reasonably be expected to range between 114 to 128 cases per million, which would still exceed the total cumulative plus project contribution cancer risk significance threshold of 100 cases per million. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1b, AQ-4a, and AQ-4c would reduce the total cumulative plus project contribution cancer risk; however, the proposed UWSP would continue to exacerbate existing conditions at future residences in the UWSP area. As a result, the project’s contribution to the cumulative health risk would be cumulatively considerable, and thus the cumulative impact would significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE TO OBJECTIONABLE ODORS
As discussed in Chapter 6, Air Quality, of this Draft EIR, land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate temporary odors during construction as well as during operation of new odor sources associated with the commercial land uses (e.g., fast-food and sit-down restaurants). Construction-related odors would be minimal, temporary, and would cease once construction is complete. Because of the localized character of odorrelated impacts, as well as adherence with SMAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits any person or source from emitting air contaminants that cause detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or the public, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to odor issues would not be cumulatively considerable and would not result in a considerable contribution such that a new significant cumulative impact would occur. Therefore, the cumulative odor impact would be less than significant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Landcover types within the UWSP area consist primarily of agricultural uses, including field crops, grain and hay, partially irrigated crops, pasture, and truck crops. These agricultural lands can function as important foraging habitat for special-status species, including Swainson’s hawk, since they can provide some of the same functional values 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-20 PLNP2018-00284
as the native annual grasslands that were historically prevalent throughout the Sacramento region. Additional landcover types include ruderal, annual grasses and forbs, deciduous, Fremont cottonwood, valley oak, vineyard, and urban/developed areas. Open water is also present in the form of retention basins and agricultural ditches, which provide suitable aquatic habitat for some special-status species, including giant garter snake. The geographic context for this cumulative analysis of the impacts to biological resources is the Sacramento region and the Natomas Basin.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH HABITAT

MODIFICATION, ON ANY SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS A SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Historic and ongoing loss of agricultural lands managed in a manner suitable for Swainson’s hawk foraging has occurred in the Sacramento region as these areas were, and continue to be, converted to urban development or agricultural practices of little to no value to Swainson’s hawk, such as orchards and vineyards. Additionally, ongoing conversion of seasonal wetlands and other aquatic habitat in the region have affected the availability of habitat for species such as giant garter snake and western pond turtle.

As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, implementation of the proposed UWSP will result in a net loss of 1,197 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, 975 of which are in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, and a net loss of 22 acres of aquatic habitat for giant garter snake and western pond turtle.

The UWSP area also includes 72.4 acres of suitable undisturbed upland habitat and 396 acres of disturbed suitable upland habitat for giant garter snake (HELIX 2024).

Future development is expected to continue in the Sacramento region, including the Natomas Basin where the proposed UWSP is located. Cumulative development within the Natomas Basin (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would result in the permanent loss of annual grasslands, annual croplands, and other upland habitat that serve as habitat for a range of special-status species found in the Natomas Basin and broader Sacramento region, including Swainson’s hawk, giant garter snake, and northwestern pond turtle.

These cumulative development projects and plans would be required to comply with the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan, and the Sacramento County Swainson’s Hawk Impact Mitigation, or the ordinances and planning documents applicable to the local jurisdiction in which the cumulative development projects occur. Additionally, they would be subject to compliance with the California Endangered Species Act, federal Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and other relevant regulations, permits, and requirements. Nevertheless, the implementation of previously approved and reasonably foreseeable future development projects listed in Table CI-3 are expected to result in permanent conversion of annual grasslands, agricultural areas, and other biologically significant upland habitat within the Natomas Basin. As shown in Table CI-3, more than half of the 53,537-acre footprint of the Natomas Basin is either already developed or approved for development. Furthermore, reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table CI-3 are anticipated to result in approximately 7,600 acres of development in the Natomas Basin, including annual grasslands and agricultural 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-21 PLNP2018-00284
areas that are potentially existing suitable habitat for special-status species such as Swainson’s hawk. The cumulative impact of the development within the Natomas Basin summarized in Table CI-3 on special-status species would be potentially significant.

Table CI-3: Acreage of Existing and Reasonably Foreseeable Development in the Natomas Basin
Project/Development Project
Acreage
Percentage of
Natomas Basin1

EXISTING/APPROVED
NBHCP-covered development 17,500.0 32.7
Panhandle (included in above) 589.4 1.1
Sacramento International Airport with buffer lands 5,900.0 11.0 SWIFT (WattEV) (included in above) 110.0 0.2
Subtotal 23,400.0 43.7
Other Developed Land
Urban as of 19971 3,854.0 7.2
Innovation Park (included in above) 183.7 0.3
Highways 1,435.0 2.7
Major canals2 503.0 0.9
Northlake (formerly known as “Greenbriar”) 577.0 1.1
Subtotal 6,369.0 11.9

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE
Grandpark 5,675.6 10.6
Upper Westside 1,523.8 2.9
Airport South Industrial Park 419.0 0.8
Subtotal 7,618.4 14.3
Total 37,387.4 70.0
NOTES:
1 1997 land cover was used as the baseline/existing conditions for the 2003 NBHCP’s analyses. 2 Corresponds to Class I canals in NBHCP.

SOURCES: City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and Natomas Basin Conservancy 2003; County of Sacramento 2023b; City of Sacramento 2022; NorthPoint development 2021; USFWS 2017b As discussed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP would implement multiple mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen its impacts to special-status species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-1 would require each development phase to have a qualified biologist prepare a Baseline 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-22 PLNP2018-00284
Biological Resources Report documenting current biological resource conditions and applicable mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-2a would avoid construction impacts on all special-status species by requiring that all project personnel would receive a comprehensive Worker Environmental Awareness Program presentation on the first day on a site prior to the initiation of construction, including an overview of sensitive biological resources on site and their protections.

To avoid impacts on special-status plant species, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-2b would require the applicant to prepare a Weed Control Plan. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-2c would require a pre-construction survey for special-status plant species; marking special-status plant species or plant populations for avoidance; if avoidance is not possible, preparing and implementing a plan to salvage, replant or relocate plants, collect seeds or other propagules for plant reintroduction, or making payment of compensatory mitigation; and conducting monitoring surveys to meet success criteria.

To avoid impacts on giant garter snake, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-3 would require conducting construction activity during the active period for giant garter snake (May 1 through September 30), unless approved by CDFW to work outside of that period; conducting pre-construction surveys; dewatering giant garter snake habitat for at least 15 days prior to excavation or filling; designating avoided giant garter snake habitat; presence of a biological monitor during grading activities; removal of temporary fill or construction debris from the site following construction, and compensating for permanent impacts on giant garter snake habitat at mitigation sites outside of the Natomas Basin and in the American Basin Recovery Unit as defined in the Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (USFWS 2017a).

To avoid impacts on northwestern pond turtle, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-4 would require dewatering of irrigation ditches as described in Mitigation Measure BR-3, conducting a pre-construction survey within 24 hours of the start of construction, limiting clearing to the minimal area necessary to facilitate construction activities, and having a biological monitor present during grading activities within 200 feet of aquatic northwestern pond turtle habitat to stop construction work in the immediate vicinity of the turtle.

To avoid impacts on tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike, song sparrow (“Modesto” population), purple martin, yellow warbler, yellow-headed blackbird, American white pelican, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and nesting raptors, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-4 would require pre-construction nesting bird surveys during the avian nesting season within 250 feet of the construction disturbance footprint to locate any active passerine (perching bird) nests and within 500 feet to locate any active raptor (bird of prey) nests.

If active nests are found, the measure calls for establishing a no-disturbance buffer until young have fledged or the nest is otherwise no longer active.

To avoid impacts on burrowing owls, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-6 would require conducting focused burrowing owl surveys, and if burrowing owls are detected, 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-23 PLNP2018-00284
avoiding disturbance to individuals and their burrows; conducting take avoidance surveys immediately prior to the start of construction; and, where on-site avoidance is not possible, providing compensatory mitigation for disturbance and/or destruction of burrows.

To avoid impacts on nesting Swainson’s hawks, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-7a would require Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys be conducted prior to development of the proposed UWSP if construction activities will begin during the nesting season, and if active nests are found, the development of an avoidance and minimization plan. BR-7a would also require regular monitoring of the nest during construction activities and halting construction if construction activities are disturbing the nest.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-7b would mitigate for the permanent loss of 1,197 acres of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk at a 1:1 ratio by preserving off-site habitat and ensuring that the preserved land is managed in perpetuity in a manner suitable for Swainson’s hawk foraging (and would also mitigate impacts to habitat of other special-status species using annual cropland and annual grasses and forbs).

Mitigation sites would be located outside, but within 10 miles, of the Natomas Basin.

This preserved habitat could otherwise be lost because there is an ongoing regional trend of widespread conversion of annual row crops, many of which are suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks, to orchards and vineyards, which are not suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks. Such changes in cropping patterns are up to the discretion of the agricultural operator and not subject to the discretionary approval of local land use agencies. Therefore, preservation of suitable foraging habitat in perpetuity under Mitigation Measure BR-7b would contribute to long-term protection of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk in the Sacramento region.

To avoid impacts on pallid bats, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-8 would require a pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist who is experienced with bat surveying techniques for habitat assessment of the project area to characterize potential bat habitat and identify potentially active roost sites. If potential roost sites are found, Mitigation Measure BR-8 would require implementation of seasonal avoidance of bat roosts, and if seasonal avoidance is infeasible, establishment of a no-disturbance buffer until the end of the seasonal avoidance windows or the site is deemed inactive by the qualified biologist. In addition, the measure requires certain steps during trimming or removal of trees hosting potential bat roosting sites to avoid and minimize impacts to pallid bats.

To avoid impacts on valley elderberry longhorn beetles, implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-9a and BR-9b would reduce the potential impact to the species by implementing measures consistent with the USFWS’s Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), dated May 2017.

With implementation of these mitigation measures, the proposed UWSP’s contribution to cumulative impacts to special-status species would not be cumulatively considerable, 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-24 PLNP2018-00284
and the cumulative impact associated with the proposed UWSP with respect to specialstatus species would be less than significant.

HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON PROTECTED STATE OR FEDERALLY PROTECTED

WETLANDS OR SURFACE WATERS AND SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES There are no sensitive natural communities in the UWSP area and, therefore, the proposed project would not result in any potential impacts to such resources. The UWSP area includes protected state or federally protected wetlands or surface waters and cumulative impacts for these biological resources are discussed below.

As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, an estimated total of 45.08 acres of the UWSP area are subject to United States Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction under Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Future development is expected to continue in the Sacramento region, including in the Natomas Basin where the proposed UWSP is located. Cumulative development within the Natomas Basin (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would result in the permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters.

Since approximately 150 years ago, permanent wetlands were routinely drained for conversion to agricultural land and other uses (County of Sacramento 2010).

