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

expected to decrease by 10 percent relative to current conditions by the Year 2040.

This result is due to improved multi-modal transportation choices and planned land use growth in “low VMT areas.” Thus, the SACOG region planning principles and projections are aligned with the Technical Advisory in terms of long-term environmental goals to reduce VMT and greenhouse gas emissions.

As discussed in Chapter 18, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, 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, the cumulative impact of the proposed UWSP with respect to roadway network VMT is considered less than significant.

HAZARDS DUE TO DESIGN OR INCOMPATIBLE USES

RURAL ROADWAYS DESIGN STANDARDS
In consideration of cumulative traffic volumes on study area roadways, the TIA (see Appendix TR-1) found that the proposed UWSP would contribute substantially to cumulative impacts (i.e., over 6,000 ADT on roadways with less than 24 feet of pavement width and less than a six-foot shoulder) that would occur on the following Sacramento County rural roadways:
• Powerline Road: Bayou Way to Del Paso Road
• Powerline Road: Del Paso Road to Garden Highway
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-67 PLNP2018-00284
• Garden Highway: Powerline Road to Radio Road
• Garden Highway: Radio Road to San Juan Road
Without the proposed UWSP, these facilities would carry between 3,300 and 4,700 ADT.

With the proposed UWSP, however, they would carry between 7,000 and 9,500 ADT.

This increase in traffic is likely due to new vehicle trips to/from the proposed UWSP residential areas being attracted to employment uses contained within the proposed Metro Air Park. The proposed UWSP’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considered potentially significant.

To address the potentially significant cumulative impacts to rural roadways identified above, the following mitigation measure would be required. With implementation of Mitigation Measure C-TR-1, the cumulative impact related to degraded conditions on Powerline Road and Garden Highway would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure C-TR-1: The project applicant shall pay their fair share cost of improving the following roadways to conform with current County design standards: Powerline Road from Bayou Way to Garden Highway; and Garden Highway from Powerline Road to San Juan Road. Payment for improvements would be made to Sacramento County who would be responsible for making the improvements. Alternatively, if a future update to the Sacramento County Transportation Development Fee and Transit Impact Fee (SCTDF/TIF) Program includes these shoulder improvements (noting that the 2019 Update includes 94 miles of added shoulders on rural roadways but not on these two roadways), then applicant payment of SCTDF/TIF fees would meet their fair share obligation.

The County’s TAG indicates that when deficient operations (i.e., volume exceeding 6,000 ADT) are identified on substandard roadways, they should be upgraded to the current rural roadway standard, which consists of two 12-foot travel lanes and 6-foot paved shoulders. The fair share requirement reflects the fact that the impact would be cumulative in nature, and partially driven by other proposed land development and roadway improvements within the County.

FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUES
In consideration of cumulative traffic volumes on study area roadways, the TIA (see Appendix TR-1) found that the proposed UWSP would contribute substantially to cumulative queuing impacts at both off-ramps at the I-5/Del Paso Road and I-5/Garden Highway interchanges and the northbound off-ramp at the I-5/Arena Boulevard interchange. This is likely caused by downstream surface street congestion (primarily at 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-68 PLNP2018-00284
intersections within the city of Sacramento such as Garden Highway/Truxel Road, Del Paso Road/El Centro Road, and Arena Boulevard/East Commerce Way) that causes traffic to spill back to the interchange, thereby hindering the flow of off-ramp traffic. With the proposed UWSP, all study freeway off-ramps would have maximum queues that exceed the available storage, and the proposed UWSP’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considered potentially significant.

To address the potentially significant cumulative queuing impacts identified above, Mitigation Measure C-TR-2 would be required, which includes recommended improvements at the surface street intersection bottlenecks along Arena Boulevard responsible for queues that spill back to the I-5/Arena Boulevard interchange. These improvements are outside the control of Sacramento County or Caltrans since they are located within the City of Sacramento. Therefore, the County cannot ensure that they will be constructed when needed. Testing of their effectiveness showed that they would result in both off-ramps at the I-5/Arena Boulevard interchange having maximum queue lengths that are within the available storage provided.

Note that Mitigation Measures TR-3a and TR-3e would improve conditions at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange such that maximum queues do not spill onto I-80 under cumulative plus project conditions. Those same improvements would cause the northbound of-ramp maximum queue at the I-5/West El Camino Avenue interchange to also not spill back onto the freeway.

With respect to the off-ramp queues at the two remaining study interchanges (I-5/Arena Boulevard and I-5/Garden Highway), a variety of potential surface street improvements were tested along the roadways leading to this facilities. This involved collaboration with staff from the City of Sacramento regarding the viability of certain improvements.

Improvements such as lane restriping, adding lanes, or modifying signal phasing were either found to not be effective or could also cause the need for additional right-of-way.

At both interchanges, the following conclusions were reached. First, there are no known improvements planned at either interchange. Second, the feasibility of any surface street improvements that could reduce off-ramp queuing is not known.

Therefore, as the County cannot guarantee recommended improvements at the Arena Boulevard/El Centro Road and Arena Boulevard/East Commerce Way intersections listed under Mitigation Measure C-TR-2 that would improve off-ramp queues at the I-5/Arena Boulevard interchange and as potential surface street improvements to improve off-ramp queues at the I-5/Arena Boulevard and I-5/Garden Highway interchanges are not feasible, the cumulative impact related to freeway off-ramp queuing would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure C-TR-2: The project applicant shall construct or the following improvements:
• At the Arena Boulevard/El Centro Road intersection, construct second westbound left-turn lane, second southbound through lane, restripe 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-69 PLNP2018-00284
eastbound right-turn lane to a shared through/right, and lengthen northbound right-turn lane to 400 feet with right-turn overlap arrow. • At the Arena Boulevard/East Commerce Way intersection, pay fair share cost of installing an eastbound right-turn overlap phase.

Payment for improvements would be made to the City of Sacramento who would be responsible for making the improvements.

FREEWAY ON-RAMP RAMP METER QUEUES
The TIA (see Appendix TR-1) also found that the proposed UWSP would contribute substantially to cumulative queuing impacts at several on-ramp ramp meter locations due to traffic added to study area roadways by cumulative projects. Most freeway ramp meter on-ramp locations would continue to have sufficient storage for queues under cumulative conditions; however, the proposed UWSP would cause the maximum queue at the metered on-ramps at the I-5 southbound diagonal on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue (PM peak hour), I-5 southbound on-ramp at Del Paso Road (AM peak hour), and I-5 southbound loop on-ramp at Garden Highway (AM peak hour) to exceed their available storage. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed UWSP to this cumulative impact would be considered potentially significant.

To address the potentially significant cumulative on-ramp queuing impacts identified above, Mitigation Measure C-TR-3 is proposed, which would require that the project applicant pay its proportionate share percentage toward improvements at the interchanges discussed above. 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 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 improvements, it would not assure that the improvements would be constructed because the remaining fair share funding sources are not known at this time. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the City of Sacramento or Caltrans will approve construction of said improvements. Therefore, the cumulative impact with respect to freeway on-ramp ramp meter queues exceeding available capacity would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure C-TR-3: The project applicant shall pay its proportionate fair share percentage toward improvements at the I-5 SB diagonal on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue, I-5 SB loop on-ramp at Garden Highway, and I-5 SB diagonal on-ramp at Del Paso Road. Queuing could be reduced at each on-ramp by widening it to include a second metered lane (either general purpose or carpool).

EMERGENCY ACCESS
Like the proposed UWSP, cumulative development would be required to comply with applicable fire code requirements for emergency evacuation, including proper emergency exits for residents, visitors, and employees. Further, individual buildings proposed within each cumulative project would be subject to the review and approval of 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-70 PLNP2018-00284
access and circulation plans by the fire department with jurisdiction over the project site.

Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative effects related to tribal cultural resources are the portions of the Central Valley identified as the territory of the local Native American communities.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION
Cumulative development in portions of the Central Valley identified as the territory of the local Native American communities could result in significant cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources as several confidential tribal cultural resources locations, including ethnographic landscapes and hundreds of pre-contact Native American archaeological resources, have been identified throughout the County according to the Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File and North Central Information Center database, respectively. Future development projects in unincorporated and incorporated portions of Sacramento County as well as in neighboring Placer and Sutter counties (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) 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 its impacts on sensitive tribal cultural resources in consultation with culturally-affiliated Native American tribes, such that the cumulative impact would be reduced, though not eliminated. 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 tribal cultural resources would result in a significant cumulative impact.

As discussed in Chapter 19, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Draft EIR, pre-contact Native American archaeological resources, some with potential human remains, as well as potential archaeological resources, are present within the UWSP area, all of which could be considered tribal cultural resources. Implementation of the proposed UWSP could negatively affect these tribal cultural resources, and while Mitigation Measures TRC-1 and TRC-2 along with Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and 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 resources, and the resource may need to be altered or 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 tribal cultural resources, and this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-71 PLNP2018-00284

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative effects related to utilities and service systems varies depending on the specific utility and service system being analyzed. To begin, as the City of Sacramento provides water service not only to projects in the City but also to development in unincorporated portions of North Natomas through agreements with the County, the geographic context for water supply, treatment, and distribution includes the water service area for the City of Sacramento, which includes most of the land within the city limits as well as small pockets of land adjacent to the city limits. Next, the geographic context for wastewater treatment, collection and conveyance includes the service area for the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer), which includes the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Sacramento, and the unincorporated communities of Courtland, Locke, and Walnut Grove. Furthermore, the geographic context for storm drainage includes the area covered by the North Natomas Drainage Basin, which covers approximately 55,000 acres in northwestern Sacramento County and southeast Sutter County, while the geographic context for solid waste includes unincorporated and incorporated portions of Sacramento County that utilize the Kiefer Landfill. Finally, the geographic context for energy and telecommunications facilities storm drainage includes the service area covered by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), and the telecommunications providers.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

INFRASTRUCTURE
As with the proposed UWSP, cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1) would require the construction of necessary infrastructure (water and wastewater lines, storm drain facilities, electrical, natural gas, telecommunications infrastructure, etc.). As discussed in Chapter 20, Utilities, of this Draft EIR, while most infrastructure needed to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP would be limited to the UWSP area, a 69 kV transmission line would need to be extended from the New Natomas Pump Station, located approximately

1.6 miles to the east, to the project site The environmental impacts associated with the construction of infrastructure within the UWSP area have been addressed throughout this Draft EIR and project specific mitigation has been identified to reduce constructionrelated potential significant impacts to the maximum extent feasible. No specific environmental impacts related to the construction and installation of infrastructure have been identified. With respect to off-site improvements, as the 69 kV transmission line would be extended west along the northern edge of I-80, which has been previously disturbed, the construction of the transmission line would not result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed UWSP would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with construction of utility infrastructure, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant. 22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-72 PLNP2018-00284
See Water below for a discussion of the need for expanded or new water treatment facilities. See Wastewater below for a discussion of the need for expanded or new wastewater treatment facilities.

WATER
The proposed UWSP, in combination with future growth within the water service area of the City of Sacramento, which includes projects in the City of Sacramento and several projects in North Natomas such as the proposed Airport South Industrial Park project and the approved Metro Air Park and Northlake specific plans in North Natomas (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), would result in a net increase in demand for potable water supply. As shown in Table CI-7, cumulative development within the City’s water service area would demand at least 24,809 AFY. As discussed in Chapter 20, Utilities, of this Draft EIR, the City’s surplus water supply is projected to range from 224,768 AFY in 2025 to 216,258 AFY in 2045 during normal, single dry year and over multiple-dry-years and droughts up to five years. Thus, the City of Sacramento would have adequate planned water supply to serve development within the City’s water service area, including the proposed UWSP, during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.

Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Table CI-7: Cumulative Water Demand within the City of Sacramento’s Service Area Million Gallons per
Day
Acre-feet per
Yeat
City of Sacramento
Aspen 1/New Brighton -- --
Innovation Park/CNU Medical Center Campus 0.9 1,051
Northlake (previously known as Greenbriar) 2.4 2,680
Downtown/Central City Specific Plan 2.5 2,770
Panhandle 1.7 1,941
West Broadway Specific Plan 0.4 454
Railyards Specific Plan 2.0 2,278
River District Specific Plan 0.2 215
Delta Shores MDR-6 & MDR-7 Project -- --
Airport South Industrial Project 0.3 314
Commerce Station P06-018 -- --
Sacramento County
Sacramento International Airport
Metro Airpark 11.7 13,106
WattEV
Total 22.1 24,809
SOURCE: ESA 2024
22 - Cumulative Impacts
Upper Westside Specific Plan 22-73 PLNP2018-00284
Furthermore, the proposed UWSP, in combination with future growth within the water service area of the City of Sacramento (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), would also result in a net increase in demand for water treatment at the City’s E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant and Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant. As shown in Table CI-7, cumulative development within the City’s water service area would require the treatment of at least 22.1 mgd of water. As discussed in Chapter 20, Utilities, of this Draft EIR, both water treatment plants have a combined excess capacity of 85 mgd. As a result, it is expected that this excess capacity would be sufficient to accommodate future development in the City water service area, including the proposed UWSP, through 2045. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

WASTEWATER
The proposed UWSP, in combination with future growth within the service area of SacSewer, which includes some of the projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), would result in a net increase in the amount of wastewater treated by the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWWTP), which is owned and operated by Regional San. As discussed in Chapter 20, Utilities, of this Draft EIR, the SRWWTP has a current excess capacity of up to 46 mgd. 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, it is expected that remaining treatment capacity would be sufficient for at least 40 more years. Therefore, considering these conditions, enough treatment capacity exists to serve future growth within the service area of SacSewer, including the proposed UWSP, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

SOLID WASTE
The proposed UWSP, in combination with future growth within Sacramento County, which includes some of the projects in the vicinity of the UWSP area (see Table CI-1 and Plate CI-1), would result in a net increase in the amount of solid waste disposed of at the Kiefer Landfill. As discussed in Chapter 20, Utilities, of this Draft EIR, the Kiefer Landfill presently has approximately 75 million cubic yards of available capacity and is expected to be operational until 2098. As a result, it is expected that remaining disposal capacity would be sufficient to accommodate future development in Sacramento County for the foreseeable future. In addition, all cumulative projects would also be subject to the same local and state management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, considering the amount of available disposal capacity and required compliance with state and local solid waste standards, enough disposal capacity exists to serve future growth within Sacramento County, including the proposed UWSP, and this cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-1 PLNP2018-00284
23 GROWTH INDUCEMENT AND URBAN DECAY

GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS
As stated in Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must discuss ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Also, the EIR must discuss the characteristics of the project that could encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. Growth can be induced in several ways, such as through the elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity in the region, or through the establishment of policies or other precedents that directly or indirectly encourage additional growth.

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential growth-inducing effects on the city of Sacramento and the region due to the implementation of the proposed UWSP.

Additional analysis of the growth-inducing effects from the proposed UWSP is provided in Chapter 14, Land Use, and Chapter 16, Population and Housing.

In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if the project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., establishes an essential public service; provides new physical or transportation access to an area; results in a change in zoning or approval of a general plan amendment), or if economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion). These circumstances are described further below.  Elimination of Obstacles to Growth: The extent to which a proposed project removes infrastructure limitations, provides infrastructure capacity, or removes regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval.
 Economic Effects: The extent to which a proposed project could cause increased activity in the local or regional economy. Economic effects can include such effects as the multiplier effect. A multiplier is an economic term used to describe interrelationships among various sectors of the economy. The multiplier effect provides a quantitative description of the direct employment effect of a project, as well as indirect and induced employment growth. The multiplier effect acknowledges that the on-site employment and population growth of each project is not the complete picture of growth caused by the project.

ELIMINATION OF OBSTACLES TO GROWTH
The elimination of physical obstacles to growth is considered a growth-inducing effect and one way a project may remove an impediment to growth would be through establishment of an essential public service. The proposed UWSP would result in the elimination of an obstacle to growth by extending the Urban Services Boundary and 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-2 PLNP2018-00284
Urban Policy Area to serve the 1,532-acre Development Area (see Plate PD-5 in Chapter 2, Project Description), both of which currently border the UWSP area to the north and east. However, as discussed in Chapter 14, Land Use, the proposed UWSP is consistent with Sacramento County General Plan Policy LU-120, which is intended to reduce impacts of many different types – such as growth inducement, unacceptable operating conditions on roadways, poor air quality, and lack of appropriate infrastructure – by establishing design criteria for all amendments to the Urban Policy Area. Furthermore, as the Urban Services Boundary and Urban Policy Area would not be extended to include the adjacent 534-acre Ag Buffer, the pressure to develop properties to the west of the development area would be reduced as any future development in this area would need to show consistency with General Plan Policy LU-120 and seek discretionary approval from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.

ECONOMIC EFFECTS
The commercial and office uses that would be developed under the proposed UWSP could result in an estimated 8,900 new jobs (EPS 2022). In addition to the employment growth generated by the proposed UWSP, additional local employment could be generated through what is commonly referred to as the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect refers to the secondary economic effects caused by spending from projectgenerated residents and employees. The multiplier effect tends to be greater in regions with larger diverse economies, given a decrease in the requirement to import goods and services from outside the region, as compared to the effects of spending in smaller economies where goods and services must be imported from elsewhere.

Two different types of additional employment are tracked through the multiplier effect.

Indirect employment includes the additional jobs generated through residents’ expenditure patterns and direct employment associated with the proposed UWSP. For example, future residents and employees in the UWSP area would spend money in the local economy, and the expenditure of that money would result in the creation of additional jobs. Indirect jobs tend to be relatively close to places of employment and residences.

The multiplier effect also calculates induced employment. Induced employment follows the economic effect of employment beyond the expenditures of employees in the project area to include jobs created by the stream of goods and services necessary to construct projects and support businesses in the UWSP area. For example, when a manufacturer buys or sells products, the employment associated with those inputs or outputs is considered induced employment. As an additional example, when an employee who works in a non-residential space developed under the proposed UWSP goes out to lunch, the person who serves the employee lunch holds a job that was indirectly caused by the proposed UWSP. When that server then goes out and spends money in the economy, the jobs generated by this third-tier effect are considered induced.

The multiplier effect also considers the secondary effect of employee expenditures.

Thus, it includes the economic effect of the dollars spent by those employees who 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-3 PLNP2018-00284
purchase goods and services in support of the jobs created by implementation of the proposed UWSP.

Increased employment in the UWSP area would support increased purchases of supplies, equipment, and services from businesses in Sacramento and nearby cities and from businesses located elsewhere in the region and beyond the Sacramento area.

The increased spending also would initiate subsequent rounds of additional business spending by those and other businesses. Increased employment in the UWSP area would provide increased wage and salary incomes that would support additional household spending for a wide variety of goods and services.

Increased future employment generated by resident and employee spending ultimately results in physical development of space to accommodate those employees. The characteristics of this physical space and its specific location determine the type and magnitude of environmental impacts of this additional economic activity. Although the economic effect can be predicted, the actual environmental consequences of this type of economic growth are too speculative to predict or evaluate because they can be spread throughout the Sacramento region and beyond. Some of the increased employee spending would occur near the UWSP area and more of it would occur near employees’ places of residence, many of which would be in Sacramento and nearby cities, and elsewhere in the Sacramento region. The additional employee spending would support business activity and jobs and initiate subsequent rounds of additional spending.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF INDUCED GROWTH
While economic and employment growth in the project area is the intended consequence of the proposed plan, growth induced directly and indirectly by the proposed UWSP could also affect the greater Sacramento region. Potential effects caused by induced growth in the region could include increased traffic congestion; increased air pollutant emissions; loss of agricultural land and open space; loss of habitat and associated flora and fauna; increased demand on public utilities and services, such as fire and police protection, water, recycled water, wastewater, solid waste, energy, and natural gas.

URBAN DECAY
The analysis of urban decay in this chapter is based on the Upper Westside Specific Plan Urban Decay Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), for the proposed UWSP, included in this EIR in Appendix UD-1. The analysis is based on an estimated 30-year buildout period, commencing in 2022 and ending in 2052.1 The

1 Two years have passed since the Urban Decay Analysis was prepared. According to EPS, updating the study period from 2024 to 2054 would not significantly change the key findings found in the analysis (Lapin 2024).
23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-4 PLNP2018-00284
analysis includes an examination of Phase 1 of the proposed UWSP,2 which comprises a 20-year buildout.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS
Under CEQA, economic or social effects are not considered significant effects on the environment. Rather, these effects are considered in the context of their potential linkage or indirect connections between a project and physical environmental effects.

More specifically, the direction for treatment of economic and social effects is stated in Section 15131(a) of the CEQA Guidelines:

Economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. An EIR may trace a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic or social changes. The intermediate economic or social changes need not be analyzed in any detail greater than necessary to trace the chain of cause and effect. The focus of the analysis shall be on physical changes.

A social or economic change also may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).

Anticipated economic or social effects of a project may be used in the determination of the significance of physical changes caused by the project (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(e), 15131(b)). As required by CEQA, the focus of the analysis in this EIR is on the physical changes that would result from the approval and implementation of the proposed UWSP. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, this EIR includes consideration of potential adverse physical environmental effects that could be the result of socioeconomic and/or economic changes that could be triggered by the proposed plan, and as appropriate considers social and economic factors that may affect the significance of a physical effect. Chapter 16, Population and Housing, considers socio-economic effects related to the potential of the proposed UWSP to result in displacement of housing or residents. The discussion below focuses on the socio-economic issue of urban decay.

TERMINOLOGY
As used in CEQA, the term “urban decay” was introduced by the California Court of Appeal in the case entitled Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (Bakersfield Citizens). In that decision, the court required the City of Bakersfield to revise and recirculate two EIRs for two proposed Wal-Mart stores because the documents both failed to address the possible indirect physical effects flowing from the direct economic effects of the two projects. Although the court did not expressly define urban decay, the court seemed to equate the concept with a

2 Phase 1 consists of 9,356 dwelling units and approximately 2.0 million square feet of retail and other non-residential space.
23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-5 PLNP2018-00284
“chain reaction of store closures and long-term vacancies, ultimately destroying existing neighborhoods and leaving decaying shells in their wake.”3 For the purposes of this assessment and consistent with the above-described court decision, urban decay is not simply a condition in which buildings become vacant as businesses compete with each other in the normal course of the market-based economy, nor is it a condition where a building may be vacated by one business or use and reused by a different business or for alternative purposes. Rather, under CEQA and for the purposes of analysis in this EIR, urban decay is defined as a physical deterioration of properties or structures that is so prevalent, substantial, and lasting for a significant period of time, that it impairs the proper use of the properties and structures, and the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. Physical deterioration includes abnormally high business vacancies, abandoned buildings, boarded doors and windows, long-term unauthorized use of the properties and parking lots, extensive or offensive graffiti painted on buildings, dumping of refuse or overturned dumpsters on properties, dead trees and shrubbery, and uncontrolled weed growth.

Prolonged business vacancies that could result in urban decay generally result from a lack of sufficient demand for commercial goods or services in a market area. Under these conditions, there is insufficient demand for the provision of goods or services to support the existing inventory of developed commercial space in a market area. In any market area, a small percentage of commercial vacancy is common and is considered a natural part of the market economy. In most market areas, the vacant or partially occupied commercial spaces are regularly maintained, as vacancies are assumed to be temporary and building owners have an economic incentive to maintain their property to make it more attractive for future tenants. Urban decay conditions can potentially occur in market areas where a large, persistent deficit in the demand for commercial services exists, relative to the available inventory of commercial space.

EXISTING RETAIL CONDITIONS

MARKET AREA DESCRIPTION
A retail market area represents the area surrounding proposed retail uses from which the majority of customer patronage is expected to be drawn. A retail market area is influenced by a variety of factors, including the location and density of the targeted residential population, the location of key competitors, the relative distance or travel time for each of the above, geographic and psychological barriers, and existing commute and shopping patterns. Retail establishments outside a given retail market area are not considered to be at risk of urban decay from development in the retail market area based on a nominal set of overlapping supply and demand dynamics.4 The

3 City of Bakersfield. 2004. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184. Page 1204.
4 More information regarding the rationale for excluding the impacts to retail outlets adjacent but outside of the Market Area defined for the proposed plan is provided in Appendix UD-1. 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-6 PLNP2018-00284
defined Market Area for this analysis corresponds with Sacramento Area Council of Government Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), located in the following subareas:5  North Natomas (County);
 NW Vision Area;
 South Natomas; and
 West Sacramento (Yolo County)
The boundaries of the Market Area were defined based on an evaluation of existing population density within TAZ boundaries surrounding the UWSP area, a maximum of 10-minute drive times to and from the center of the UWSP area during high traffic times to the boundaries, existing retail centers, the physical barrier of the Sacramento River, and perceived barriers of major highways including Interstate 5 and Interstate 80.6

RETAIL MARKET CONDITIONS IN MARKET AREA

RETAIL MARKET INVENTORY
As of the end of 2021, the Market Area had an estimated 5.1 million square feet of retail space. The northern portion of the Project Market Area is located in the North Natomas area of the County and contains the largest concentration of retail space. This segment of the Project Market Area includes a sizable mixture of neighborhood-, community-, and regional-serving retail shopping centers with major shopping destinations such as the Promenade at Sacramento Gateway, Natomas Marketplace, Park Place II regional centers, Park Place I, Natomas Town Center, and Market West Shopping Center community centers.7 Most of these centers are concentrated along Del Paso Road, Truxel Boulevard, and Arena Boulevard and were built between 14 and 19 years ago, except for Natomas Marketplace, which was built in 1997, about 22 years ago. Many of the neighborhood-oriented shopping centers are located along Northgate Boulevard and West El Camino Avenue, and tend to be older, built in the 1980s.