Sacramento County once supported seasonal and emergent wetlands in association with the many natural drainage systems that previously flowed through the County; however, many of these natural drainage systems are now either channelized or confined within a system of artificial levees (County of Sacramento 2010). Future development within the Sacramento region in general, and the Natomas Basin in particular, is anticipated to continue to result in the loss of these sensitive habitats.

Any planned future development would be required to comply with local ordinances and plans, such as General Plans and/or Habitat Conservation Plans that are applicable to the jurisdictions in which the development projects occur, in addition to all relevant regulations, permits, and requirements that protect jurisdictional wetlands and waters.

Nevertheless, implementation of previously approved projects have resulted in permanent losses of wetlands and waters, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects are expected to result in additional permanent losses of jurisdictional wetlands and waters. As shown in Table CI-3, more than half of the 53,537-acre footprint of the Natomas Basin is either already developed or approved for development. Furthermore, reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table CI-3 are anticipated to result in approximately 7,600 acres of development in the Natomas Basin. A portion of this development is assumed to result in additional losses to potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters. The cumulative impact of the development within the Natomas Basin summarized in Table CI-3 on wetlands and waters would be potentially significant.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-25 PLNP2018-00284
As discussed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP would implement multiple mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen its impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and water. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-11 would require that the existing preliminary jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and supporting wetland delineation report would be submitted to the County for review and approval before the issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit for construction activity within the UWSP area. Wetlands identified in the report would be avoided through project design where feasible, and if avoidance is not feasible, compensation for permanent impacts on wetlands or waters would be provided at a 1:1 ratio, or as agreed upon by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USACE, and the Central Valley RWQCB, as applicable. Given the implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-11, the proposed UWSP project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to protected state or federally protected wetlands or surface waters, and the cumulative impact associated with the proposed UWSP with respect to wetlands would be less than significant.

INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY

FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES OR WITH ESTABLISHED NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY

WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, OR IMPEDE THE USE OF NATIVE WILDLIFE NURSERY SITES Sacramento County once supported seasonal and emergent wetlands in association with the many natural drainage systems that previously flowed through the county; however, many of these natural drainage systems are now either channelized or confined within a system of artificial levees (County of Sacramento 2010). Future development within the Sacramento region in general, and specifically in the Natomas Basin, is anticipated to continue to result in the loss of these habitats that facilitate species movement and migration.

As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, an estimated total of 45.08 acres of the UWSP area are subject to USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction under Section 404 and 401 of the CWA. Future development is expected to continue in the Sacramento region, including the Natomas Basin where the proposed UWSP is located. Cumulative development within the Natomas Basin, presented in Table CI-3, could result in the permanent loss of irrigation canals, seasonal wetlands, and other aquatic habitat, which may negatively impact the availability of wildlife movement habitat for species such as giant garter snake and northwestern pond turtle.

These cumulative development projects and plans would be required to comply with local ordinances and planning documents, such as General Plans and/or Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans that are applicable to the jurisdictions in which the cumulative development projects are constructed.

Nevertheless, the implementation of previously approved and reasonably foreseeable future development projects listed in Table CI-3 are expected to result in the permanent loss of jurisdictional wetlands and waters. As shown in Table CI-3, more than half of the 53,537-acre footprint of the Natomas Basin is either already developed or approved for development. Furthermore, reasonably foreseeable future projects listed in Table CI-3 are anticipated to result in approximately 7,600 acres of development in the Natomas Basin including potentially jurisdictional wetlands and waters. The cumulative impact of 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-26 PLNP2018-00284
the development within the Natomas Basin summarized in Table CI-3 on wetlands and waters would be potentially significant.

As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the UWSP area likely provides dispersal habitat for individual giant garter snakes. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-3 would require the applicant to compensate for permanent impacts on aquatic giant garter snake habitat through creation, preservation, and management of marsh, or preservation and management of rice fields, as habitat for giant garter snake; or enhancing or restoring connectivity of giant garter snake habitat at mitigation sites in the American Basin Recovery Unit as defined in the Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (USFWS 2019). The UWSP area is within the Pacific flyway and thereby supports some migratory bird species.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-5 would limit construction to the non-nesting season when feasible or, if avoiding the nesting season is not feasible, conducting preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and establishing no-disturbance buffers around any active nests to ensure they are not disturbed by construction; and repeating the preconstruction surveys when work resumes after being suspended for seven days.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-3 and BR-5, the proposed UWSP would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on movement conditions for native resident or migratory wildlife, and the cumulative impact associated with the proposed UWSP with respect to movement corridors for native resident or migratory wildlife would be less than significant.

CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Sacramento County has adopted an ordinance to protect Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and has also adopted measures protecting native and landmark trees. As described previously in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP would result in conversion of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and may affect native trees protected by Sacramento County. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-7b would mitigate the project’s contribution to conversion of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and Mitigation Measures BR-10a through BR-10c would mitigate the project’s contribution to impacts to native trees. With implementation of these mitigation measures, which are consistent with the applicable Sacramento County policies, the proposed UWSP would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and the cumulative impact associated with the proposed UWSP would be less than significant.

CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, NATURAL

COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN, OR APPROVED LOCAL, REGIONAL, OR STATE HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN
As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, construction of the proposed UWSP would not conflict with implementation of the NBHCP or Metro Airpark Habitat Conservation Plan (MAP HCP). The MAP HCP’s conservation strategy has been aligned with the NBHCP’s conservation strategy, and its implementation integrated with that of the NBHCP. The MAP HCP’s conservation strategy was initially based on the 1997 NBHCP, but the MAP HCP has since been 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-27 PLNP2018-00284
revised to incorporate applicable provisions of the 2003 NBHCP, and TNBC is the plan operator for both the MAP HCP and the NBHCP. Thus, the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy applies to the MAP HCP as well. Cumulatively considerable impacts related to the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy, as well as the NBHCP’s Guidelines for Reserve Acquisition and the Conservation Strategies for Wetland Habitat and Upland Habitat, are analyzed below.

SITE-SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS
As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, development of the proposed UWSP is not anticipated to adversely affect any SiteSpecific Management Plans (SSMPs) for existing or future TNBC reserves within or in the vicinity of the UWSP area. While the TNBC Alleghany Reserve would be surrounded by the UWSP Agricultural Buffer and adjacent to the San Juan Road tie-in to Garden Highway, this is not anticipated to require a change to the SSMP for Alleghany Reserve as the right-of-way along the road is wide enough to accommodate all construction activities and therefore avoid direct and indirect effects to the reserve.

The TNBC Cummings Reserve would be adjacent to Agricultural and Open Space Buffers included in the proposed UWSP area, which would also not necessitate a change to the Cummings Reserve SSMP. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to the SSMP element of the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy would occur.

BUFFERS WITHIN THE RESERVE LANDS
As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP is not expected to affect the buffers within existing reserve lands.

Buffers are often incorporated into TNBC reserves to minimize the effects of incompatible adjoining land uses. The UWSP proposes an Agricultural Buffer between the UWSP development area and the Cummings and Alleghany reserves. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to the buffers within the reserve lands element of the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy would occur.

CONNECTIVITY
The NBHCP conservation strategy prioritizes maintaining connectivity for giant garter snake between TNBC reserves. As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP is not expected to affect connectivity within existing reserve lands. The approximately 22 acres of suitable giant garter snake aquatic habitat within the UWSP area is largely isolated from the broader Natomas Basin due to urban development on the eastern, northeastern, and southeastern boundaries of the UWSP area. The UWSP area is hydrologically connected to Cummings Reserve but given that the existing canals and ditches in the UWSP area are terminal habitat for giant garter snake, development of the proposed UWSP would not reduce connectivity between existing TNBC reserves. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to the connectivity element of the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy would occur.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-28 PLNP2018-00284

MINIMUM BLOCK SIZE
As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP is situated such that it would not preclude TNBC from establishing minimum habitat blocks for its reserve system. TNBC has already completed the 2,500- acre block requirement, and the UWSP area would not preclude connecting existing reserves to create minimum habitat blocks of at least 400 acres and creating linkages that enhance the NBHCP Reserve System. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable impacts to the minimum block size element of the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy would occur.

FORAGING HABITAT AND MITIGATION RATIO
As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure BR-7b would require compensation for permanent loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat at a 1:1 ratio through purchase of credits from an agency-approved conservation bank, or through protection of habitat through acquisition of fee-title or a conservation easement at sites outside, but within 10 miles, of the Natomas Basin.

Mitigating for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat outside of Natomas Basin would avoid potential conflicts with TNBC’s efforts to secure Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat conservation sites within the geographic boundaries of the Natomas Basin. There are substantial opportunities for mitigation land that could fulfill the requirements of Mitigation Measure BR-7b located outside of the Natomas Basin (refer to Plate BR-4).

Therefore, while the proposed UWSP development is within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-7b would minimize conflicts with this NBHCP strategy through (1) applying a higher mitigation ratio for conservation of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat than proposed in the NBHCP, and (2) by targeting this compensatory mitigation outside of the Natomas Basin.

Similarly, Mitigation Measure BR-3b would require mitigation for permanent loss of aquatic and associated upland habitat for giant garter snake (i.e., foraging habitat) through creation, restoration, enhancement, preservation, and management of suitable aquatic and associated upland giant garter snake habitat, or purchase of credits for aquatic and associated giant garter snake upland habitat (e.g., constructed marsh) at a ratio of at least 1:1 (mitigation aquatic and upland habitat to permanently lost aquatic and upland habitat),or mitigation through preservation and management of rice fields at a ratio of at least 2:1. Compensatory mitigation would be located outside, and within 10 miles, of the Natomas Basin so as to avoid conflicts with TNBC’s efforts to secure giant garter snake habitat mitigation sites within the Natomas Basin.

By exceeding TNBC’s mitigation ratio for Swainson’s hawk and giant garter snake, and targeting compensatory mitigation outside of the Natomas Basin, the proposed UWSP would have a less than significant impact on the foraging habitat and mitigation ratio requirement of the NBHCP’s General Conservation Strategy; therefore, the proposed UWSP would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the NBHCP or MAP HCP.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-29 PLNP2018-00284

GUIDELINES FOR RESERVE ACQUISITION
The NBHCP aims to create a system of reserves that would support giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk, and other covered species that use those same habitats. Criteria that TNBC considers when evaluating potential reserve acquisitions include setbacks adjacent to reserve lands, mitigation of effects related to sale or transfer of habitat mitigation reserve sites, and overall acquisition criteria.

As previously described in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, the existing Alleghany Reserve would be within the Agricultural Buffer of the proposed UWSP and would be buffered from the Development Area. Although the NBHCP aims to have an 800-foot setback between reserve acquisitions and urban development, the Alleghany Reserve is not a new acquisition and the NBHCP states that mitigation lands or easements lacking an 800-foot setback may be acquired on a case-by-case basis.

The proposed UWSP would not result in the sale or transfer of reserve lands, nor cause impact from real estate, right of way, or other acquisitions or uses that would affect TNBC reserves. Therefore, mitigation for such activities and impacts do not apply to the proposed UWSP.

As previously analyzed in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, Mitigation Measures BR-3b and BR-7b would require compensation for permanent loss of giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk habitat, respectively. Mitigation could be fulfilled through purchase of credits from an agency-approved conservation bank, or through protection of habitat through acquisition of fee-title or a conservation easement; however, these mitigation sites would be outside of the Natomas Basin and would not be part of TNBC’s reserve acquisitions.

Because the proposed UWSP would have no impact on any of TNBC’s guidelines for acquisition, there would be a less than significant impact on the NBHCP’s Reserve Acquisition Criteria; therefore, the proposed UWSP would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the NBHCP or MAP HCP.

CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR WETLAND AND UPLAND HABITAT
The NBHCP conservation strategy for wetland habitat is to (1) convert rice land into managed marsh wetlands and (2) preserve rice land and manage it to provide greater habitat values than unpreserved rice land for the benefit of giant garter snake. The UWSP area does not include existing rice land; however, it includes agricultural ditches and canals that provide potential aquatic habitat for giant garter snake. The development of the UWSP area would result in the permanent loss of approximately 22 acres of aquatic habitat, and approximately 468 acres of associated upland habitat, suitable for giant garter snake (HELIX 2024).

As previously described in Chapter 7, Biological Resources, of this Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure BR-3b would provide compensatory mitigation for giant garter snake outside of the Natomas Basin and in the American Basin Recovery Unit as defined in the 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-30 PLNP2018-00284
Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) (USFWS 2019). 1 Compensatory mitigation would be at a 1:1 ratio, exceeding the NBHCP’s mitigation ratio for giant garter snake. As stated under the Connectivity discussion, above, the existing canals and ditches in the UWSP area are terminal habitat for giant garter snake; therefore, mitigation within the American Basin Recovery Unit would provide an equal amount of habitat, but of a higher quality, relative to the canals and ditches in the UWSP area due to better habitat connectivity within the American Basin Recovery Unit.

By exceeding TNBC’s mitigation ratio for giant garter snake and targeting compensatory mitigation in the American Basin Recovery Unit, there would be a less than significant impact on the NBHCP’s Conservation Strategy for Wetland Impacts.

The NBHCP’s primary strategy to mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawk includes acquiring upland habitat as mitigation lands inside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and elsewhere within the Basin. The net loss of annual grasses and forbs, and agricultural land (field crops, grain and hay, partially irrigated crops, pasture, and truck crops) associated with development of the UWSP area, excluding the Agricultural Buffer, would result in a permanent loss of 1,197 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, 975 acres of which are in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone.

As described under Foraging Habitat and Mitigation Ratio, above, Mitigation Measure BR-7b would provide compensatory mitigation for Swainson’s hawk outside, but within 10 miles, of the Natomas Basin, where substantial opportunities for Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat mitigation land exists. Compensatory mitigation would exceed the NBHCP’s mitigation ratio for Swainson’s hawk.

These mitigation lands would be managed for the benefit of other wildlife and plant species covered by the NBHCP and the MAP HCP that share upland habitat requirements with Swainson’s hawk (see Table BR-3). The proposed UWSP would avoid or substantially lessen potential impacts to NBHCP and MAP HCP covered species by implementing measures (see Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-9), that are as protective as, or more protective than, those required by the NBHCP and MAP HCP.

To further evaluate whether implementation of the proposed UWSP, in combination with existing, approved, or reasonably foreseeable development, could result in significant cumulative impacts on the ability for TNBC to implement the NBHCP’s conservation strategy for wetland and upland habitat, an assessment was conducted to evaluate the availability of potential conservation lands within the Natomas Basin relative to the remaining needs to fulfill the conservation requirements of the NBHCP. As shown in Table CI-4, 84 percent of the lands currently available for acquisition by TNBC would remain available following the build-out of the UWSP area.

1 The Natomas Basin is a small portion of the overall American Basin Recovery Unit (376,104 acres) identified in the USFWS Recovery Plan for giant garter snake. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-31 PLNP2018-00284
Table CI-4: Proportion of Available Reserve Lands Remaining After Build-out of Existing and Planned Development
Land Use Acreage
A. NBHCP Plan Area 53,537
B. Existing Conservation Lands 6,530
Acquired TNBC Reserve Lands 5,186
Other Conservation Easements
1 630
California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) Protected Areas 2 714
C. Existing or Planned Development (Table CI-3) 37,387
City of Sacramento and Sutter County HCP Development 17,500 Sacramento International Airport and Bufferlands 5,900
Existing Developed Land 6,369
Proposed Development 7,618
D. Available TNBC Reserve Lands [A – (B+C)] 9,620
TNBC Reserve Lands Needed for Permitted Areas 8,750
Acquired TNBC Reserve Lands 5,186
Remaining Need for TNBC Reserve Lands 3,564
E. UWSP Development Area 1,524
Proportion of Available Reserve Lands Remaining After Build-out of the UWSP Area [100 – (E/D]
84%
NOTES:
1 Other conservation easements were sourced from the California Conservation Easement Database GIS dataset as well as publicly available information regarding reserve lands set aside for the Greenbriar/Northlake project and excludes TNBC reserve lands. 2 CPAD is a GIS dataset depicting lands that are owned in fee and protected for open space purposes by public agencies or non-profit organizations.

Given that 84 percent of the lands currently available for acquisition by TNBC in the Natomas Basin would remain available following the build-out of the UWSP area, there would be a less than significant impact to the NBHCP Conservation Strategy for Upland Habitat; therefore, the proposed UWSP would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the NBHCP or MAP HCP.

SUMMARY
As described above, the proposed UWSP would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to the conservation strategies core to the NBHCP and MAP HCP, including cumulatively impacting the ability of the plan to secure future reserve lands in the Basin. As such, the cumulative impact with respect to the adopted NBHCP associated with the proposed UWSP would be less than significant. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-32 PLNP2018-00284

CLIMATE CHANGE

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations have been found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. Climate change is a global problem caused by global pollutants and is inherently cumulative. Therefore, the cumulative context for climate change is global, and there is an existing adverse cumulative condition.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION
As discussed in Chapter 8, Climate Change, of this Draft EIR, development of the proposed UWSP would result in the production of GHG emissions during construction activities and throughout the operational period of the project due to vehicle use, energy use, waste generation, water treatment and distribution, and other area sources.

However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CC-1a through CC-1c, GHG emissions generated within the UWSP area would be reduced.

It is important to note that the development of the UWSP area in conjunction with future planned development in unincorporated and incorporated portions of Sacramento County as well as in nearby Placer and Sutter counties (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would provide regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions compared to the cumulative scenario with the proposed UWSP alone. Surrounding large-scale development, such as proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas would provide additional community amenities (e.g., shopping, jobs, entertainment) that would support development associated with the proposed UWSP, thus resulting in a decrease in VMT associated with the proposed plan. Considering incorporated mitigation measures, future anticipated reductions in project generated VMT, and the continuation of GHG reducing State regulations, long-term operational GHG emissions are anticipated to be lower than those estimated for the proposed UWSP.

CONSTRUCTION
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CC-1a would reduce the construction GHG emissions impact associated with the proposed UWSP and associated subsequent projects to a less-than-significant level. Although an existing cumulative adverse condition exists, construction of the proposed UWSP and associated subsequent projects, as mitigated, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing adverse cumulative condition, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-33 PLNP2018-00284

OPERATION
With regarding to UWSP operations, Mitigation Measures CC-1b and CC-1c would reduce emissions associated with the proposed UWSP to a less-than-significant level.

Although an existing cumulative adverse condition exists, operation of the proposed UWSP, as mitigated, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to an existing adverse cumulative condition, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative effects related to cultural resources is Sacramento County for historic and historic-era archaeological resources, and the portions of Central Valley identified as the territory of the local Native American community for pre-contact Native American archaeological resources.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION
Cumulative development in Sacramento County could result in significant cumulative impacts on cultural resources as there are over 600 previously recorded historical resources in the County, 16 of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and over 600 previously recorded pre-contact Native American resources in the County, seven of which are listed on the NRHP and/or the CRHR. In addition, there are several other cultural resources in the County that have been determined eligible for listing but have not been formally designated (County of Sacramento 2010). Projects within unincorporated and incorporated portions of Sacramento County (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) could negatively affect known and unknown historical sites, including destruction or alteration of historic buildings or structures. Furthermore, these projects could negatively affect known and unknown pre-contact Native American sites, including the disruption of human remains. However, each individual project is subject to review under CEQA and is required to obtain necessary permits and approvals from federal and state resource agencies. As a result of these processes, each project would be required to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on cultural resources, such that the cumulative impact would be reduced, though not completely eliminated.

However, because not all such impacts from these other projects have been or can be reduced with certainty to less-than-significant levels, the loss of any cultural resources would result in a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 9, Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, there are historical resources and potential historical resources within the UWSP area. Furthermore, there are archaeological resources, some with potential human remains, as well as potential archaeological resources within the UWSP area. Implementation of the proposed UWSP could negatively affect these cultural resources, and while Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be implemented to reduce the impacts of development allowed under the proposed UWSP on these resources, in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid a cultural resource, and the resource may need to be altered or 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-34 PLNP2018-00284
destroyed. In addition, as 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 significant impacts to a less-than-significant level in all cases. Therefore, implementation of the proposed UWSP could result in a considerable contribution to the cumulative loss of cultural resources, and this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

ENERGY

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative effects related to energy includes the service areas of the local electricity and natural gas providers, SMUD and PG&E, respectively.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION
As discussed in Chapter 10, Energy, of this Draft EIR, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would use energy resources during construction and operation; therefore, it could contribute to potential cumulative impacts during either of these phases as well. In addition, continued growth in the Sacramento area and throughout SMUD’s and PG&E’s service areas could contribute to ongoing increases in demand for electricity and natural gas, which are discussed below.

ENERGY DEMAND
Cumulative development (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) could cumulatively contribute to ongoing increases in demand for electricity and natural gas. These anticipated increases would be countered in part by ongoing increases in national, statewide, and local requirements and incentives to support construction or retrofit of buildings with increased energy efficiency.

For electricity, overall supply during most conditions is adequate; therefore, there is no existing significant adverse condition that would be worsened or intensified by development allowed under the proposed UWSP. However, as demand continues to increase in SMUD’s service area, temporary shortfalls could occur in SMUD’s system (and other portions of the statewide grid) during temporary periods of high peak demand. Peak demands occur in the area during the summer’s hot weather conditions when people run their air conditioners. In the future, electrification of buildings and increased use of electricity as a transportation fuel would add to SMUD’s peak demand.