The southern portion of the Market Area, comprising the northern portion of the City of West Sacramento in southeast Yolo County, also contains a smaller mixture of neighborhood-, community-, and regional-serving retail shopping centers with major shopping destinations such as the Riverpoint Marketplace and West Capitol Plaza.

There are several neighborhood-serving shopping centers concentrated on W. Capitol

5 A TAZ is a unit of geography used in transportation planning models. 6 A 10-minute drive time is reflective of the estimated time it would take to drive within the typical trade area milage size defined by the International Council of Shopping Centers specific to the type of retail within the Project. Neighborhood-serving retail space has a typical trade area boundary of about 3 miles and the community commercial has a typical trade area of approximately 3 to 6 miles. 7 With respect to new retail space constructed in the Market Area between 2022 and 2024, although the specific tenants in the retail space recently constructed in the Market Area were not identified in the Urban Decay Analysis, EPS concludes it is reasonable to assume the recent retail space constructed in the Market Area is accounted for in the cumulative portion of the analysis (Lapin 2024). 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-7 PLNP2018-00284
Avenue, Jefferson Boulevard, and Harbor Boulevard on the southern edge of the defined Market Area.

In addition to shopping center retail, the Market Area includes approximately 1.1 million square feet of freestanding retail buildings. The majority of this square footage comprises food and beverage tenants, gas stations, and service retail such as daycare centers and car rental businesses. Two of the larger spaces include a former Fry’s Electronics, which is in the process of being converted into an industrial park, and a California Family Fitness.

RETAIL MARKET PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
The Market Area’s current estimated retail supply of about 5.1 million leasable square feet is dominated by existing inventory located in Sacramento County (70 percent), with the remaining 30 percent located in the West Sacramento (Yolo County) portion of the Market Area. The Market Area contains about 1.4 million square feet of neighborhoodserving retail, 630,900 square feet of community serving retail, 2.0 million square feet of regional-serving retail, and 1.1 million square feet of freestanding retail. While the Park Place I and II shopping centers are not physically in the Market Area, they are included as part of the Market Area since they land just outside of the boundary.

Vacancy rates have experienced declines since 2010 in the Market Area, the City, and County with a sharp decline in the Market Area between 2012 to 2013 from 9.2 percent down to 5.5 percent, and current rates reflect very little vacancy around 3.4 percent compared to 7 percent within the City and 6.5 percent within the County. A vacancy rate of 3.4 percent reveals a tight market with very little room for movement for existing and new businesses indicating the potential for additional supply. The retail market in the Market Area is relatively healthy as evidenced by market performance indicators noted above, corroborated by information obtained from real estate broker reports, and examples of re-tenanting.

The Market Area has had positive net absorption over the past 3 years and a total positive net absorption of more than 337,000 square feet since 2010 with only 3 years of negative net absorption, all under 65,000 square feet. Average annual lease rates for the Market Area have fluctuated from a low of $17.00 per square foot up to $21.88 per square foot (over the past 11 years) and fell to around $19.89 per square foot for 2021.

Lease rates for the City and County have fluctuated as well and fall a little more than $2.00 less per square foot than in the Market Area, achieving rates around $17.90 and $17.40 in 2021.

Overall, the Market Area also appears to maintain a healthy, but tight retail market with only two available spaces comprising more than 20,000 square feet, including a former 34,860-squarefoot Safeway in West Capitol Plaza (vacant since 2018) and a 28,700- square-foot former Big Lots (vacant since 2014) in the Northgate Shopping Center. The re-tenanting of these vacant spaces is anticipated as the Market Area has demonstrated positive net absorption over the past 3 years, as area retail continues to evolve with the changing market.
23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-8 PLNP2018-00284
The consistent low vacancy rates, positive net absorption, and steady lease rates in the Market Area indicate a healthy retail market with the ability to sustain new retail growth commensurate with new household growth and additional sources of demand, such as new employees.

MARKET ANALYSIS

PROJECTED INCREMENTAL NEW RETAIL DEMAND
The proposed UWSP is estimated to capture newly created demand from residential growth in the Market Area. Two components of residential growth in the Market Area are estimated separately: Households within the UWSP area and households outside of the UWSP area. In addition, the proposed UWSP will generate new retail demand from new employees within the UWSP area. These components of net new demand are described in further detail below.

PROJECT-GENERATED DEMAND

DEMAND FROM OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS
An estimated 8,830 new occupied households within the UWSP area will generate demand for retail development within the USWP area itself, as well as in and outside the Market Area. Please note that occupied housing units are assumed to be a proxy for households. To estimate retail spending from new households within the UWSP area, it was estimated that average household income by unit type was based on the estimated assessed value of the unit. The analysis estimated total annual spending by occupied households within the UWSP area at $204.4 million.

It is estimated that 80 percent of project household expenditures will occur inside the Market Area ($163.5 million). Of the $163.5 million spent in the Market Area, a portion of project household spending is estimated to be captured by retail outlets in the UWSP area. It is estimated that project households will spend $104.6 million within retail outlets in the UWSP area, representing 64 percent of spending in the Market Area and 51 percent of total project household spending on all retail goods and services (e.g., spending at any retail outlet in or outside of the Market Area including e-commerce outlets).

DEMAND FROM PROJECT EMPLOYEES
The non-residential development included in the proposed UWSP is anticipated to generate jobs for approximately 6,802 office employees and 2,110 other employees at buildout. To avoid overcounting employees who also may reside in the UWSP area, the analysis assumed that nonresident employees comprise 85 percent of the UWSP area employee population. Based on a 48-week per year work schedule and average weekly spending of $153 per office employee, derived from data on office-worker retail spending from the International Council of Shopping Centers, office employees within the UWSP area will generate an estimated $34.0 million in demand for retail space at buildout of the proposed UWSP.
23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-9 PLNP2018-00284
Given the size of the Market Area, the location of competitive retail, and the amount of planned retail in the UWSP area, it is estimated that UWSP employees likely will stay close to their place of employment for their weekly spending. The Market Area is anticipated to capture 80 percent of UWSP office employee demand for retail space, and UWSP retail space will capture a portion of this office employee demand for retail space in the Market Area. It is estimated that the proposed UWSP will capture $30.5 million of project-generated new office employee spending, equating to approximately 90 percent of anticipated spending captured in the Market Area and 72 percent of total office employee spending.

Spending by employees at the other nonresidential land uses in the UWSP area, including retail, hotel, and institutional spending, is estimated to generate an estimated $5.2 million in demand for retail space at buildout of the proposed UWSP. Similar to UWSP office employees, it is estimated that UWSP other nonresidential employees will likely stay close to their place of employment for their weekly spending. It is estimated that the Market Area will capture 80 percent of UWSP other nonresidential employee spending, and UWSP retail will capture a portion of that employee spending. After applying the capture rates by category, the proposed UWSP is estimated to capture $3.8 million of project-generated new other nonresidential employee spending, equating to approximately 90 percent of spending captured in the Market Area and 72 percent of total employee spending.

SUMMARY OF PROJECT -GENERATED RETAIL DEMAND
The total project-generated demand for retail within the UWSP area at buildout is $139.0 million. This amount of retail spending is based on estimated demand from new project households and employees. Project-generated demand in the remainder of the Market Area is $58.5 million. The total project-generated demand for retail space in the Market Area (including the proposed UWSP) is estimated to be $197.4 million.

EXISTING RETAIL DEMAND

EXISTING HOUSEHOLD SPENDING IN THE MARKET AREA
In addition to incremental demand from households within the UWSP area, nonresidential development included in the proposed UWSP can capture demand from existing household spending within the Market Area. On average, Market Area households have a household income of approximately $82,000 and spend about 24 percent of their income on retail goods and services (approximately $19,600 per year). The total annual retail spending estimate from existing Market Area households is $444.4 million.

PROJECT CAPTURE OF MARKET AREA DEMAND (EXCLUDING PROJECT-BASED SOURCES) The proposed UWSP is estimated to be built out over a 30-year time frame, from 2022 to 2052. During this time, the Market Area will experience residential growth outside of the UWSP area. It is estimated that there will be approximately 22,700 new households in the Market Area, excluding new households proposed in the UWSP area, through 2052. Using average estimated Market Area spending per household of approximately 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-10 PLNP2018-00284
$19,600, new households in the Market Area are estimated to add $444.4 million in spending power by 2052. Existing and new retail development in the Market Area is estimated to capture 80 percent of incremental new Market Area household spending for a total of $355.6 million at buildout. Of the $355.5 million spent in the Market Area, a portion of Market Area household spending is estimated to be captured by retail outlets in the UWSP area.

Applying a 37 percent capture rate, which is the average of the estimated capture rates by retail category, the total estimated new Market Area household spending captured by the proposed UWSP is $130.0 million, or approximately 29 percent of new Market Area household spending (excluding households within the UWSP area).

COMPETITIVE RETAIL SUPPLY

EXISTING COMPETITIVE RETAIL SUPPLY
The Market Area has a current estimated retail supply of nearly 5.2 million leasable square feet that includes approximately 1.4 million square feet of neighborhood-serving retail, 879,000 square feet of community-serving retail, 2.0 million square feet of regional-serving retail, and 1.1 million square feet of freestanding retail. Total retail sales in the Market Area are estimated at approximately $1.4 billion.

PROJECTED PROJECT SALES
The proposed UWSP as planned is anticipated to comprise approximately 338,900 occupied retail square feet in Phase 1 and a remaining 179,300 occupied retail square feet at buildout for a total of 518,200 square feet of occupied retail space. Sales for the proposed UWSP were estimated by assigning each retail shopping center type an estimated sales-per-square-foot figure in 2022 dollars. The total projected sales within the UWSP area at buildout are approximately $263.3 million. These projected sales are anticipated to increase existing Market Area retail sales by approximately 18 percent.

ESTIMATED PIPELINE SUPPLY
Several competitive projects have been identified in the Market Area. These include Northlake located along the north boundary of the Market Area near the Highway 99- Interstate 5 Interchange; Northpointe located southwest of Northlake below Interstate 5; Innovation Park and California Northstate University (CNU) Campus located east of the UWSP area on the other side of Interstate 5; and 681 W. Capitol Ave and Raley’s Landing located south of the UWSP area and Interstate 80 in West Sacramento.

Projects located outside of the Market Area that reflect the continued expansion of the City’s North Natomas Community Planning Area include Metro Air Park, Grandpark, the Panhandle, Town Center East, and North Natomas Square, as well as Sutter Pointe located within Sutter County just north of the Sacramento County boundary. Many approved and proposed projects contain broad project descriptions that provide a gross amount of commercial or retail acreage.

The commercial retail supply pipeline is projected to total almost 912,000 square feet of retail in the Market Area, excluding proposed retail development in the UWSP area. 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-11 PLNP2018-00284
This amount of retail space, which includes 472,200 square feet of community retail and 440,000 square feet of neighborhood retail, would increase the existing retail supply in the Market Area (5.2 million square feet) by approximately 18 percent. It is important to note that some of these projects have not been approved or have speculative development timelines and the buildout of all proposed acreage will be dependent on future market conditions. It is assumed that the projected square footage of the planned retail in Northlake, Innovation Park & CNU Medical Campus, Raley’s Landing, and 681 West Capitol will be fully developed by 2052 and that approximately 50 percent of the North Pointe project will be developed as this is a newly proposed project.

With market adjustment factors for other sources of demand that may affect the market area, the total proposed retail supply in the Market Area estimated to be absorbed by 2052 is 638,800 square feet—or an increase of about 13 percent in occupied retail space—with 355,100 square feet of community retail and 283,700 square feet of neighborhood retail.

PIPELINE SALES
The total projected sales for cumulative retail projects in the Market Area, excluding the proposed UWSP, are approximately $273.2 million. These projected sales, excluding the proposed UWSP, are anticipated to increase existing Market Area retail sales by approximately 17 percent.