With an increasing number of hot-weather days and the move toward electrification of buildings, meeting demand during peak periods is a key planning consideration for the utility. SMUD is actively planning to offset growth in peak demands by encouraging and deploying energy efficiency and conservation measures within its service area. Through a combination of increases in efficiency and deployment of power management strategies, including power imports during peak periods, SMUD expects to maintain sufficient capacity to provide power to its service area, including development allowed under the proposed UWSP, at least through 2050 (SMUD 2019). 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-35 PLNP2018-00284
With respect to natural gas, PG&E sources natural gas from a combination of producers and suppliers located in Canada and the U.S. The utility maintains contracts with producers and suppliers over daily, monthly, and longer-term agreements. PG&E also maintains gas storage facilities and a network of conveyance and distribution pipelines within its service area. PG&E maintains an active planning process to identify and deploy additional conservation measures to minimize future increases in demand, to secure a continued natural gas supply, and to maintain sufficient distribution system capacity within its service area. Existing and planned infrastructure is anticipated to be sufficient to maintain service to development allowed under the proposed UWSP and to other cumulative scenario projects (PG&E 2023).

Similarly, regarding the efficiency of fuel use during construction and operation, there is no existing significant adverse condition (such as a shortage) that would be worsened or intensified by the project. Cumulative development (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) could require gasoline or diesel fuel but would not combine with the fuel demands of the proposed UWSP to cause a significant adverse cumulative impact relating to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption or use of fuel. In the event of a future shortage, higher prices at the pump would curtail unnecessary trips that could be termed “wasteful” and would moderate choices regarding vehicles, equipment, and fuel efficiency.

Additionally, conservation policies encouraged by the County, including those set forth in the 2030 Sacramento County General Plan (electricity and natural gas services, energy consumption per capita, renewable energy, and energy efficiency appliances), are expected to support increased energy conservation in new development, such as that which would occur under the proposed UWSP. Although the proposed UWSP could result in an overall increase in energy demand from suppliers, the anticipated increases would be restrained by these requirements.

For these reasons, cumulative impacts on energy production and transmission facilities would not be significant, and the contribution of the proposed UWSP would not be cumulatively considerable. As such, the cumulative impact with respect to energy would be less than significant.

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis for cumulative geology, soils, and paleontology effects encompasses and is limited to the UWSP area and the immediately adjacent area (i.e., one-half quarter mile of the UWSP area). This is because impacts relative to geology, soils, and paleontology impacts are generally site-specific. For example, the effect of erosion would tend to be limited to the localized area of a project and could only be cumulative if erosion occurred as the result of two or more adjacent projects that spatially overlapped.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-36 PLNP2018-00284

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

SEISMIC SHAKING AND SEISMIC-INDUCED GROUND FAILURE
Strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-induced ground failures (e.g., liquefaction, settlement) could occur within the UWSP area due to the presence of the HuntingtonBerryessa 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 would be constructed. Strong groundshaking and high ground accelerations could affect the entire UWSP area, including at the locations of cumulative projects.

As discussed in Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology, of this Draft EIR, the California Building Code (CBC) and Sacramento County building codes would require that the structural elements of development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) 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. With compliance with existing regulations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to seismic ground shaking and seismic-induced ground failures, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

SOIL EROSION OR TOPSOIL LOSS
Like the proposed UWSP, the development of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) could result in soil erosion or topsoil loss.

However, as discussed in Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology, of this Draft EIR, each project involving disturbance of one acre or more of land would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per requirements of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit. The SWPPPs would describe Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control runoff and prevent erosion for each such project. Through compliance with this requirement, the potential for erosion impacts would be reduced. The Construction General Permit has been developed to address cumulative conditions arising from construction throughout the state and is intended to maintain cumulative effects of projects subject to this requirement below levels that would be considered significant.

For example, two adjacent construction sites would be required to implement BMPs to reduce and control the release of sediment and/or other pollutants in any runoff leaving their respective sites. The runoff water from both sites would be required to achieve the same action levels, measured as a maximum amount of sediment or pollutant allowed per unit volume of runoff water. Thus, even if the runoff waters were to combine after leaving the sites, the sediments and/or pollutants in the combined runoff would still be at concentrations (amount of sediment or pollutants per volume of runoff water) below action levels. With compliance with existing regulations, development allowed under the 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-37 PLNP2018-00284
proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to erosion of loss of topsoil, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC OR SOIL UNITS
Like the proposed UWSP, the development of cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) could occur on unstable geologic or soil units (e.g., susceptible to liquefaction or expansion). However, as discussed in Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology, of this Draft EIR, and above in the analysis relative to seismic shaking, the designs for development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the CBC and County building codes. Geotechnical investigations would be required to assess for unstable geologic or soil units, and provide recommendations to address such conditions, if present. With compliance with existing regulations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to unstable geologic or soil units, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Cumulative development in Sacramento County could result in significant cumulative impacts on paleontological resources as there are six previously recorded fossil localities from the Riverbank Formation within the County and two other localities from Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits. However, like development allowed under the proposed UWSP, each cumulative project would be subject to review under CEQA and would be required to obtain necessary permits and approvals from federal and state resource agencies. As a result of these processes, each project would be required to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on paleontological resources, such that the cumulative impact would be reduced, though not eliminated. However, because not all such impacts from these other projects have been or can be reduced with certainty to less-than-significant levels, the loss of any paleontological resources could result in a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 11, Geology, Soils, and Paleontology, of this Draft EIR, Holocene-age alluvium and basin deposits and the Riverbank Formation are mapped at the surface within the UWSP area, as well as the surrounding area. Additionally, Pleistocene-age alluvium occurs in the surrounding area and is expected to be present beneath the Holocene-age deposits. The Pleistocene-age alluvium and the Riverbank Formation are considered to have a high potential to contain significant paleontological resources. However, with the implementation Mitigation Measures GEO-6a through GEO-6d, which would require that qualified technical specialists provide oversight and worker training, and that clear parameters for resource monitoring and steps to be executed if a paleontological resource is discovered be provided, damage to or loss of paleontological resources on the project site would effectively be avoided. Cumulative projects would be required to implement similar mitigation measures, as required by Sacramento General Plan Policies CO-161, CO-162, and CO-163. With compliance with existing regulations and implementation of paleontological resource mitigation 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-38 PLNP2018-00284
measures, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to the loss of paleontological resources, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative hazards and hazardous materials effects encompasses and is limited to the UWSP area and the immediately adjacent area (i.e., one-half mile of the UWSP area). This is because impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials impacts are generally site-specific. For example, the effect of hazardous materials spills would tend to be limited to the localized area of a project and could only be cumulative if hazardous materials spills occurred as the result of two or more adjacent projects that spatially overlapped.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

ROUTINE USE AND ACCIDENT CONDITIONS
Like the proposed UWSP, construction and operational activities associated with cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would include the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials as well as the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials. Cumulative development in the area would be required to comply with the same federal, state, and local regulatory requirements described in Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, that would minimize and/or avoid hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. With compliance with the numerous laws and regulations that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous building materials during construction and operations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to routine use or accident hazardous materials conditions, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

SCHOOLS
Like the proposed UWSP, construction and operational activities associated with cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would include the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Additionally, construction equipment could produce hazardous emissions while in use. As discussed above in the cumulative analysis for Routine Use and Accident Conditions, hazardous emissions and the handling hazardous materials associated with cumulative development in the area would be heavily regulated by existing federal, State, and local regulations. With compliance with the numerous laws and regulations that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous building materials during construction and operations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-39 PLNP2018-00284
cumulatively considerable impact with respect to hazardous materials near schools, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITE LISTING
Like the proposed UWSP, cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would be required to comply with the same federal, state, and local regulatory requirements described in Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would minimize and/or avoid impacts related to developing on a site that has contaminated soil or groundwater associated with it. In addition, as required by Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a through HAZ-4c, cumulative projects may be required to reduce the potential impact through the implementation of mitigation measures requiring Phase I site investigations and the preparation and implementation of health and safety plans and/or soil and groundwater management plans if necessary, depending on the outcome of the investigations. With compliance with the numerous laws and regulations that govern hazardous materials and implementation of mitigation measures for hazardous materials issues, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to being listed on hazardous materials site, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

EMERGENCY PLANS
Like the proposed UWSP, cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) that include road work and/or other construction activities associated with the construction of these projects could cause traffic congestion and/or interrupt the flow of traffic. However, as with development allowed under the proposed UWSP, each cumulative project would be required to prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to ensure the safe and efficient movement of traffic through construction work zones, including emergency response traffic. With compliance with required TCPs, construction activities associated with the proposed UWSP and cumulative development in the area would be unlikely to combine to adversely affect emergency evacuation routes, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

WILDFIRES
As discussed in Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Draft EIR, the UWSP area is not located within a high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, projects developed under the proposed UWSP could not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to being in a high fire hazard severity zone, and no impact would occur.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-40 PLNP2018-00284

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of most cumulative hydrology and water quality effects encompasses and is limited to the UWSP area and the immediately adjacent area (i.e., one-half mile of the UWSP area). This is because impacts relative to hydrology and water quality are generally site-specific. For example, the effect of erosion would tend to be limited to the localized area of a project and could only be cumulative if erosion occurred as the result of two or more adjacent projects that spatially overlapped. However, the geographic context for cumulative effects to groundwater supplies and recharge is the Sacramento Valley-North American Subbasin, which covers 351,000 acres that span across portions of Sutter, Placer, and Sacramento counties.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS As discussed in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would comply with NPDES Construction General Permit regulations that would prevent the release of sediment and other pollutants during construction activities through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. In addition, development allowed under proposed UWSP would be required to comply with existing regulations for the appropriate storage, use, transport, and management of hazardous materials during construction and operations.

Furthermore, development allowed under the proposed UWSP that would use hazardous materials would maintain and implement spill prevention and countermeasures control plans as well as hazardous materials management plans to reduce the risk of release of contaminants. Finally, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would also be subject to the Municipal Stormwater Permit (MSP) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements, including hydromodification management controls and low impact development (LID) design standards that would require that drainage plans for each project adequately control run on and runoff to prevent erosion or impacts to water quality. Similarly, all cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) that involve the creation or replacement of 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area would also be subject to the same Construction General Permit, hazardous materials management, and MSP requirements. With compliance with existing regulations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to water quality, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

GROUNDWATER SUPPLIES AND RECHARGE
As discussed in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin, is a high-priority subbasin, though not one in a condition of critical overdraft. Water supplies in this area are from a combination of surface water, groundwater, imported water, and recycled 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-41 PLNP2018-00284
water. The proposed UWSP and cumulative development within the northwestern unincorporated portion of Sacramento County (North Natomas), the City of Sacramento, bordering areas of Placer and Sutter counties (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) are located within this subbasin. Water service providers within the subbasin, such as the City of Sacramento, are required to determine whether the projected water demand associated with development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative development have been included as part of the each water service provider’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), each of which quantifies and evaluates the water supplies available to each water service provider and compares the available supply with the existing and anticipated water supply demand. As part of the environmental review process, each water service provider processes a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for each cumulative project upon request to determine if its planned water supplies are sufficient to meet the demands of the new project in addition to its existing and projected water supply obligations. For example, the WSA prepared by the City of Sacramento for the proposed UWSP concluded that the planned water supplies in its UWMP can meet the water supply demand of development anticipated under the proposed UWSP during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over a 20-year dry period. Cumulative projects would be required to go through the same process of requesting a WSA from their water service provider to compare their water demand with the provider’s available water supply. If the water service provider did not account for the water demand of a given cumulative project and would be unable to meet the requested demand, the cumulative project would be denied. Therefore, with compliance with existing water supply regulations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to groundwater supplies, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Development allowed under the proposed UWSP would increase impervious surfaces within the UWSP area, and consequently could decrease groundwater recharge.

Similarly, cumulative projects within the northwestern unincorporated portion of Sacramento County (North Natomas), the City of Sacramento, bordering areas of Placer and Sutter counties (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) that increase the amount of impervious surface could decrease groundwater recharge. However, as discussed in the groundwater recharge impacts analysis in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, construction of development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be required by MSP MS4 requirements and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual to conform to LID design and sustainability measures, 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. Cumulative projects would also be required to include similar design features to maintain groundwater infiltration. These design measures would maintain the existing degree of recharge potential for the groundwater basin. Therefore, with compliance with existing MSP regulations, development allowed under proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to groundwater recharge, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-42 PLNP2018-00284

DRAINAGE PATTERNS
As discussed in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, and above under the cumulative analysis for water quality, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would be required to comply with NPDES Construction General Permit regulations that would prevent the release of sediment and other pollutants during construction activities through the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. Each SWPPP would include BMPs to control stormwater flow and prevent drainage issues. In addition, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would also be subject to the MSP MS4 requirements, including hydromodification management controls and LID design standards that would require the preparation of drainage plans to adequately control run on and runoff to prevent erosion or drainage issues. With compliance with existing regulations, development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not cause or contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to drainage issues, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS IN A FLOOD HAZARD ZONE
As discussed in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP and several of the cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) are in a special flood hazard area within the Natomas Basin. However, levees are also in place and are designed to protect the Natomas Basin from the 100-year flood event. The Natomas Levee Improvement Project is ongoing and by 2025 will have improved the level of protection to the 200-year flood event. With this level of flood protection, the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would not be subject to flooding and thus the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

WATER QUALITY AND GROUNDWATER PLANS
As discussed in Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Draft EIR, and in the discussion above for water quality, groundwater supplies, and recharge cumulative impacts, project designs for development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would be required to capture and treat stormwater to prevent impacts to water quality and to maintain the level of infiltration of stormwater into the subsurface at current levels. These requirements are contained in the NPDES Construction General Permit and MSP, along with required water supply assessments for projects with water demand. In addition, cumulative projects would be located within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, North American Subbasin, which is a high priority basin subject to Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The UWSP area is under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Groundwater Authority GSA, which has established groundwater sustainability goals that cumulative projects would be required to be consistent with.

Compliance would ensure that development allowed under the proposed UWSP and cumulative projects would be consistent with the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-43 PLNP2018-00284

LAND USE

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts related to land use is the area that encompasses recently approved and/or proposed projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area. This development includes growth under projects proposed and adopted by Sacramento County, Sutter County, and the City of Sacramento as shown on Plate CI-1.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
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. Neither the proposed UWSP nor cumulative projects would include physical obstructions (e.g., freeways or other impenetrable linear features) that would divide an established community or isolate individual neighborhoods.

Consequently, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

CONFLICT WITH APPLICABLE PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS The proposed UWSP, in combination with cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), particularly development on presently nonurbanized lands to the north of the UWSP area, would substantially change the land uses within and in the vicinity of the UWSP area. As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP would guide development of residential and non-residential land uses on 2,066± acres of unincorporated land in northwestern Sacramento County. Cumulative development on presently non-urbanized lands to the north of the UWSP area includes growth contemplated under the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). The proposed UWSP and the aforementioned cumulative projects would result in the conversion of largely undeveloped land to urban uses. However, all development, including the proposed UWSP, must be reviewed for consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State Zoning and Planning Law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development. These requirements would ensure that project-specific and cumulative impacts related to conflicts with applicable plans, policies, or regulations would be less than significant.

NOISE

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic scope for cumulative effects on noise and vibration would consist of an area approximately 900 feet around the perimeter of each of the potential development 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-44 PLNP2018-00284
sites within the UWSP area. This distance was selected because typical construction noise levels can affect a sensitive receptor at a distance of 900 feet if there is a direct line-of-sight between a noise source and a noise receptor (i.e., a piece of equipment generating 85dBA would attenuate to 60 dBA over a distance of 900 feet). An exterior noise level of 60 dBA will typically attenuate to an interior noise level of 35 dBA with the windows closed and 45 dBA with the windows open. Because construction noise usually generates the highest noise levels for a mixed-use development project, this geographical scope (distance) may also be conservatively applied to operational impacts.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

EXCEEDANCE OF ESTABLISHED NOISE STANDARDS

CONSTRUCTION
Of the 17 cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), there are no projects that are within the 900-foot geographic scope for noise and vibration analysis. Therefore, no cumulative impact would occur with respect to this criterion.

STATIONARY SOURCES
Of the 17 cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), there are no projects that are within the 900-foot geographic scope for noise and vibration analysis. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to noise from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.

TRAFFIC
The cumulative traffic noise analysis considers all the roadways analyzed in the transportation analysis. Operational noise impacts of the proposed UWSP would result primarily from increased traffic on the local roadway network. Cumulative (year 2040) plus project traffic data were used to estimate cumulative operational noise increases.

The 2040 traffic data inherently include partial or full buildout of several proposed and/or approved projects in North Natomas and in the Central City of Sacramento (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). In addition, the several roadway connections within the study area were also assumed under cumulative conditions.

EXISTING ROADWAYS
The significance of cumulative impacts related to traffic noise levels on existing roadways is determined using a two-step process. First, like the project-level assessment of traffic impacts, the increase in noise levels between cumulative (2040) conditions with the project and existing baseline (2019) conditions is compared to an incremental 3 dBA or 5 dBA threshold, as applicable based on the existing noise level.

If the roadside noise levels exceed this incremental threshold, a significant cumulative noise impact is identified.

The second step of the analysis of cumulative roadside noise impacts (if a significant cumulative noise impact is predicted based on the above methodology) is to evaluate 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-45 PLNP2018-00284
whether the contribution of the project to roadside noise levels would be cumulatively considerable. This second step (if necessary) involves assessing whether the project’s contribution to roadside noise levels (i.e., the difference between cumulative conditions and cumulative plus project conditions) would exceed a 1.5 dBA incremental contribution; this is a threshold that is considered to be cumulatively considerable. The

1.5 dBA increase used to represent a cumulatively considerable contribution is conservatively based on the minimum increase identified as potentially significant by FICON (see Table NOI-10). Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot be perceived (Caltrans 2013). Consequently, a cumulatively considerable contribution would reasonably be more than 1 dBA.

The roadway segments analyzed and the results of the noise increases resulting from modeling are shown in Table CI-5 for 2040 cumulative plus weekday p.m.2full buildout of the proposed UWSP’s mixed uses.

As shown in Table CI-6, although cumulative traffic noise impacts would occur along 18 of the roadways analyzed, the traffic noise associated with the proposed UWSP would only represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to these cumulative impacts (i.e., the project would contribute an increase of more than 1.5 dBA over the cumulative without project scenario) along 11 of them. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would contribute considerably to a cumulative significant roadway noise impact along 11 roadways.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3a is proposed, which would require that that speed reductions be considered along El Centro Road with coordination with the Sacramento County Department of Transportation (DOT) to determine feasibility and that a cost-benefit analysis be performed to determine the feasibility of barriers along Arena Boulevard, while Mitigation Measure NOI-3b is also proposed, which would require the use of rubberized asphalt on noise impacted roadways, consistent with existing County DOT practice for arterial roadways. While these measures would reduce the project’s contribution to cumulatively significant roadway noise impacts along roadways in the Specific Plan area, the availability of feasible mitigation along many offsite segments is limited and largely unavailable. As a result, like project level roadway noise impact, the impact with respect to cumulative roadway noise on existing roadways would remain significant and unavoidable.

2 The peak hour was used to represent the maximum period of traffic generation and associated noise generated by the project.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-46 PLNP2018-00284
Table CI-5: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels Year 2040 with Weekday P.M. Full Buildout of Project Mixed Uses # Roadway
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Cumulative
Impact?
DNL, dBA
Cumulatively
Considerable
contribution
(>1.5 dB)?
3 (A)
Existing
(B)
Cumulative
+ Project
Increase over
Existing (B-A)
(C)
Cumulative
no Project
Project
Contribution
to cumulative
(B-C)
1 Arena Blvd from
El Centro Road to
Stemler

64.4 69.4 5.0 3 Yes Yes 67.1 2.3 Yes
2 Arena Blvd from
Stemmler Drive to
Duckhorn Drive

65.9 69.9 4.0 1.5 Yes Yes 68.2 1.7 Yes
3 Arena Blvd from
Duckhorn Drive to
I-5

68.4 70.3 1.9 1.5 No No 69.7 0.7 No
4 Arena Blvd from I-5
to East Commerce
Way

68.0 71.4 3.4 1.5 No No 71.0 0.3 No
5 Arena Blvd from
East Commerce
Way to Truxel
Road

68.8 71.2 2.5 1.5 Yes Yes 70.8 0.4 No
6 Azevedo Drive
from West
El Camino to San
Juan Road

66.3 66.8 0.6 1.5 Yes No 66.9 0.0 No
7 Del Paso Road
from Power Line
Road to Hovnanian
Drive

58.0 59.9 1.9 5 Yes No 59.8 0.1 No
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-47 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Cumulative
Impact?
DNL, dBA
Cumulatively
Considerable
contribution
(>1.5 dB)?
3 (A)
Existing
(B)
Cumulative
+ Project
Increase over
Existing (B-A)
(C)
Cumulative
no Project
Project
Contribution
to cumulative
(B-C)
8 Del Paso Road
from Hovnanian
Drive to Natomas
Central Drive

61.3 61.8 0.4 3 Yes No 61.7 0.0 No
9 Del Paso Road
from Natomas
Central Drive to
El Centro Road

67.2 67.5 0.4 1.5 Yes No 67.3 0.2 No
10 Del Paso Road
from El Centro
Road to I-5

63.0 64.9 1.9 3 Yes No 64.1 0.8 No
11 Del Paso Road
from I-5 to East
Commerce Way

67.8 68.9 1.1 1.5 Yes No 68.7 0.2 No
12 Del Paso Road
from East
Commerce Way to
Truxel Road

70.4 73.3 2.9 1.5 Yes Yes 73.0 0.3 No
13 El Centro Road
from Del Paso
Road to Duckhorn
Drive

65.4 70.1 4.7 1.5 No No 68.2 1.8 No
14 El Centro Road
from Duckhorn
Drive to Manera
Rica Drive