URBAN DECAY IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSED RETAIL

ESTIMATED PROJECT-SPECIFIC RETAIL IMPACTS
As described previously, the proposed UWSP is estimated to add more than 8,800 households (roughly 24,200 residents) from now until the anticipated buildout of the Project (2022 through 2052). This household growth, as well as new project employment, will generate demand for retail space both in and outside the UWSP area and larger project Market Area. The proposed UWSP is anticipated to add approximately 541,200 occupied building square feet of retail space at buildout, comprising community- and highway-serving retail.

The proposed additional occupied space in the UWSP area will contribute approximately $170.0 million in annual retail sales to the Market Area for Phase 1 and $263.3 million at buildout. Estimated retail sales associated with the proposed UWSP area represent an approximate 12 percent increase over the existing normalized supply for Phase 1, increased to 18 percent at buildout, measured in terms of sales. Of projected sales in the UWSP area, approximately $127.4 million (75 percent of UWSP retail sales) in Phase 1 and $139.0 million (53 percent of UWSP retail sales) at buildout represent the proposed UWSP’s estimated capture of the new Project development spending (from new households and employees within the UWSP area).

The remaining project sales that will need to be captured by external sources of demand outside of the UWSP area are $42.2 million in Phase 1 and $124.3 million at buildout. The Market Area is estimated to capture $61.4 million in Phase 1, and 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-12 PLNP2018-00284
$58.5 million at buildout, of new project household spending, excluding the spending captured within the UWSP area itself.

There is an estimated surplus of demand from project households and new Market Area households of $19.1 million (1.3 percent of current Market Area sales) for Phase 1, stemming from the projected total buildout of residential units within the UWSP area during Phase 1. The addition of the remainder of the nonresidential development at buildout creates an estimated deficit of about $65.8 million in sales (4.6 percent of current Market Area sales) that will need to be captured from households and other sources of demand outside of the Market Area. The remaining $65.8 million of total retail sales generated by the UWSP area would be attributable to a shift of sales from existing retail establishments in the Market Area.

While the proposed UWSP would capture most of the incremental new demand, it would also result in a nominal sales deficit of approximately 4.6 percent from existing establishments in the Market Area. Although there is no absolute rule, most establishments usually can withstand a short-term sales shift of 5 percent to 7 percent over a 3- to 5-year timeframe, as this typically represents a business cycle downturn. It is estimated that this nominal sales shift will decline as population and employment growth continues in the Market Area.

The estimated nominal shift from existing retail establishments is unlikely to create conditions in the Market Area conducive to urban decay, defined as the substantial and prolonged physical deterioration of properties or structures resulting in discontinued use and investment. This is because the degree to which the market would be affected does not exceed thresholds at which a healthy retail sector could recover. In other words, property owners and tenants are likely to have an economic incentive to maintain their businesses (and properties) with the expectation that longer-term market trends are likely to be favorable. As mentioned, it is estimated that the sales shift will continue to decline as demand in the Market Area continues to expand based on population growth.

ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE RETAIL IMPACTS
There is a moderate amount of retail space in future planned and proposed projects located in the Market Area. As described above, planned and proposed projects in the Market Area (excluding the UWSP area) are estimated to comprise 912,000 gross building square feet of retail space. Approximately 93 percent of this retail space (849,400 gross building square feet) is anticipated to be absorbed by 2052, concurrent with buildout of the proposed UWSP. Approximately 638,800 square feet of cumulative occupied space, excluding the proposed UWSP, is planned to serve Market Area households by 2052. Adding in the estimated occupied retail space in the proposed UWSP, the total net new occupied retail space planned by 2052 is 1.2 million square feet. The 1.2 million square feet of net new absorbed space, including the proposed UWSP, represents an approximate 23 percent increase relative to existing inventory in the Market Area. In comparison, total households in the Market Area, including the UWSP area, are estimated to increase by approximately 46 percent. 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-13 PLNP2018-00284
In addition to the UWSP retail sales estimate of approximately $263.3 million at buildout (2052), other future planned retail space in the Market Area will add approximately $285.3 million in annual retail sales to the Market Area, for total new retail sales of nearly $548.6 million annually, with the UWSP area accounting for 48 percent of the future pipeline supply at buildout in the Market Area. The Market Area is estimated to capture $327.0 million in Phase 1 (2042) and $355.5 million at buildout (2052) of net new Market Area spending, excluding net new UWSP household and employee spending. Retail within the UWSP area is estimated to capture project-generated household and employee spending of $186.0 million in Phase 1 and $197.4 million at buildout. Total estimated net new spending in the Market Area is estimated to be $513.0 million in Phase 1 and $553.0 million at buildout.

After accounting for the net new spending captured in the Market Area for the proposed UWSP and the other cumulative Market Area retail projects there is an estimated surplus of demand available to support existing Market Area retailers from households within the UWSP area and new Market Area households of $58.1 million (4.1 percent of current Market Area sales) for Phase 1 and $4.4 million at buildout (0.3 percent of current Market Area sales).

The small percentage of available spending for Market Area retailers after the absorption of the proposed UWSP and the cumulative projects indicates an appropriate amount of retail planned for future household growth. As the Sacramento Region, including the Market Area, continues to experience residential and employment growth, this percentage is expected to increase over time and indicates that development within the Market Area is unlikely to result in existing retail outlets becoming vacant or remaining vacant for a sustained period. Thus, the percentage of available spending is unlikely to lead to conditions conducive to urban decay. With the Market Area exhibiting strong market fundamentals, property owners and tenants will have an economic incentive to maintain their properties and businesses.

Further, with much of the existing supply of retail space in the Market Area being relatively new and well maintained, there is no evidence to suggest that the existing retail space would be susceptible to vacancies based on the sole introduction of new retail space elsewhere in the Market Area.

The character of new retail space planned in the Market Area, including the UWSP area, primarily is either community- (61 percent of total) or neighborhood-serving (25 percent of total), with the remainder identified as highway-serving (14 percent of total). New neighborhood-serving retail is developed to serve proximate new residents and will be financed and developed only when sufficient surrounding residential support exists, ensuring that impacts on existing retail outlets in the Market Area are minimal.

With the plentiful inventory of existing community- and regional-serving retail in the Market Area and adjacent jurisdictions and the larger Sacramento Region, new community- and regional-serving retail also will be financed and developed only if sufficient net new market support exists. This type of retail space will require differentiation from the existing community and regional retail outlets in and beyond the Market Area to successfully attract sufficient consumer demand. With the Market Area 23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-14 PLNP2018-00284
exhibiting strong market fundamentals, it is unlikely existing retail space would be susceptible to vacancies based on the sole introduction of identified new retail space elsewhere in the Market Area.

Further, it is important to note that the estimate of net new sales excludes other sources of demand for retail space in the Market Area, including demand from employment growth in the Market Area outside of the UWSP area, and demand from residents and pass-by trips originating from outside the Market Area. These additional sources of demand would bolster the estimated demand for existing retail businesses in the Market Area.

URBAN DECAY CONCLUSIONS
The prospects for occurrence of urban decay are unlikely based on development of the proposed UWSP or the cumulative development of the proposed UWSP and other planned retail projects in the Market Area, based on the estimated level of absorption.

This conclusion relies on current retail market conditions in the Market Area, findings regarding the capture of and demand for sales, the ability of landowners to adapt to changing market conditions, and jurisdictions’ ability to address any instances of physical deterioration stemming from discontinued use and investment. These factors are discussed further below.

EXISTING CONDITIONS OF RETAIL SECTOR
Based on market performance indicators and corroborated with information obtained from real estate broker reports, the retail market in the Market Area is relatively healthy, with a consistently expanding inventory and a 3.4 percent vacancy rate, as described above.

EXTENT OF DEMAND
Urban decay is more likely if a new competitive project results in a relatively large quantity of oversupplied retail space in the affected market area, which can contribute to increased vacancy. The current vacancy rate of 3.4 percent and the estimated remaining additional cumulative demand to support existing Market Area retailers of

0.3 percent indicate enough retail demand in the Market Area to support the cumulative projects, including the proposed UWSP and thus is not estimated to result in conditions conducive to urban decay.

REUSE OPTIONS OF AFFECTED PROPERTIES
Retail is a highly competitive and adaptable sector that is affected by a variety of evolving trends, including consumer preferences, demographics, travel patterns, technology, and innovation (e.g., e-commerce), as well as commodity production and distribution markets. Individual tenants or property owners will respond to these trends with varying degrees of success, depending on their entrepreneurial skills, local planning, business development efforts, and other factors. In the event vacancies occur in the market, either as a result of new retail space in the market or changing market dynamics, vacated spaces have the potential to be re-tenanted or repositioned with another specialization or use.
23 - Growth Inducement and Urban Decay
Upper Westside Specific Plan 23-15 PLNP2018-00284

REGULATORY CONTROLS
Commercial property owners ordinarily want to maintain their property in a state that will attract and retain tenants. In addition, most municipalities have regulations that require private property owners to maintain their properties to prevent signs of disrepair. In the Market Area, both cities and Sacramento County require property owners to maintain their properties by preventing poor property conditions and nuisances that may lead to blight. In addition, both the cities of Sacramento and West Sacramento have municipal ordinances to address the myriad physical manifestations related to urban decay.

For the reasons described above, it is not anticipated that implementation of the proposed UWSP would result in conditions that would contribute to or cause urban decay of retail commercial space in the Market Area.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-1 PLNP2018-00284
24 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all phases of a project—planning, acquisition, development, and operation—be considered when evaluating the project’s impact on the environment. Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) requires that the evaluation of significant impacts consider direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed project over the short term and long term.

Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires an EIR to identify all the following:
 Significant environmental effects of the proposed project.  Potentially feasible mitigation measures proposed to avoid or substantially lessen significant effects.
 Significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.
 Significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed project.
 Growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
 Alternatives to the proposed project.1
The Executive Summary and Chapters 4 through 22 of this Draft EIR provide a comprehensive presentation of the proposed UWSP’s environmental effects, potentially feasible mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding the level of significance of each impact both before and after mitigation.

Chapter 3, Alternatives, presents a comparative analysis of alternatives to the proposed UWSP.

Chapter 23, Growth Inducement and Urban Decay, presents the growth-inducing impacts of the proposed UWSP.

The other CEQA-required analyses described above are presented below.

1 CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2(a), 15126.2(c), 15126.2(d), 15126.2(e), 15126.4, and 15126.6. 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-2 PLNP2018-00284

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The environmental effects of the proposed UWSP on various aspects of the environment are discussed in detail in Chapters 4 through 22. Projectspecific and cumulative impacts that cannot be avoided if the project is approved as proposed are identified below.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

AESTHETICS

DEGRADATION OF EXISTING VIEWS AND VISUAL QUALITY
The proposed UWSP would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and thus result in a significant impact. 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, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OR QUALITY The proposed UWSP would have a substantial adverse effect on visual character and quality and thus result in a significant impact. 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, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

NEW SOURCES OF LIGHT
The proposed UWSP would introduce a substantial amount of new lighting to an area that is currently rural and contains minimal lighting, thereby adversely affecting nighttime views of the area and thus resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure AE-3 would ensure that outdoor lighting associated with development allowed under the proposed UWSP is designed 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, because the proposed project complies with applicable County policies and standards aimed to minimize adverse light and glare, and because of the scale of proposed development, no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce this impact. For this reason, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

CONVERSION OF FARMLAND TO NONAGRICULTURAL USES
Sacramento County General Plan Policy AG-5 specifies that projects resulting in the conversion of more than 50 acres of farmland shall be mitigated, except as specified by 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-3 PLNP2018-00284
the policy, based on a 1:1 ratio for the loss of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. Implementation of the UWSP would result in the conversion of approximately 1,372 acres of farmland subject to mitigation pursuant to General Plan Policy AG-5. This total includes conversion of approximately 940 acres of Prime Farmland, 429 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, three acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, and less than one acre of Unique Farmland. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1, which requires that the project proponent shall mitigate the loss of farmland that would result from implementation of the proposed UWSP at a 1:1 ratio consistent with 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.

Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

AIR QUALITY

CONFLICT WITH OR OBSTRUCT IMPLEMENTATION OF AN APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLAN

DURING PROJECT OPERATION
Operation of the proposed UWSP could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SMAQMD’s air quality planning efforts as emission levels during operation would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1b, which would require the preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan, which includes a list of all feasible measures that the proposed UWSP can implement to reduce operational emissions, emission levels would still exceed applicable thresholds of significance, and, therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS Operation of the proposed UWSP would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard as emission levels during operation would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. However, even with the preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan, which is required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1b, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE OF EXISTING OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

DURING OPERATION
Existing sensitive receptors located to the south of the UWSP area, across I-80, could be exposed to increased toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions associated with increased traffic on I-80 generated by the proposed UWSP. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1b, which is discussed above, Mitigation Measure AQ-4a, which 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, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4b, which would require the 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 health risk to 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-4 PLNP2018-00284
existing sensitive receptors. However, because installation of MERV 13 filters in the existing residences would require resident 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 who select to participate in the program, and it would be speculative to predict what the participation level would be. Therefore, the health risk to existing sensitive receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE OF FUTURE ON-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS DURING

OPERATION
Future sensitive receptors within the UWSP area occupying multi-family housing near I-80 could be exposed to increased TAC emissions associated with increased traffic on I-80 generated by the proposed UWSP. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1b and AQ-4a discussed above, and Mitigation Measure AQ-4c, which would require that a minimum MERV 13 filter be included in the HVAC systems for all sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools) within 1,000 feet of I-80, the health risk to future sensitive receptors would remain significant and unavoidable.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which requires that each individual project inventory and evaluate historical resources within the affected area, and if historical resources are discovered, develop an approach to avoid or minimize impacts, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid a historical resource, and the resource may need to be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of actions under the proposed UWSP are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measure, or an equally effective mitigation measure, would reduce the significant impact to a less-thansignificant level in all cases.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2a, which requires that each individual project inventory and evaluate archaeological resources within the affected area, and if archaeological resources are discovered, develop an approach to avoid or minimize impacts, and Mitigation Measure 2b, which discusses steps to take if unknown archaeological resources are discovered during construction or operation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid an archaeological resource, and the resource may need to be altered or destroyed. Also, because the extent and location of actions under the proposed UWSP are not known at 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-5 PLNP2018-00284
this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measures, or equally effective mitigation measures, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases.

HUMAN REMAINS
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to disturb human remains. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which discusses steps to take if unknown human remains are discovered during construction or operation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as in some instances it may not be feasible to avoid human remains and they may be altered or destroyed.

Also, because the extent and location of such actions are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measure, or an equally effective mitigation measure, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases.

NOISE

INCREASE IN TRAFFIC NOISE AT EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Traffic generated by development allowed under the proposed UWMP would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors, thus resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would require that speed reductions be considered along El Centro Road to determine feasibility and that a costbenefit analysis be performed to determine the feasibility of barriers along Arena Boulevard. However, the availability of feasible mitigation along many other offsite segments is limited and largely unavailable from a cost, engineering, or safety standpoint, may not fully mitigate noise impacts, or could require the consent of the impacted receptor. As such, the successful implementation of these measures cannot be guaranteed and thus this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

INCREASE IN STATIONARY NOISE FROM PLAN COMPONENTS AT EXISTING RECEPTORS

HIGH SCHOOL USE SPORTS FIELDS AND STADIUM NOISE
Noise generated by activities on sports fields and at the stadium associated with the proposed high school 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. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4b, which requires the project applicant to submit an acoustical study to the County Planning 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 consistent with the County’s General Plan requirements, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as 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. 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-6 PLNP2018-00284

PARK ACTIVITY NOISE
The noise generated by amplified music at an outdoor pavilion in the proposed

25.8-acre park proposed in the west-central portion of the UWSP area could exceed the County’s daytime noise standard at the nearest existing noise-sensitive (residential) uses. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-4c, which 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 systems and/or amplified music, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as 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.

INCREASE IN STATIONARY NOISE FROM PLAN COMPONENTS AT PROPOSED SENSITIVE

RECEPTORS

SCHOOL SPORTS STADIUM NOISE
The noise generated by activities at the stadium associated with the proposed high school could exceed the General Plan’s exterior and interior daytime standards at nearby proposed residential uses. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-7j, which 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, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as 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.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

INDUCE SUBSTANTIAL UNPLANNED POPULATION GROWTH
The UWSP area and the proposed UWSP were not anticipated for development in either the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Blueprint or the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. As a result, while the proposed project aligns with many of the principles contained in the Blueprint and the County’s smart growth policy LU-120, it is ultimately inconsistent with Sacramento Area Council of Governments plans, and thus would be considered to directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the region. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.
24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-7 PLNP2018-00284

TRANSPORTATION

CONFLICT WITH A PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ADDRESSING THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, such as the Sacramento County Active Transportation Plan. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-1a, 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, the carrying out of these improvements would require approvals from Caltrans and the City of Sacramento as these facilities are under their control, and thus Sacramento County cannot compel those agencies to approve and allow construction of the specified improvements. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

HAZARDS DUE TO DESIGN OR INCOMPATIBLE USES

FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUES EXCEED AVAILABLE STORAGE
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to result in safety hazards at the I-80 eastbound and westbound off-ramps at West El Camino Avenue (during one or both peak hours) as they would not have sufficient storage to accommodate maximum queue lengths despite the assumed expansion of the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange under the proposed UWSP. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-3a, 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, implementation of these improvements would require the cooperation Caltrans and the City of Sacramento, which has jurisdiction over these facilities, and thus Sacramento County does not have the authority to compel these jurisdictions to construct the needed improvements. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

FREEWAY ON-RAMP RAMP METER QUEUES EXCEED AVAILABLE STORAGE Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to result in safety hazards at 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 as they would not have sufficient storage for queues. Mitigation Measure TR-3b would require that 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, which would be held in a custodial account by the County. 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 would transfer the fair share payment to that appropriate agency. However, while this payment would represent the project’s fair share contribution toward the improvement, it would not assure that the improvement 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-8 PLNP2018-00284
would be constructed as the County does not have the authority to compel City of Sacramento or Caltrans to construct the needed improvements. As a result, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

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. 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.

In the past, vehicle collisions have occurred along both the West El Camino and El Centro Road frontages of the truck stop, and development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to increase the likely of collisions along these frontages and at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue Interchange until the current use is replaced by a different use. Mitigation Measures TR-3d and TR-3e 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 signalcontrolled movement, respectively. However, while mitigation to eliminate the 49er Travel Plaza driveway on West El Camino Avenue is feasible as it would occur completely within Sacramento County roadways under County control, mitigation to replace the free-flowing right-turn off-ramp movement with a signal-controlled movement is not as it would require approvals from Caltrans, which cannot be assured by the County. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Development allowed under the proposed UWSP has the potential to 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. However, even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a, CUL-2b and CUL-3, discussed above, and the implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which would require the inventory and evaluation of tribal cultural resources for each subsequent development project, and the implementation of TRC-2, which would require the repatriation of human remains in the event that remain-in-place measures are infeasible, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable as 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 actions under the proposed UWSP are not known at this time, it is not possible to conclude that the mitigation measures, or equally effective mitigation measures, would reduce the significant impact to a less-than-significant level in all cases. 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-9 PLNP2018-00284

CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS

AESTHETICS

DEGRADATION OF EXISTING VIEWS AND VISUAL QUALITY
Given the flat and rural nature of unincorporated portions of the North Natomas area, cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and thus result in a significant cumulative impact. 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 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.

SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER OR QUALITY Given the flat and rural nature of unincorporated portions of the North Natomas area, cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings and thus result in a significant cumulative impact. 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 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.

NEW SOURCES OF LIGHT
Given that unincorporated portions of the North Natomas area are rural in nature and are largely devoid of nighttime lighting, lighting associated with cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area would be substantial enough to adversely affect nighttime views in the area and thus result in a significant cumulative impact. 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 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. 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-10 PLNP2018-00284

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

CONVERSION OF FARMLAND TO NONAGRICULTURAL USES
Cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area would continue the trend of farmland being converted to nonagricultural use, and thus would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Implementation of the proposed UWSP would convert approximately 1,372 acres of farmland to nonagricultural uses. While implementation of Mitigation Measure AG-1 requires that the project proponent shall mitigate 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.

AIR QUALITY

LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND PRECURSORS As discussed above, operation of the proposed UWSP would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard as emission levels during operation would exceed applicable thresholds of significance. Even with the preparation of an Air Quality Management Plan, which is required by Mitigation Measure AQ-1b, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE OF EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS The aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future toxic air contaminant sources within the vicinity of the UWSP area, plus the contribution from the project, would result in potential health risks to existing receptors located to the south of the site, across I-80. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1b, AQ-4a, and AQ-4b, which are discussed above, the aggregate total of all past, present, and foreseeable future Toxic Air Contaminant sources, plus the contribution from the proposed UWSP, would still pose potential health risks to existing receptors located to the south of the site, across I-80, and thus the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

EXPOSURE OF FUTURE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS The two existing gas stations at the I-80/West El Camino Avenue interchange, along with traffic generated by the proposed UWSP traveling on I-80, would result in potential health risks to future receptors with the UWSP area occupying multi-family housing near the two gas stations and I-80. Even with the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ1b, AQ-4a, and AQ-4c, which are discussed above, potential health risks would remain, and thus the cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-11 PLNP2018-00284

CULTURAL RESOURCES

HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING HUMAN REMAINS Cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area could negatively affect known and unknown historical sites in the county, including destruction or alteration of historic buildings or structures. Furthermore, these projects could negatively affect known and unknown prehistorical sites, including the disruption of human remains. For these reasons, a significant cumulative impact with respect to cultural resources could occur.

Implementation of the proposed UWSP could also negatively affect cultural resources, and while Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4 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 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-thansignificant 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.

NOISE
EXCEEDANCE OF ESTABLISHED NOISE STANDARDS – TRAFFIC
Traffic generated by cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area along with development allowed under the proposed UWSP would generate enough noise to negatively affect sensitive receptors located along several roadways in the vicinity of the UWSP area and thus would result in a significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the contribution of the proposed UWMP to this impact was found to be cumulatively considerable along some of these roadways. As discussed above, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would require that speed reductions be considered along El Centro Road to determine feasibility and that a cost-benefit analysis be performed to determine the feasibility of barriers along Arena Boulevard. However, the availability of feasible mitigation along many other offsite segments is limited and largely unavailable from a cost, engineering, or safety standpoint, may not fully mitigate noise impacts, or could require the consent of the impacted receptor. As a result, like project level roadway noise impact, the cumulative impact with respect to cumulative roadway noise on existing roadways would remain significant and unavoidable.

POPULATION AND HOUSING

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 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-12 PLNP2018-00284
required to accommodate future populations and economic growth. 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. While the proposed UWS and subsequent development would be required to be consistent with applicable Sacramento County General Plan polices, the UWSP area and the proposed UWSP were not anticipated for development in either the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Blueprint or the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 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.

TRANSPORTATION

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. The proposed UWSP would be responsible for implementing Mitigation 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 remain significant and unavoidable.

HAZARDS DUE TO DESIGN OR INCOMPATIBLE USES

FREEWAY OFF-RAMP QUEUES
The proposed UWSP would contribute substantially to cumulative queuing impacts at both off-ramps at the I-5/Del Paso Road and I-5/Garden Highway interchanges and the northbound off-ramp at the I-5/Arena Boulevard interchange. This is likely caused by downstream surface street congestion (primarily at intersections within the city of Sacramento such as Garden Highway/Truxel Road, Del Paso Road/El Centro Road, and Arena Boulevard/East Commerce Way) that causes traffic to spill back to the interchange, thereby hindering the flow of off-ramp traffic and resulting in a potentially significant impact. With respect to the I-5/Arena Boulevard interchange, Mitigation Measure C-TR-2 is proposed, which includes recommended improvements at the 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-13 PLNP2018-00284
surface street intersection bottlenecks along Arena Boulevard that are responsible for queues that spill back to the interchange. However, these improvements are outside the control of Sacramento County or Caltrans since they are located within the City of Sacramento, and thus the County cannot ensure that they will be constructed when needed. Regarding the I-5/Del Paso Road and I-5/Garden Highway interchanges, improvements such as lane restriping, adding lanes, or modifying signal phasing were either found to not be effective or could also cause the need for additional right-of-way.

For theses reasons, the cumulative impact related to freeway off-ramp queuing would remain significant and unavoidable.

FREEWAY ON-RAMP RAMP METER QUEUES
The proposed UWSP would contribute substantially to cumulative queuing impacts at several on-ramp ramp meter locations due to traffic added to study area roadways by cumulative projects. While most freeway ramp meter on-ramp locations would continue to have sufficient storage for queues under cumulative conditions, the proposed UWSP would cause the maximum queue at the metered on-ramps at the I 5 southbound diagonal on-ramp at West El Camino Avenue (PM peak hour), I-5 southbound on-ramp at Del Paso Road (AM peak hour), and I-5 southbound loop on-ramp at Garden Highway (AM peak hour) to exceed their available storage, and thus result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure C-TR-3 would require that the project applicant pay its proportionate fair share percentage toward improvements at these facilities, which would be held in a custodial account by the County. 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 would transfer the fair share payment to that appropriate agency. However, while this payment would represent the project’s fair share contribution toward the improvement, it would not assure that the improvement would be constructed as remaining fair share funding sources are not known at this time and the County does not have the authority to compel City of Sacramento or Caltrans to construct the needed improvements.

Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cumulative development in the vicinity of the UWSP area could negatively affect tribal cultural resources in the area and thus would result in a significant cumulative impact.

Implementation of the proposed UWSP could also negatively affect tribal cultural resources, and while Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 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 resources, and the resources may need to be altered or 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 tribal cultural resources, and this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-14 PLNP2018-00284

SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Under CEQA, an EIR must analyze the extent to which a project’s primary and secondary effects would generally commit future generations to the allocation of nonrenewable resources and to irreversible environmental damage (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.2(d) and 15127). Section 15126.2(d) states:

Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses.

Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
 The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
 The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;  The project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential;
 environmental accidents associated with the project; or  The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).

Development of the proposed UWSP would result in the dedication of the UWSP area to mixed use urban development, thereby precluding other conflicting uses for the lifespan of the project. As described in Chapter 5, Agricultural Resources, implementation of the proposed UWSP would convert agricultural land to urban uses.

Once agricultural land is graded, paved, and developed, the loss of agricultural capabilities would be permanent, as it is highly unlikely that the land would be restored for use as open space or agricultural land.

The State CEQA Guidelines also require a discussion of the potential for irreversible environmental damage caused by an accident associated with the project. While development allowed under the proposed UWSP could result in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes during construction and operation, as described in Chapter 12, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, all activities would comply with applicable state and federal laws related to hazardous materials, which significantly reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage.
24 - Other CEQA Considerations
Upper Westside Specific Plan 24-15 PLNP2018-00284
Buildout of the proposed UWSP would result in the long-term commitment of resources to urban development. The most notable significant irreversible impacts are substantial changes to the visual character of the UWSP area (see Chapter 4, Aesthetics), increased generation of pollutants from vehicle travel and stationary operations (see Chapter 6, Air Quality), and the short-term commitment of non-renewable and/or slowly renewable natural and energy resources, such as water resources during construction activities (see Chapter 20, Utilities and Service Systems). Operations associated with future uses would also consume natural gas and electrical energy. Although the overall level of resource consumption within the UWSP area would increase, resource consumption would be minimized through adherence to building codes and General Plan policies.

As is described in Chapter 10, Energy, resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by project implementation include electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, including 2023 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, planning policies and standard conservation features would ensure that natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible. It is also possible that, over time, new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost effective or user-friendly, to further reduce the reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources. Nonetheless, construction activities related to the proposed UWSP would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment.

Over the past decade, our understanding of global climate change and the role that communities can play in addressing it has grown tremendously. There is a large scientific consensus that recent increases in global temperatures are associated with corresponding increases of greenhouse gases. This temperature increase is beginning to affect regional climates and is expected to result in impacts to our region and the world. Climate change has profound implications for the availability of the natural resources on which economic prosperity and human development depend. Although the relative contribution of the proposed UWSP to global warming is not currently possible to determine, this issue is explored in Chapter 8, Climate Change.

Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-1 PLNP2018-00284
25 BIBLIOGRAPHY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
No references are cited in this chapter.

CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION
No references are cited in this chapter.

CHAPTER 2, PROJECT DESCRIPTION
County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. ———. 2015. Sacramento County Zoning Code, Chapter 2: Zoning Districts.

September 2015.

Wood Rodgers Inc. 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan, County Administrative Draft No. 6. June.

CHAPTER 3, ALTERNATIVES
No references are cited in this chapter.

CHAPTER 4, AESTHETICS
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2022. California State Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways. Accessed May 30, 2022.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Report No. CEC-400-2022-010-CMF.

August 2022.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2013. Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted December 12, 2013.

Wood Rodgers Inc. 2021. Upper Westside Specific Plan – ALUCP Analysis. January 8, 2021.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-2 PLNP2018-00284
CHAPTER 5, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
California Department of Conservation. 2023a. Sacramento County Important Farmland 2020. July 2023. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ Sacramento.aspx. Accessed June 17, 2024.
———. 2023b. California Williamson Act Enrollment Finder. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/WilliamsonAct/App/index.html. Accessed June 20, 2024.
———. 2024a. Important Farmland Categories. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-FarmlandCategories.aspx. Accessed June 17, 2024. ———. 2024b. Historic Land Use Conversion. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Sacramento.aspx . Accessed June 13, 2024.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2023. County Agricultural Commissioners' Reports, Crop Year 2021–2022. Released December 18, 2023.

Revised March 26, 2024.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. ———. 2023. Williamson Act parcels in Sacramento County [GIS data]. Available:
https://data.saccounty.gov/search?tags=williamsonact. Accessed June 20, 2024. ———. 2024. Sacramento County Assessor Parcel Viewer. Available:
https://assessorparcelviewer.saccounty.gov/JSViewer/assessor.html. Accessed June 20, 2024.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) of Sacramento County. Soil types by Storie Rating.

Available: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.

Accessed June 19, 2024.

O’Geen, A.T., S.B. Southard, and R.J. Southard. 2008. A Revised Storie Index for Use with Digital Soils Information. ANR Publication 8335. September 2008.

Sacramento County Agricultural Commission. 2022. Sacramento County 2022 Crop and Livestock Report. Available: https://agcomm.saccounty.gov/Documents/ CropandLivestockReports/2022Report.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2024.

Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 1990. Policies, Standards, and Procedures for LAFCo. Adopted September 5, 1990. Amendments approved April 3, 2024. Available: https://saclafco.saccounty.gov/ 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-3 PLNP2018-00284
PolicyStandardsandProceduresManual/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed June 21, 2024.

CHAPTER 6, AIR QUALITY
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2022. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-andclimate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Accessed March 12, 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook:

A Community Health Perspective. April 2005.
———. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Standards last updated May 4, 2016.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed October 2023.
———. 2022. Visibility Reducing Particles and Health. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/vinyl-chloride-and-health. Accessed May 2022. ———. 2023a. Carbon Monoxide & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ carbon-monoxide-and-health. Accessed October 2023.
———. 2023b. Sulfur Dioxide & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ sulfur-dioxide-and-health. Accessed October 2023.
———. 2023c. Lead & Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/lead-andhealth. Accessed October 2023. ———. 2023d. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed May 2022. ———. 2023e. Inhalable Particulate Matter and Health (PM2.5 and PM10). Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/common-pollutants/pm/pm.htm. Accessed May 2022.
———. 2024a. Sulfur Dioxide and Health. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ sulfur-dioxide-and-health. Accessed July 2024.
———. 2024b. Particulate Matter and Health Fact Sheet. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/particulate-matter-and-health-factsheet. Accessed July 2024. ———. 2024c. Summaries of Air Quality Data, 2020–2022. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. Accessed July 2024 County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-4 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2021. Upper Westside Specific Plan. Administrative Draft. October 2021.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2024. Off-Model Estimates to Exclude Natural Gas Criteria Pollutant Emissions. July 2024.

Fehr and Peers. 2022. CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis for Upper Westside Specific Plan – Final Report. March 2022.

Glover, Tina. “RE: Growth Estimates Within West Jackson Highway Master Plan.” November 20, 2017—email message to Dan Sloat.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2015. IARC Monographs on The Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Outdoor Air Pollution. Volume 109.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines – Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February 2015.

Pope, C.A. III, and D.W. Dockery. 2006. “Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution:

Lines that Connect.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56(6):709–742. DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464485.

Raney Planning & Management Inc. (Raney). 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. June 2024.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2004. 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide – Updated Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas. Adopted July 22, 2004.
———. 2009. Guide to Air Quality Assessment. Adopted December 2009 and last updated July 2019.
———. 2010. PM10 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento County. October 28, 2010, with errata sheet incorporated. ———. 2011. Recommended Protocol for Evaluating the Location of Sensitive Land Uses Adjacent to Major Roadways. March 2011. Version 2.4. ———. 2013a. Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan (2013 SIP Revisions). September 26, 2013. ———. 2013b. PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. October 24, 2013, with errata sheet incorporated February 5, 2014.
———. 2015. Triennial Report and Air Quality Plan Revision. May 28, 2015. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-5 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2017a. Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS – 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. July 24, 2017.
———. 2017b. 2016 Annual Progress Report. March 23, 2017. ———. 2020a. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Last updated in April 2021. Available: http://www.airquality.org/Residents/CEQA-Land-UsePlanning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools. Accessed March 2023. ———. 2020b. Instructions for Sac Metro Air District Minor Project and Strategic Area Project Health Effects Screening Tools, January 2020.
———. 2020c. Landscaping Guidance for Improving Air Quality Near Roadways: Plant Species and Best Practices for the Sacramento Region. Version 2.0. May 2020. ———. 2020d. Guidance to Address the Friant Ranch Ruling for CEQA Project in the Sac Metro Air District. Draft. June 2020.
———. 2021a. Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions. Version

4.3 (for Operational Emissions). February 10, 2021.
———. 2021b. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. ———. 2022. Air Quality Pollutants and Standards. Available: http://www.airquality.org/ air-quality-health/air-quality-pollutants-and-standards. Accessed June 2022. ———. 2023. Mobile Sources Air Toxics Protocol Tool [Online mapping tool]. Available:
http://sacramentorisk.azurewebsites.net/. Accessed October 2023. ———. 2024. Letter from Rich Muzzy, Associate Air Quality Planner/Analyst (SMAQMD), to Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator (Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review). Subject: Upper Westside Specific Plan Project. June 5, 2024.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021a. Basic Information about Carbon Monoxide (CO) Outdoor Air Pollution. Last updated June 7, 2021.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/co-pollution/basic-information-about-carbonmonoxide-co-outdoor-air-pollution#Effects. Accessed June 2022. ———. 2021b. Particulate Matter (PM) Basics. Last updated May 26, 2021. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics#effects.

Accessed June 2022.
———. 2021c. Basic Information about NO2. Last updated June 7, 2021. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollution/basic-information-about-no2#Effects.

Accessed June 2022.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-6 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2021d. Basic Information about Lead Air Pollution. Last updated August 21, 2021. Available: https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/basic-information-aboutlead-air-pollution. Accessed June 2022. ———. 2022a. Ground-Level Ozone Basics. Last updated June 14, 2022. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-basics#effects. Accessed June 2022. ———. 2022b. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Pollution. Last updated March 9, 2022. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/sulfur-dioxide-basics. Accessed June 2022. ———. 2023. What is a MERV rating. Last updated March 13, 2023. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-merv-rating. Accessed March 2023.
———. 2024. Monitor Value Report. Last updated January 29, 2024. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report. Accessed July 2024.

Zuraimi, M.S., and Z. Tan. 2015. “Impact of Residential Building Regulations on Reducing Indoor Exposures to Outdoor PM2.5 in Toronto.” Building an Environment 89:336–344. March 14, 2015.

CHAPTER 7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bargas Environmental Consulting (Bargas). 2019. Swainson’s Hawk Survey for the Upper Westside Project, Sacramento, California. August 2019. ———. 2020a. Aquatic Resource Delineation for the Upper Westside Specific Plan, Sacramento County, California. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC. May 2020. ———. 2020b. Swainson’s Hawk Survey for the Upper Westside Project, Sacramento, California. August 2020.
———. 2022. Biological Resources Assessment – Upper Westside Specific Plan, Sacramento County, California. Report prepared for Upper Westside, LLC.

Bumblebee Watch. 2024. https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/. Accessed in June 2024.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 20, 2018.
———. 2023a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind version 5 query of the Sacramento West, Grays Bend, Taylor Monument, Rio Linda, Davis, Sacramento East, Saxon, Clarksburg, and Florin U.S. Geological Survey 7.5- minute topographic quadrangles. Commercial version. Accessed November 1, 2023.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-7 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2023b. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Special Animals List.

California. October 2023.
———. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), version 6,
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed in June 2024.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. CNPS Rare Plant Program, Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online editions, v9-01

1.0). Available: https://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed November 1, 2023.

City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Basin Conservancy, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Natomas Central Mutual Water Company. 2003. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan – Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California.

Prepared by City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Basin Conservancy in association with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation District No. 1000, Natomas Central Mutual Water Company.

County of Sacramento. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report: Sacramento County General Plan Update. Volume II. SCH No. 2007082086. County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. April 2010. ———. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030. Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.

Fleishman, E., J. Anderson, B.G. Dickson, D. Krolick, J.A. Estep, R.L. Anderson, C.S.