58.4 63.9 5.5 5 Yes Yes 61.8 2.1 Yes
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-48 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Cumulative
Impact?
DNL, dBA
Cumulatively
Considerable
contribution
(>1.5 dB)?
3 (A)
Existing
(B)
Cumulative
+ Project
Increase over
Existing (B-A)
(C)
Cumulative
no Project
Project
Contribution
to cumulative
(B-C)
15 El Centro Road
from Manera Rica
Drive to Arena Blvd

62.2 68.1 5.9 3 Yes Yes 66.2 1.9 Yes
16 El Centro Road
from Arena Blvd to
San Juan Road

60.7 67.3 6.6 3 Yes Yes 63.2 4.1 Yes
17 El Centro Road
from San Juan
Road to West El
Camino Avenue

67.6 72.9 5.3 1.5 No No 70.1 2.8 No
18 El Centro Road
from West
El Camino Avenue
to South Terminus

59.3 68.6 9.3 5 No No 59.3 9.3 No
19 Garden Highway
from Truxel Road
to Natomas Park
Drive

60.5 61.2 0.7 3 No No 61.3 -0.1 No
20 Garden Highway
from Natomas Park
Drive to I-5

64.7 65.2 0.5 3 Yes No 64.8 0.4 No
21 Garden Highway
from I-5 to
Gateway Oaks
Drive

61.7 63.0 1.2 3 Yes No 62.0 1.0 No
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-49 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Cumulative
Impact?
DNL, dBA
Cumulatively
Considerable
contribution
(>1.5 dB)?
3 (A)
Existing
(B)
Cumulative
+ Project
Increase over
Existing (B-A)
(C)
Cumulative
no Project
Project
Contribution
to cumulative
(B-C)
22 Garden Highway
from Gateway
Oaks Drive to
Orchard Lane

62.8 65.3 2.6 3 Yes No 62.2 3.1 No
23 Garden Highway
from Orchard Lane
to I-80

56.6 60.8 4.2 5 Yes No 56.1 4.7 No
24 Garden Highway
from I-80 to San
Juan Road

61.2 62.4 1.2 3 Yes No 59.0 3.4 No
25 Garden Highway
from San Juan
Road to Powerline
Road

62.2 67.9 5.7 3 Yes Yes 64.0 3.9 Yes
26 Natomas Central
from Del Paso
Road to El Centro
Road

60.7 61.8 1.1 3 Yes No 61.5 0.2 No
27 Power Line Rd
from Garden Hwy
to Del Paso Road

61.3 66.3 5.1 3 No No 62.3 4.0 No
28 Power Line Road
from Del Paso
Road to I-5

61.9 67.1 5.2 3 No No 64.0 3.1 No
29 San Juan Road
from I-5 to El
Centro Road

64.2 68.5 4.3 3 Yes Yes 65.7 2.9 Yes
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-50 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Cumulative
Impact?
DNL, dBA
Cumulatively
Considerable
contribution
(>1.5 dB)?
3 (A)
Existing
(B)
Cumulative
+ Project
Increase over
Existing (B-A)
(C)
Cumulative
no Project
Project
Contribution
to cumulative
(B-C)
30 San Juan Road
from El Centro
Road to I-80

64.2 67.9 3.7 3 Yes Yes 64.9 3.0 Yes
31 San Juan Road
from I-80 to Truxel
Road

68.9 70.6 1.7 1.5 Yes Yes 70.5 0.1 No
32 W El Camino
Avenue from El
Centro Road to
I-80

64.9 72.8 8.0 3 Yes Yes 67.6 5.3 No
4 33 W El Camino
Avenue from I-80
to Orchard Lane

67.3 70.7 3.4 1.5 No No 68.0 2.7 No
34 W El Camino
Avenue from
Orchard Lane to
Gateway Oaks
Drive

68.3 71.7 3.4 1.5 Yes Yes 68.8 2.9 Yes
35 W El Camino
Avenue from
Gateway Oaks
Drive to I-5

67.4 70.3 3.0 1.5 Yes Yes 68.0 2.4 Yes
36 W El Camino
Avenue from I-5 to
Azevedo Drive

68.2 69.4 1.1 1.5 Yes No 68.8 0.6 No
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-51 PLNP2018-00284
# Roadway
Predicted DNL, dBA
Significance
Threshold
1 Sensitive
Receptors
Present?
2 Cumulative
Impact?
DNL, dBA
Cumulatively
Considerable
contribution
(>1.5 dB)?
3 (A)
Existing
(B)
Cumulative
+ Project
Increase over
Existing (B-A)
(C)
Cumulative
no Project
Project
Contribution
to cumulative
(B-C)
37 W El Camino
Avenue from
Azevedo Drive to
Truxel Road

66.3 68.3 2.0 1.5 Yes Yes 67.2 1.0 No
38 I-80 from Yolo
County to West El
Camino Avenue

66.6 68.9 2.4 1.5 Yes Yes 68.3 0.6 No
39 I-80 from West El
Camino Avenue to
I-5

65.3 67.7 2.4 1.5 Yes Yes 67.1 0.6 No
40 I-5 from I-80 to
Arena Blvd

74.3 76.1 1.8 1.5 Yes Yes 75.8 0.3 No
41 I-5 from Arena Blvd
to Del Paso Road

72.8 74.2 1.4 1.5 Yes No 73.9 0.2 No
42 I-5 from Del Paso
Road to SR-99

69.8 71.2 1.4 1.5 Yes No 71.0 0.2 No
43 I-5 from SR-99 to
Airport Blvd

69.4 70.5 1.1 1.5 Yes No 70.3 0.2 No
NOTES:
1 Significance threshold derived from Table NOI-11.
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 existing 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 D contains FHWA Model inputs. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-52 PLNP2018-00284
Table CI-6: Predicted Future Traffic Noise Levels along Roadways Affecting Development within the Plan Area Upper Westside Specific Plan
Segment Roadway From To Distance
1 DNL2
Level
Above
65 DNL?
3 dBA
Above
65 DNL
4 Contour
Distance (ft)
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
1 Bryte Bend Rd Radio Head San Juan Rd 100 59 No 0 37 17 2 Bryte Bend Rd San Juan Rd Street 7 75 62 No 0 48 22
3 Bryte Bend Rd Street 7 Farm Rd 70 63 No 0 53 24
4 Bryte Bend Rd Farm Rd Street 10 75 59 No 0 29 14
5 Bryte Bend Rd Street 10 W El Camino Ave 75 60 No 0 36 16 6 Bryte Bend Rd West El Camino Street 8 75 58 No 0 27 13 7 Bryte Bend Rd Street 8 Street 2 75 58 No 0 24 11
8 Bryte Bend Rd Street 2 Street 1 70 60 No 0 30 14
9 Bryte Bend Rd Street 1 Garden Highway 70 58 No 0 26 12 10 El Centro Rd Arena Radio Head 100 67 Yes 2 138 64
11 El Centro Rd Radio Head San Juan Rd 100 67 Yes 2 130 60 12 El Centro Rd San Juan Rd Street 7 80 69 Yes 4 153 71 13 El Centro Rd Street 7 Farm Rd 80 70 Yes 5 162 75
14 El Centro Rd Farm Rd Street 6 90 71 Yes 6 228 106
15 El Centro Rd Street 6 Street 5 90 71 Yes 6 246 114
16 El Centro Rd Street 5 W El Camino Ave 90 72 Yes 7 249 116 17 El Centro Rd W El Camino Ave Street 4 80 66 Yes 1 96 45 18 El Centro Rd Street 4 Street 3 80 65 No 0 83 39
19 El Centro Rd Street 3 Street 2 80 62 No 0 51 24
20 El Centro Rd Street 2 Street 1 80 53 No 0 12 5
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-53 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To Distance
1 DNL2
Level
Above
65 DNL?
3 dBA
Above
65 DNL
4 Contour
Distance (ft)
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
21 Farm Road Street F Bryte Bend Rd 60 60 No 0 27 12
22 Farm Road Bryte Bend Rd Street D 75 61 No 0 43 20
23 Farm Road Street D Street C 65 63 No 0 47 22
24 Farm Road Street C Street B 65 64 No 0 56 26
25 Farm Road Street B Street A 65 65 No 0 64 30
26 Farm Road Street A El Centro Rd 65 66 Yes 1 72 33
27 Farm Road El Centro Rd Street H 80 68 Yes 3 121 56
28 Garden Highway San Juan Rd Street 9 1300 39 No 0 23 11 29 Garden Highway Street 9 Bryte Bend Rd 950 41 No 0 23 11 30 Orchard Lane San Juan Rd Street 7 60 59 No 0 23 11
31 Radio Head Garden Highway Street 12 W 75 60 No 0 33 16 32 Radio Head Street 12 W Bryte Bend Rd 75 53 No 0 13 6 33 Radio Head Bryte Bend Rd Street 12 E 75 60 No 0 33 16 34 Radio Head Street 12 E El Centro Rd 75 66 Yes 1 84 39 35 San Juan Rd Garden Highway Bryte Bend Rd 75 61 No 0 43 20 36 San Juan Rd Bryte Bend Rd El Centro Rd 130 60 No 0 57 27 37 San Juan Rd El Centro Rd Orchard Lane 130 62 No 0 79 37 38 Street 1 Street C Bryte Bend Rd 60 55 No 0 13 6
39 Street 1 Street C Street B 60 54 No 0 12 5
40 Street 1 Street B El Centro Rd 60 54 No 0 12 5
41 Street 2 Bryte Bend Rd Street 3 70 59 No 0 28 13
42 Street 2 Street D Street C 70 60 No 0 32 15
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-54 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To Distance
1 DNL2
Level
Above
65 DNL?
3 dBA
Above
65 DNL
4 Contour
Distance (ft)
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
43 Street 2 Street C Street B 70 61 No 0 37 17
44 Street 2 Street B Street A 70 61 No 0 37 17
45 Street 2 Street A El Centro Rd 70 61 No 0 38 18
46 Street 3 Street 2 Street C 60 45 No 0 3 1
47 Street 3 Street B Street A 60 61 No 0 33 16
48 Street 3 Street A El Centro Rd 60 62 No 0 36 16
49 Street 4 Street E Street D 60 53 No 0 10 5
50 Street 4 Street D Street C 60 55 No 0 13 6
51 Street 4 Street B Street A 60 54 No 0 11 5
52 Street 4 Street A El Centro Rd 60 61 No 0 33 15
53 Street 5 Street E Street D 60 50 No 0 6 3
54 Street 5 Street D Street C 60 63 No 0 44 20
55 Street 5 Street B El Centro Rd 60 59 No 0 24 11
56 Street 6 Street E Street C 60 48 No 0 4 2
57 Street 6 Street D Street C 60 50 No 0 6 3
58 Street 6 Street B Street A 60 57 No 0 19 9
59 Street 6 El Centro Rd Street A 60 57 No 0 17 8
60 Street 7 Bryte Bend Rd Street C 60 45 No 0 3 1
61 Street 7 Street C Street B 60 50 No 0 6 3
62 Street 7 Street B El Centro Rd 60 57 No 0 17 8
63 Street 7 El Centro Rd Orchard Lane 60 60 No 0 29 13
64 Street 7 Orchard Lane Street H 60 55 No 0 13 6
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-55 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To Distance
1 DNL2
Level
Above
65 DNL?
3 dBA
Above
65 DNL
4 Contour
Distance (ft)
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
65 Street 8 Street F Bryte Bend Rd 50 56 No 0 12 5
66 Street 8 Street F Street G 50 56 No 0 13 6
67 Street 8 Street G Bryte Bend Rd 50 56 No 0 13 6
68 Street 10 Bryte Bend Rd Street F 50 55 No 0 11 5
69 Street 10 Street F Street G 50 46 No 0 3 1
70 Street A Farm Rd Street 6 60 59 No 0 23 11
71 Street A Street 6 Street5 60 60 No 0 26 12
72 Street A Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 63 No 0 47 22
73 Street A W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 61 No 0 31 15
74 Street A Street 4 Street 3 60 50 No 0 6 3
75 Street A Street 3 Street 2 60 50 No 0 6 3
76 Street B Street 7 Farm Rd 60 57 No 0 18 8
77 Street B Farm Rd Street 6 60 58 No 0 21 10
78 Street B Street 6 Street 5 60 58 No 0 21 10
79 Street B Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 55 No 0 13 6
80 Street B W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 56 No 0 14 7
81 Street B Street 4 Street 3 60 54 No 0 11 5
82 Street B Street 3 Street 2 60 45 No 0 3 1
83 Street B Street 2 Street 1 60 50 No 0 6 3
84 Street C Street 7 Farm Rd 60 54 No 0 11 5
85 Street C Farm Rd Street 6 60 58 No 0 22 10
86 Street C Street 6 Street 5 60 57 No 0 17 8
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-56 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To Distance
1 DNL2
Level
Above
65 DNL?
3 dBA
Above
65 DNL
4 Contour
Distance (ft)
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
87 Street C Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 57 No 0 17 8
88 Street C W El Camino Ave Street 4 60 60 No 0 27 13
89 Street C Street 4 Street 3 60 54 No 0 11 5
90 Street C Street 3 Street 2 60 51 No 0 7 3
91 Street C Street 2 Street 1 60 56 No 0 14 7
92 Street D Farm Rd Street 6 60 56 No 0 15 7
93 Street D Street 6 Street 5 60 56 No 0 16 7
94 Street D Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 56 No 0 14 7
95 Street D W El Camino Street 4 60 59 No 0 26 12
96 Street D Street 4 Street 3 60 48 No 0 4 2
97 Street D Street 3 Street 2 60 45 No 0 3 1
98 Street E Street 5 W El Camino Ave 60 45 No 0 3 1
99 Street E W El Camino Street 4 60 56 No 0 16 7
100 Street E Street 4 Street 3 60 48 No 0 4 2
101 Street F Street 8 Bryte Bend Rd 60 55 No 0 13 6
102 Street F Farm Rd Street 10 60 56 No 0 14 7
103 Street G Street 9 Street 10 100 42 No 0 3 1
104 Street H Street 7 Farm Rd 60 54 No 0 12 5
105 W El Camino Ave Bryte Bend Rd Street E 105 58 No 0 36 16 106 W El Camino Ave Street E Street D 105 56 No 0 25 11 107 W El Camino Ave Street D Street C 105 59 No 0 44 20 108 W El Camino Ave Street C Street B 105 62 No 0 65 30 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-57 PLNP2018-00284
Segment Roadway From To Distance
1 DNL2
Level
Above
65 DNL?
3 dBA
Above
65 DNL
4 Contour
Distance (ft)
5 65 DNL 70 DNL
109 W El Camino Ave Street B Street A 105 62 No 0 63 29 110 W El Camino Ave Street A El Centro Rd 105 64 No 0 89 42 111 W El Camino Ave El Centro Rd Interstate 80 90 72 Yes 7 252 117 112 I-80 Yolo County W El Camino Ave 220 76 Yes 11 1,270 590 113 I-80 West El Camino I-5 220 76 Yes 11 1,236 574
NOTES:
1 The distance from the roadway segment centerline to the nearest potential location for an outdoor activity area based on proposed roadway crosssections. 2 The Day/Night Average Level (DNL) computed at the distance cited in the “Distance” column. 3 If the predicted DNL at the nearest potential outdoor activity areas exceeds the County’s 65 dBA exterior noise level standard this column is flagged as “Yes”.
4 The level above 65 dBA DNL represents the degree of sound attenuation which would be required to reduce traffic noise levels to 65 dBA DNL if the outdoor activity area were located at the distance from the centerline shown under the “Distance” column. 5 The contour distances represent the distance from the roadway segment centerline to the indicated contours. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-58 PLNP2018-00284