Elphick, D.S. Dobkin, and D.A. Bell. 2016. “Space Use by Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin, California.” Collabra: Psychology 2(1):5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35.

Google Earth. 2020. 38°37’26.09” N, 121°32’11.04” W
———. 2022. 38°37’26.09” N, 121°32’11.04” W
Hansen, G. 1988. Review of the status of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas) and its supporting habitat during 1986-1987. Final report for California Department of Fish and Game, Contract C-2060. Unpublished. 31 pp.

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment Report. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC.

ICF. 2023. Biological Effectiveness Monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2022 Annual Survey Results. Final. ICF 104332.

Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA.

April 2023.
iNaturalist. 2024. Available at inaturalist.org. Accessed in June 2024. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-8 PLNP2018-00284
Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., editors. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game. 166 pp.

Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley.

Thomas Reid Associates. 2001. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Metro Air Park in the Natomas Basin. July 31, 2001.

Tuttle, M. 1991. “How North America Bats Are at Their Most Vulnerable During Hibernation and Migration.” BATS Magazine 9(3), Fall 1991.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. TR Y-87-1. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg. MS.
———. 2023. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Available: https://www.epa.gov/cwa404. Accessed October 2023.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. September 28, 2017.
———. 2023. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). 2010, Official List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by the Project. https://www.fws.gov/ipac/, accessed November 1, 2023.

Wylie, G. D., M. L. Casazza, and J. K. Daugherty. 1997. 1996 Progress report for the giant garter snake study. Preliminary report, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Dixon Field Station, Dixon, California.

CHAPTER 8, CLIMATE CHANGE
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan:

A Framework for Change. Adopted December 11, 2008, re-approved on August 24, 2011.
———. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November 2017. ———. 2020. “California Takes Bold Step to Reduce Truck Pollution.” Release No. 20-

15. Released June 25, 2020. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/californiatakes-bold-step-reduce-truck-pollution. Accessed October 2023. ———. 2021. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet. Last updated August 20, 2021. ———. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-9 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2023a. Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations: All New Passenger Vehicles Sold in California to be Zero Emissions by 2035. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii. Accessed April 8, 2023.
———. 2023b. Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation Overview. July 20, 2023. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/advanced-clean-fleets-regulationoverview. Accessed October 2023. ———. 2024. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000–2021 – Current California GHG Emissions Inventory Data. October 26, 2022. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed February 2024.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2023. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 (January 1, 2023).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2015. California’s 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. CEC-400- 2015-037-CMF. June 2015.

County of Sacramento. 2011a. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. ———. 2011b. Sacramento County Climate Action Plan: Strategy and Framework Document. Adopted November 9, 2011.
———. 2022. Sacramento County Climate Action Plan. August 2022. ———. 2023. Sacramento County 2021 GHG Inventory. November 2023. Available:
https://green.saccounty.gov/Documents/2021_GHG_Inventory.pdf. Accessed September 2023.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2024. Off-Model Estimates to Exclude Natural Gas and Add Indirect Electricity Greenhouse Gas Emissions. July 2024.

Fehr and Peers. 2022. CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis for Upper Westside Specific Plan – Final Report. March 2022.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts. April 2018.

Ritchie, Rosado, and Roser. 2024. Greenhouse gas emissions. Available:
https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed July 24, 2024.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2021. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Chapter 6 in Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County, pgs. 6-1–6-17. Updated February 2021. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-10 PLNP2018-00284
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks. EPA-420-F-10-014. April 2010. ———. 2016. EPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond. EPA-420-F-16-044. August 2016. ———. 2017. Final Determination on the Appropriateness of the Model Year 2022– 2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards under the Midterm Evaluation. EPA-420-R-17-001. January 2017.
———. 2024. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990– 2022. EPA 430-D-24-001.

CHAPTER 9, CULTURAL RESOURCES
County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.

HELIX Environmental Planning (HELIX). 2022. Upper Westside Specific Plan Draft Cultural Resources Conservation Strategy. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC.

November 2022.

Morton III, W., G. Hume, K. Weeks, H. Jandl. 1997. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.

Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.

Olmstead, F.H., and G.H. Davis. 1961. “Geologic Map of the Sacramento Valley, California” [map]. Scale: 1:250,000. Plate 2 in Water Supply Paper 1497.

Washington DC: U.S. Geological Survey.

Parcelquest.com. Various. Sacramento County Assessor’s Parcel Data. Accessed February 2021.

Piñon Heritage Solutions LLC (Piñon). 2021. Cultural Resources Record Search for the Upper Westside Project, Sacramento County, California. Prepared for the County of Sacramento. February 2021.

United States Geological Survey. 1967. Taylor Monument quadrangle [map].

Photorevised 1975. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series. Reston, Va: United States Department of the Interior, USGS, 1967.
———. 1967. Sacramento West quadrangle [map]. 1:24,000. 7.5 Minute Series.

Reston, Va: United States Department of the Interior, USGS, 1967.

Unknown. 1911. Map of Reclamation District 1000. Reprinted in Denise Bradley and Michael Corbett. 1995. Rural Historic Landscape Report for Reclamation District 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-11 PLNP2018-00284
1000 for the Cultural Inventory and Evaluation for the American River Watershed Investigation, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. Prepared for Dames and Moore, Inc., Chico, California. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Sacramento. Cited in Piñon, p. 27.

CHAPTER 10, ENERGY
BP Global. 2023. Oil. Available: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energyeconomics/energy-outlook/oil.html. Published January 30, 2023. Accessed April 5, 2024.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2022. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000–2020: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. October 26, 2022. ———. 2023. What are Sustainable Communities Strategies? Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-workprogramssustainable-communities-program/ what-are-sustainable-communities-strategies. Accessed August 2023.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2023. 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11 (January 1, 2023).

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). 2022a. Motor Vehicle Fuel 10 Year Reports [Excel data]. Available: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxesand-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed April 4, 2023. ———. 2022b. Taxable Diesel Gallons 10 Year Report [Excel data]. Available:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed April 4, 2023.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. Energy Commission Approves More Efficient Buildings for California's Future. May 31, 2012. Available:
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C17.pdf.

Accessed August 2023.
———. 2018a. Revised Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018–2030.

Publication No. CEC-200-2018-003. February 2018.
———. 2018b. California Energy Demand 2018–2030 Revised Forecast. Commission Final Report. Publication No.CEC-200-2018-002-CMF. February 2018. ———. 2023a. 2021 Total System Electric Generation. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricitydata/2021-total-system-electric-generation#:~:text=Total%20generation%20for %20California%20was,from%2090%2C208%20GWh%20in%202020. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2023b. Gas Consumption by County [Excel data]. Available:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. Accessed April 2023. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-12 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2023c. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-natural-gasmarket/supply-and-demand-natural-gas-california. Accessed April 2023. ———. 2023d. Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleummarket/oil-supply-sources-california-refineries. Accessed April 2023. ———. 2023e. California’s Oil Refineries. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/datareports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/californias-oil-refineries.

Accessed April 2023.
———. 2023f. 2021 Electricity Consumption by County [Excel data]. Available:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. Accessed April 2023. ———. 2023g. 2010–2021 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CECA15) Spreadsheets. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energyalmanac/transportation-energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting.

Accessed August 2023.
———. 2023h. Final 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Publication No.

CEC-100-2022- 001-CMF.
———. 2023i. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energyefficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed August 2023.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2018. Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action: Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines. OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12. November 2018.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2011. California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. January 2011 Update.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2024. What FERC Does. Available:
https://www.ferc.gov/what-ferc-does. Last updated February 12, 2024.

Frontier Energy Inc. and Schweitzer & Associates Inc. 2021. Energy Estimates Summary Report – Upper Westside. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC. Last Updated September 19, 2021.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2023. Company Profile. Available:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page.

Accessed April 2023.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-13 PLNP2018-00284
Raney Planning & Management, Inc. 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. June 2024.

Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District (SMUD). 2021. 2021 Power Content Label.

Available: https://www.smud.org/-/media/Documents/Corporate/EnvironmentalLeadership/Power-Sources/PowerContentLabel.ashx. Accessed April 2023.

The Climate Registry. 2023. 2023 Default Emission Factors. June 2023.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2023a. Motor Gasoline Consumption, Price, and Expenditure Estimates 2021. Available: https://www.eia.gov/state/ seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_mg.html. Accessed April 2023.
———. 2023b. California State Energy Profile. Available: https://www.eia.gov/state/ data.php?sid=CA. Last updated April 20, 2023. Accessed August 2023.

Water in the West. 2013. Water and Energy Nexus: A Literature Review. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University. August 2013.

Wood Rodgers Inc. 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Level 1 Master Drainage Study. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC. May 24, 2024.

CHAPTER 11, GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGY
Anderson, R., M. Anderson, T. Barry, M. Beswick, C. Bonds, M. Conway, C. Dennis, W.A. Fraser, F. Gius, J. Hess, J. Manke, R. Hilton, G. Maurath, E. Moores, M.

O’Neal, K. Parrish, N. Pinter, R.J. Shelmon, S. Testa, J. Unruh, J. Wakabayashi, and J. Zome. 2018. Geology of Sacramento, California – Geology of the Cities of the World Series. Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Note 36.

Revised December 2002.
———. 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.

Special Publication No. 117A.
———. 2022a. Fault Activity Map of California [Interactive map]. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/app/. Accessed May 17, 2022. ———. 2022b. California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application (EQ ZAPP).

Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation [Interactive map]. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed May 17, 2022.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-14 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2017. General Plan Safety Element: Background to the 1993 General Plan.

County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review. Amended September 26, 2017.

ENGEO Incorporated (ENGEO). 2021. Geology and Soils Technical Report. Project No. 18171.000.001.

Field, E.H., G.P. Biasi, P. Bird, T.E. Dawson, K.R. Felzer, D.D. Jackson, K.M. Johnson, T.H. Jordan, C. Madden, A.J. Michael, K.R. Milner, M.T. Page, T. Parsons, P.M.

Powers, B.E. Shaw, W.R. Thatcher, R.J. Weldon II, and Y. Zeng. 2015. “LongTerm Time-Dependent Probabilities for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3).” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 105(2A):511–543. April 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1785/0120140093.

Gutierrez, C.I. 2011. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California [Map]. Scale 1:100,000. Sacramento, CA: California Geological Survey.

Hilton, R.P., D.C. Dailey, and H.G. McDonald. 2000. “A Late Pleistocene Biota from the Acro Arena Site, Sacramento, California.” PaleoBios 20(1):7–12. University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Leech, M. 2006. Geology of the Central California Coast: April 21–22, 2006 [field trip guide].

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. “Part 618 – Soil Properties and Qualities.” In National Soil Survey Handbook, pages 618-A1.1–618-A.87.

Amended November 25, 2017.
———. 2021. Web Soil Survey. Linear Extensibility—Sacramento Area, California [Map]. Scale 1:28,100. National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.

Prepared by SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

Sub Terra Consulting. 2017. Northwest California Integrated Resources Management Plan, Inventory of Existing Date for Paleontological Resources and Potential Fossil Yield Classification GIS Database. Prepared by Dr. R Shapiro.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1999. Land Subsidence in the United States. Circular 1182. Reston, VA.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2022a. UC Museum of Paleontology Localities database search: Fossil localities within Sacramento County. Available: https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/loc.html. Accessed July 11, 2022.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-15 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2022b. UC Museum of Paleontology Localities database search: Pleistocene vertebrates throughout California. Available:
https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/loc.html. Accessed July 11, 2022.

CHAPTER 12, HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2008. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA, Sacramento County [Map]. Scale 1:100,000. Fire and Resource Assessment Program. July 30, 2008.

California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2022. Well Finder.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. ———. 2017. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030, Hazardous Materials Element. Amended September 26, 2017.
———. 2021. Sacramento County Evacuation Functional Annex. Office of Emergency Services. August 2021.

ENGEO Incorporated (ENGEO). 2021. Upper Westside Development Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Project No. 18171.000.001. February 1, 2021.

MacKay & Somps. 2024. Upper Westside Flood Inundation Propagation, Procedural/Technical Memorandum. May 31, 2024.

State Water Resources Control Board and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (SWRCB and DTSC). 2021. GeoTracker and EnviroStor websites.

Wood Rodgers Inc. 2021. Upper Westside Specific Plan – ALUCP Analysis. Technical memorandum from T. Denham, project planner (Wood Rodgers) to T. Taylor, associate planner (County of Sacramento). January 8, 2021.

CHAPTER 13, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2022. 2022 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Update. Public Draft. April 2022.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). 2016.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Order R5-2016-0040, NPDES No. CAS0085324. Adopted June 23, 2016.