NOISE EXPOSURE ALONG PROJECT ROADWAYS
The proposed UWSP proposes extensive development of residential uses of varying densities throughout the UWSP area, including areas located adjacent to major roadways. While the interior spaces of residential uses share the same noise-sensitivity regardless of density, the noise-sensitivity of exterior areas varies according to the type of proposed residential use. For example, in low-density residential developments, the noise-sensitive exterior spaces where the County’s exterior noise standards are applied are commonly considered to be backyards. As for higher density residential developments, such as apartments, the County’s exterior noise standards are applied at common outdoor usage areas such as pool or park spaces rather than individual patios or balconies. For mixed-use developments that include a residential component, it is not unusual for no outdoor use areas to be proposed. Because specific plans for individual developments are not yet available as of the time of this analysis, potential traffic noise impacts are assessed through prediction of distances to future traffic noise contours along the roadways that would potentially affect development within the UWSP area.

Where noise contours exceeding the General Plan standards shown in Table NOI-7 (65 dB DNL for residential uses and 70 dB DNL for parks and playgrounds) would extend into areas proposed for such uses, potentially significant noise impacts could occur that warrant consideration of mitigation measures.

Table CI-6 shows the predicted future plus project (cumulative) traffic noise exposure at those locations along each roadway segment, a comparison of those predicted levels against the applicable Sacramento County exterior noise standards, and the distances to the future 65 and 70 dB DNL traffic noise contours. Roadway segments where future traffic noise levels at proposed residential land uses are predicted to exceed 65 dB DNL and, therefore, require mitigation include El Centro Road, Radio Head, and Farm Road as well as residential uses proposed near I-80.

To address this cumulative impact, Mitigation Measure C-NOI-1 is prescribed below, which would ensure that all necessary and feasible noise reduction strategies for reducing noise exposure to proposed on-site uses would be applied. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, the impact with respect to cumulative construction noise would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure C-NOI-1: To ensure consistency with the Sacramento County General Plan 65 dB DNL exterior noise level standard at the outdoor activity areas of future residential uses proposed within the UWSP area, the following noise mitigation measures should be considered either singularly or in combination during project design, depending on the level of sound attenuation required. At proposed residential locations adjacent to Interstate 80 it is probable that a combination of the following measures would be required.

Residential outdoor activity areas shall be located beyond the 65 dBA DNL noise contour distances shown in Table 16, to the extent that such a design can be accommodated into the development scheme, otherwise, barriers or screening methods shall be employed. This includes individual backyards of single-family residences and common outdoor use areas of multi-family residences; and/or 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-59 PLNP2018-00284
• Residential outdoor activity areas proposed within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour distances shown in Table 16 shall be screened from view of the roadway by intervening structures or sound barriers. If sound barriers are proposed, project-specific grading plans shall be reviewed to determine the location and heights of barrier necessary to achieve compliance with the County’s noise standards. With the exception of residences proposed in proximity to Interstate 80, noise barriers along other roadways would not need to exceed 6 feet in height to provide the required traffic noise attenuation.

If noise barriers are to be constructed within the Plan area, the traffic noise barriers shall take the form of a masonry wall, earthen berm, or combination of the two, or, if reviewed and approved by an acoustical consultant as providing comparable performance prior to construction, other materials may be acceptable (i.e., wood or wood composite fence with overlapping slat construction).; and /or
• Single-family residences shall be oriented such that the front of the residence faces the roadway segment where levels exceeding 65 dBA DNL would occur, thereby using the residence to shield the backyard from the roadway and creating a larger setback between the roadway centerline and backyard outdoor activity area.

CUMULATIVE VIBRATION IMPACTS
Of the 17 cumulative projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), there are no projects that are within the 900-foot geographic scope for noise and vibration analysis. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to groundborne vibration would be less than significant.

CUMULATIVE NOISE FROM AIRPORT OPERATIONS
The noise contours presented in Plate NOI-2 and used to address the existing noise levels from airport operations in the project-level analysis found in Chapter 15, Noise, of this Draft EIR, were derived from the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) dated December 12, 2013. These contours reflect a “Theoretic Capacity” level of Airport activity extending beyond the minimum 20-year year time frame that state law requires and consider both of the contemplated future runway system configuration scenarios. Therefore, as the project-level impact analysis of airport noise conservatively represents a cumulative scenario, the cumulative impact would also be less than significant.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative effects related to population and housing is the SACOG six-county Sacramento region that includes Sacramento, Sutter, Placer, Yolo, Yuba, and El Dorado counties.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-60 PLNP2018-00284

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

POPULATION GROWTH
A significant cumulative impact related to population and housing would result in an increase in population for which infrastructure, services, and housing have not been planned. General plans for counties and incorporated cities in the six-county Sacramento region, such as the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan and the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan, provide an inventory of land supply within each jurisdiction and projects the amount and location of land and development that will be required to accommodate future populations and economic growth. In addition, the SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) establishes a plan for housing the population of the six-county Sacramento region. The foundation for the MTP/SCS land use forecast includes local government general plans, community plans, specific plans, other local policies and regulations, and the SACOG Sacramento Region Blueprint, which guides the region’s transportation planning and funding decisions.3 Like the proposed UWSP, cumulative projects in the six-county Sacramento region must be reviewed for consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, State zoning and planning law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of entitlements for development.

As discussed in Chapter 16, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, as a condition of approval of the proposed USWP, the proposed plan and subsequent UWSP development would be required to be determined consistent with applicable Sacramento County General Plan policies, including policies related to urban growth and expansion of the USB and UPA. Consequently, the proposed UWSP would not induce substantial unplanned population growth as identified in the Sacramento County General Plan. However, the UWSP area and the proposed UWSP were not anticipated for development in either the SACOG Blueprint or the current MTP/SCS, and even though the proposed UWSP aligns with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint and the County’s smart growth policy LU-120, this inconsistency would remain. For this reason, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to substantial unplanned population growth within the six-county Sacramento region would be cumulatively considerable, and this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.

DISPLACEMENT OF HOUSING
As discussed in Chapter 16, Population and Housing, of this Draft EIR, 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 UWSP area along Garden Highway. The proposed UWSP does not propose changes to these properties, nor would uses allowed under the proposed UWSP cause the displacement 3 The current 2020 MTP/SCS was adopted in November 2019 and projects transportation and housing needs through 2040.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-61 PLNP2018-00284
of housing. Rather, the proposed UWSP would substantially add new housing to the UWSP area.

As discussed above, like the proposed UWSP, cumulative projects in the six-county Sacramento region must be reviewed for consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, State zoning and planning law, and the State Subdivision Map Act, all of which require findings of plan and policy consistency, including policies aimed to prevent or minimize displacement of housing, prior to approval of entitlements for development. Required compliance with these requirements would ensure that the cumulative impact related to displacement of housing would be less than significant.

PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The UWSP area is in unincorporated northwestern Sacramento County, in a largely undeveloped and rural area adjacent to the city of Sacramento. The cumulative context for fire protection services is the Sacramento Fire Department (SFD) service area. This area includes the City of Sacramento, and rural areas outside the city limits where the SFD has a contract to provide primary aid – the Pacific/Fruitridge Fire Protection District and the Natomas Fire Protection District. Law enforcement services are provided by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office, and its entire service area is considered. The cumulative context for school services is the geographic area served by the Natomas Unified School District (NUSD), which accepts K-12 students in North Natomas, South Natomas, unincorporated areas between the Sacramento River and I-5, and the area surrounding the Sacramento International Airport. The cumulative context for parks and recreation services is the area served by the City of Sacramento Department of Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment, within the City of Sacramento, and the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks. Finally, the cumulative context for library services is that area served by the Sacramento Public Library System, which encompasses all of Sacramento County.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

FIRE PROTECTION
The service area for the SFD includes 24 fire stations and covers 146 square miles throughout the Sacramento area. As development throughout the region continues to grow, the demand for fire protection services increases proportionally. Residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses all place a demand on fire protection services.

The proximity of fire stations to the areas they serve is critical for effective fire suppression and emergency response. Several development projects are approved or proposed that would need these services, specifically the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). As these projects would also require fire protection services within the SFD service area, there would be a need for the construction of new fire protection facilities. Therefore, 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-62 PLNP2018-00284
there would be a cumulative potentially significant impact to SFD services and facilities which could result from the construction of new fire protection facilities.

As the SFD implements a ratio of one fire station for every 16,000 new residents, the site of the potential fire station within the UWSP area would account for the 25,574 new residents associated with the proposed UWSP, in combination with the capacity of existing facilities. The physical impacts of the construction of the potential UWSP fire station are analyzed throughout the chapters of this Draft EIR. It is important to note that the proposed UWSP would be developed over many years, and the timing of that development would largely be driven by market forces that cannot be predicted with certainty. The same is true for other cumulative developments that could be built in the area over the next couple of decades. It is possible that at some point in the future, cumulative development could surpass the capacity of the new UWSP fire station and existing fire protection facilities to provide services at SFD’s preferred service ratio.

However, it is not possible to predict when that could happen or where any new facilities that might be required would be located. As such, it cannot be known what the environmental effects of constructing those facilities would be. Regardless, any actual construction that could be proposed in the future would be required to undergo a separate environmental review process and would only result in localized impacts.

Therefore, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact of the physical environmental effects of providing new or expanded fire protection services would be less than significant.

POLICE PROTECTION
The service area for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office covers a total of 944 square miles in unincorporated portions of Sacramento County as well as the city of Rancho Cordova. As development throughout the region continues to grow, the demand for police protection services increases proportionally. Residential, commercial, industrial, and public uses all place a demand on police protection services. Typically, police vehicles are stored at a police station, but are not dispatched directly from the station. In that way, police services can be provided at some distance from actual stations or substations. There is a sheriff’s substation included as part of the proposed UWSP that would support the population generated from the proposed plan. This substation, in combination with other facilities present within the Sheriff’s Office service area, would serve the demand for police services resulting from cumulative development within unincorporated portions and of Sacramento County and the City of Rancho Cordova (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). However, as development continues throughout the region, it may be necessary to expand an existing station or construct a new substation. Therefore, the cumulative impact on police protection services would be potentially significant.

Though the projects listed for cumulative consideration, in combination with the proposed UWSP, could have a cumulatively significant impact on police protection services in the Sheriff’s Office service area, the proposed UWSP itself would not pose a cumulatively considerable contribution to this potential effect. The potential onsite Sheriff substation would meet the needs of future UWSP area residents. The physical impacts of the construction of the potential sheriff’s substation are analyzed throughout 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-63 PLNP2018-00284
the chapters of this Draft EIR. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative physical environmental impact of providing new or expanded police protection services would be less than significant.

SCHOOLS
The NUSD service area currently operates 20 schools, five elementary schools, six K–8 schools, two middle schools, five high schools, one charter school serving grades K–12; and one school that is operated as a virtual academy. Students are generated when residential uses are constructed. Several projects throughout the North Natomas area and would include residential uses that would likely utilize the Natomas Unified School District’s facilities. Such projects include the Grandpark and Northlake specific plans (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1). The implementation of these plans would increase the demand for school services, which could have potentially significant physical effects through the construction of new facilities.

As previously discussed in Chapter 17, Public Services and Recreation, of this Draft EIR, the NUSD has sufficient capacity to serve some of the K-12 students generated within its service area. The proposed UWSP would construct K-8 schools and a high school to serve the needs of students generated in the UWSP area. The physical impacts of the construction of the proposed schools are analyzed throughout the chapters of this Draft EIR. In addition, pursuant to SB 50, development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be required to pay school impact fees, which is considered full mitigation for any impacts to school services that would result from the proposed plan. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative physical environmental effects of providing adequate school facilities would be less than significant.

PARKS AND RECREATION
The Sacramento Department of Youth, Parks, and Community Enrichment maintains approximately 4,265 acres of park land, including a mix of regional parks, community parks, neighborhood parks, and parkways, while the Sacramento County Department of Regional Parks maintains and operates more than 15,000 acres of parks throughout the county, including open spaces, multi-use trails, sports facilities, golf courses, river access, and picnic areas. As development within the region continues to expand, demand for parks and recreation facilities increases proportionally. The residential, commercial, and office uses proposed as part of the proposed UWSP would place a demand on existing City and County facilities. Several development projects which are approved or proposed (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would require the use of these facilities. As mentioned, such projects include the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas. The implementation of residents and uses resulting from these projects and plans would result in a need for the construction of new parks and recreation facilities. Therefore, there would be a cumulative potentially significant impact to City and County parks and recreation facilities which could result from the construction of new facilities.
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-64 PLNP2018-00284
As the Sacramento County General Plan Policy PF-123 implements a ratio of 5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents, the proposed 149.1 acres which would be implemented through the proposed UWSP would be sufficient to meet the need for the 127.9 acres of parkland required for the 25,574 proposed residents. The physical impacts of the construction of the proposed parkland are analyzed throughout the chapters of this Draft EIR. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact on parkland would be less than significant.

LIBRARIES
The proposed UWSP is served by the Sacramento Public Library System (SPLS), which serves the County of Sacramento. As development within the Sacramento region continues to expand, the demand for library services increases. The residential, commercial, and other public uses proposed as part of the proposed UWSP would place demand on library services within the SLPS service area. Cumulative development within unincorporated and incorporated portions of Sacramento County (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), such as the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and Grandpark Specific Plan, and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas, would also require library services. Given this increase in development, there would be a need for the construction of new library facilities within the SPLS service area. Therefore, the cumulative impact on library facilities would be potentially significant.

Though the projects listed for cumulative consideration in combination with the proposed UWSP could have a cumulatively significant impact on library facilities in the SPLS area, the proposed UWSP itself would not pose a cumulatively considerable contribution to this potential effect. The plan proposes a library to be shared with the Los Rios Community College District or NUSD, and thus increased demand for library services generated by new residents within the UWSP area would be met. The physical impacts of the potential construction of this library are analyzed throughout the chapters of this Draft EIR. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact on library services would be less than significant.

TRANSPORTATION

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative transportation effects is the immediate vicinity of nearby and similar project locations (see Plate CI-1) where impacts to the setting of transportation could occur.

CUMULATIVE SETTING
Consistent with the modeling year of SACOG’s Sacramento Activity-Based Travel Simulation Model (SACSIM), Year 2040 was assumed as the cumulative buildout year for the cumulative transportation impact analysis. The partial or full buildout of several proposed and/or approved projects in North Natomas and in the Central City of 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-65 PLNP2018-00284
Sacramento (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) were assumed in the cumulative setting. In addition, the following roadway connections within the study area were also assumed under cumulative conditions:
• Northpark Drive overcrossing of I-5 between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road
• Snowy Egret Drive overcrossing of I-5 between East Commerce Way and Duckhorn Drive
• I-5/Metro Air Parkway interchange
• Improvements to the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange, including widening of the interchange and modifications to the ramps • New Truxel Road American River bridge from Garden Highway to Richards Boulevard
• Extension of East Commerce Way southerly to San Juan Road • Meister Way overcrossing of SR-99
• Extension of Elkhorn Boulevard westerly to Crossfield Drive Finally, the cumulative setting assumed development of the following currently vacant parcels within the City of Sacramento located west of I-5:
• Southeast quadrant of Arena Boulevard/El Centro Road – multi-family assumed per existing zoning
• Northeast quadrant of Arena Boulevard/Duckhorn Drive – employment center assumed per existing zoning
• East of Duckhorn Drive between Arena Boulevard and San Juan Road – employment center assumed per existing zoning
• West of El Centro Road between Del Paso Road and Manera Rica Drive – multifamily assumed per existing zoning • Paso Verde School located north of Del Paso Road opposite Hovnanian Drive4

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM Like the proposed UWSP, cumulative development would be required to evaluate consistency with relevant programs, plans, ordinances, or policies related to transportation facilities. These include the County’s General Plan, Caltrans’ 2020-2024 Strategic Plan (Four Pillars of Traffic Safety) and plans and policies related to bicycle and pedestrian access and transit service. As discussed in Chapter 18, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, the proposed UWSP would be responsible for implementing Mitigation 4 The school has since been constructed and the parcel is no longer vacant. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-66 PLNP2018-00284
Measures TR-1a, TR-1b, and TR-3a, which would address project-specific impacts related to bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and transit delay/transit demand impacts.

However, as identified improvements to needed bicycle and pedestrian facilities would require approvals from Caltrans and the City of Sacramento, the County cannot compel these agencies to approve and allow construction of the specified improvements Therefore, to the extent that cumulative impacts would occur in regard to consistency with any of these programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, the contribution of the proposed UWSP could be cumulatively considerable, and this cumulative impact would thus remain significant and unavoidable.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
According to County’s Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG), projects that do not demonstrate a significant VMT impact under baseline conditions can be presumed to also be less than significant in the cumulative year. This guidance is aligned with the Technical Advisory, which states:
“A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with longterm environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact.”