Effective October 1, 2016.
———. 2018. Final California 2018 Integrated 303(d) List/305(b) Report, Supporting Information, Sacramento River (Knights Landing to the Delta). 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-16 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Fifth Edition. Revised February 2019 (with Approved Amendments).

City of Sacramento. 2021. City of Sacramento 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Sacramento, Department of Utilities.

County of Sacramento. 2010. Sacramento County General Plan EIR. SCH No. 2007082086. County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. April 2010.
———. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030. Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. General Plan Conservation Element: Background to the 1993 General Plan as Amended. ———. 2017. Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance. County of Sacramento Department of Water Resources. Effective January 13, 2017.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015a. Flood Insurance Rate Map – Sacramento County, California and Incorporated Areas [Map]. Scale 1:1,000. Map No. 06067C0045J. Revised June 16, 2015.
———. 2015b. Flood Insurance Rate Map – Sacramento County, California and Incorporated Areas [Map]. Scale 1:1,000. Map No. 06067C0160J. Revised June 16, 2015.

GEI Consultants. 2021. North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

Prepared for Sacramento Groundwater Authority GSA, Reclamation District 1001 GSA, South Sutter Water District GSA, Sutter County GSA, and West Placer County GSA. December 2021.

Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership (SSQP). 2018. Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region. July 2018.

Wood Rodgers Inc. 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Level 1 Master Drainage Study. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC. May 24, 2024.

CHAPTER 14, LAND USE
County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.

County of Sacramento. 2015. Sacramento County Zoning Code, Chapter 2: Zoning Districts. September 2015.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Adopted November 18, 2019.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-17 PLNP2018-00284
CHAPTER 15, NOISE
Bollard Acoustical Consultants (BAC). 2022. Environmental Noise & Vibration Assessment – Upper Westside Specific Plan. January 20, 2022.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2009. ———. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.

September 2013.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. ———. 2013. Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available:
https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/smf_alucp_all_adopted_ dec_2013.pdf?1456339912. Accessed June 5, 2022.
———. 2017. General Plan Noise Element. County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review. Adopted December 15, 1993. Amended December 13, 2017.
———. 2023. Jesuit High School Stadium Lighting Draft Environmental Impact Report.

SCH No. 2022100645. September 2023.
———. 2024. Sacramento County Code of Ordinances. Includes legislation through Ord. No. SCC 1732 adopted January 23, 2024.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1978. Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Report Number FHWA-RD-77-108. December 1978.
———. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Document No. FHWAHEP-06-015. August 2006. ———. 2017. Information: Highway Traffic Noise – Guidance on Pavement as a Noise Abatement Measure. Updated May 17, 2017. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/ pavement_guidance.cfm. Accessed July 2024.

Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018.

Raney Planning & Management, Inc. (Raney). 2024. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis, Upper Westside Specific Plan Project. June 2024. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-18 PLNP2018-00284
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2013. Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Adopted December 12, 2013.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2009. The Noise Guidebook: A Reference Document for Implementing the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Noise Policy. March 2009.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Document No. 550/9-74-004. March 1974.

World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Guidelines for Community Noise. Cluster of Sustainable Development and Healthy Environment (SDE), Department for Protection of the Human Environment (PHE), Occupational and Environmental Health (OEH). Geneva, Switzerland. February 10, 1999.

CHAPTER 16, POPULATION AND HOUSING
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State – January 1, 2021–2022. Sacramento, California. May 2022. Available: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/ estimates/estimates-e5-2010-2021/. Accessed July 1, 2022.

California Employment Development Department (EDD). 2022. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for Cities and Census Designated Places. May 2022.

Available: https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-andunemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed July 1, 2022.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department. ———. 2022. Sacramento County Housing Element of 2021–2029. County of Sacramento Office of Planning and Environmental Review. Adopted March 8, 2022.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Adopted November 18, 2019.

CHAPTER 17, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
California Department of Education. 2022. 2021–22 K–12 Enrollment by Age Group and Grade: Natomas Unified Report (34-75283). Available: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/ dataquest/dqcensus/EnrAgeGrd.aspx?cds=3475283&agglevel=district&year= 2021-22. Accessed August 24, 2022.

City of Sacramento. 2015. City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report.

Adopted March 3, 2015.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-19 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2022a. Proposed City of Sacramento Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget. April 22, 2022.
———. 2022b. Parks Plan 2040. Available: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/ ParksandRec/Parks/Park-Planning-Development/ParksPlan#Parks. Accessed May 16, 2022.

City of Sacramento Fire Department (SFD). 2018. City of Sacramento Fire Department 2017 Annual Report.
———. 2022. About. Available: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Fire/About. Accessed August 25, 2022.

Clark, K. 2022. Personal correspondence between K. Clark (Sacramento Public Library System) and J. Medan (Environmental Science Associates). Subject: Patron statistics. September 12, 2022.

Cooperative Strategies. 2022. Natomas Unified School District School Facilities Needs Analysis. Prepared for Natomas Unified School District. February 17, 2022.

County of Sacramento. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030.

Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.

County of Sacramento Department of Regional Parks. 2022. About Us. Available:
https://regionalparks.saccounty.gov/Pages/AboutUs.aspx. Accessed August 24, 2022.

Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law (Lozano Smith). 2020. Client News Brief: State Allocation Board Adopts Developer Fee Increases for 2020. January 2020.

Natomas Unified School District (NUSD). 2017. Facilities Master Plan Update.

December 13, 2017.
———. 2022. Our Schools. Available: https://natomasunified.org/about-our-schools/#.

Accessed May 16, 2022.

O’Brien, H. 2022. Personal conversation between H. O’Brien, Sergeant (Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office), and J. Medan (Environmental Science Associates).

Subject: Sheriff’s Office staffing levels to the North Division (location of the Upper Westside Specific Plan area). June 16, 2022.

Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2010. Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update. February 2010.

Sacramento Public Library. 2021. FY 2020-2021 Annual Report. ———. 2022a. Locations. Available: https://www.saclibrary.org/Locations. Accessed June 2, 2022.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-20 PLNP2018-00284
———. 2022b. South Natomas. Available: https://www.saclibrary.org/Locations/SouthNatomas. Accessed June 2, 2022. ———. 2022c. North Natomas. Available: https://www.saclibrary.org/Locations/NorthNatomas. Accessed June 2, 2022.

Sacramento Public Library Authority. 2007. Sacramento Public Library Authority Facility Master Plan 2007–2025. Adopted March 22, 2007.

Tunson, K. 2022. Personal correspondence between K. Tunson (City of Sacramento Fire Department) and J. Medan (Environmental Science Associates). Subject:

Upper Westside Sacramento County Development - SFD Fire Protection Needs.

May 11 through June 22, 2022.

CHAPTER 18, TRANSPORTATION
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. July 2020.
———. 2021a. California Safe Roads: 2020–2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

March 2021.
———. 2021b. Caltrans 2020–2024 Strategic Plan.

County of Sacramento. 2007. Sacramento County Pedestrian Master Plan. April 2007. ———. 2011. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005–2030. Amended November 9, 2011. Community Planning & Development Department.
———. 2020. Transportation Analysis Guidelines. September 10, 2020.

Fehr & Peers. 2022a. CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis for Upper Westside Specific Plan. March.

Fehr & Peers 2022b. Local Transportation Analysis for Upper Westside Specific Plan.

March.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2022. Proven Safety Countermeasures Program. Available: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/.

Accessed November 21, 2022.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2019. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). Adopted November 18, 2019.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-21 PLNP2018-00284
CHAPTER 19, TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
No references are cited in this chapter.

CHAPTER 20, UTILITIES
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2021.

Mandatory Commercial Recycling: Key Elements of the Law. Available:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/#Elements. Accessed November 23, 2022.
———. 2022. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. Accessed November 23, 2022.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2006. California’s Groundwater.

Bulletin 118. Updated February 27, 2006.

Carollo Engineers (Carollo). 2008. 2020 Master Plan Final Executive Summary Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.

City of Sacramento. 2021. City of Sacramento 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

Department of Utilities.

County of Sacramento, Department of Waste Management and Recycling (County DWMR). 2022. North Area Recovery Station (NARS). Available:
https://wmr.saccounty.gov/Pages/NARS.aspx. Accessed November 23, 2022.

Environmental Science Associates. 2022. City of Sacramento SB 610/SB 221 Water Supply Assessment and Certification Form, Upper Westside Specific Plan. June 2022.

Hoseit, P. 2021. Personal communication between P. Hoseit, PE (County of Sacramento, Department of Waste Management and Recycling), and D.

Beauchamp (Environmental Science Associates). Subject: North Area Recovery Station and Kiefer Landfill Inquiry. September 1, 2021.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2022. Company Profile. Available:
https://www.pge.com/en/about/company-information/company-profile.html.

Accessed November 23, 2022.

Placer County Water Agency. 2024. RiverArc Project: Project Timeline. Available:
https://www.riverarcproject.com/project-timeline. Accessed May 22, 2024.

Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer). 2023a. Regional San’s monumental wastewater treatment plant expansion project delivered ON schedule and UNDER budget. Available: https://www.sacsewer.com/press-release/regional- 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-22 PLNP2018-00284
sans-monumental-wastewater-treatment-plant-expansion-project-delivered-onschedule-and-under-budget/. Accessed August 9, 2024. ———. 2023b. SacSewer By the Numbers—2023.

Sacramento Groundwater Authority (SGA). 2014. Groundwater Management Plan— Sacramento County–North Basin. December 2014.

Sacramento Stormwater Quality Design Partnership. 2018. Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento Region: Integrated Solutions for Urban Development, Protecting Our Water Quality. City of Citrus Heights, City of Elk Grove, City of Folsom, City of Galt, City of Rancho Cordova, City of Sacramento, and County of Sacramento. July 2018.

Sacramento Water Forum and Sacramento County Water Agency. 2006. Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan. February 2006.

Wood Rodgers Inc. 2021a. Upper Westside—Dry Utility Research. Technical memorandum from J. Reed, PE (Wood Rogers Inc), to N. Avdis. October 20, 2021.
———. 2021b. Upper West Side—Level 1 / 2 Sewer Study. Prepared for Sacramento Area Sewer District and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. August 2021.

CHAPTER 21, OTHER RESOURCE TOPICS
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM). 2022. Well Finder online application. California Department of Conservation. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pages/WellFinder.aspx. Accessed June 6, 2022.

CapRadio. 2024. California Wildfire History Map, 1878–2020. Available:
https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#6/38.58/-121.49. Accessed July 17, 2024.

County of Sacramento. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report: Sacramento County General Plan Update. Volume II. SCH No. 2007082086. County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. April 2010. ———. 2017. General Plan Conservation Element: Background to the 1993 General Plan as Amended. Adopted December 15, 1993. Amended September 26, 2017.

Community Planning & Development Department.

Dupras, D.L. 1999a. Mineral Land Classification Map of PCC-Grade Aggregate Resources in Sacramento County [Map]. Scale 1:90,000. California Geological Survey.
25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-23 PLNP2018-00284
———. 1999b. Selected Historic and Active Mining Operations in Sacramento County [Map]. Scale 1:90,000. California Geological Survey.

CHAPTER 22, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
California Air Resources Board and California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CARB and CAPCOA). 2022. Gasoline Service Station Industrywide Risk Assessment Technical Guidance. February 18, 2022.

California Department of Conservation. 2024. Historic Land Use Conversion. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Sacramento.aspx . Accessed June 13, 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013.

Prepared by City of Sacramento, Sutter County, Natomas Basin Conservancy in association with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation District No. 1000, Natomas Central Mutual Water Company.

City of Sacramento. 2022. Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting for the Airport South Industrial Project (P21-017).

County of Sacramento. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Report: Sacramento County General Plan Update. Volume II. SCH No. 2007082086. County of Sacramento Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. April 2010. ———. 2023a. Williamson Act parcels in Sacramento County [GIS data]. Available:
https://data.saccounty.gov/search?tags=williamsonact. Accessed June 20, 2024. ———. 2023b. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for Sacramento County WattEV Innovative Freight Terminal (SWIFT) Project (PLER2023-00069).

HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX). 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment Report. Prepared for Upper Westside, LLC.

NorthPoint Development. 2021. Metro Air Park East Conceptual Site Plan A2.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). 2023 Available: http://www.pge.com/ pipeline/operations/cgt_pipeline_status.page#flows. Accessed April 2023.

Raney Planning & Management Inc. (Raney). 2024. Upper Westside Specific Plan Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis. June 2024. 25 - Bibliography
Upper Westside Specific Plan 25-24 PLNP2018-00284
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2020. “TAC Emissions.” Chapter 5 in Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County, pgs. 5-1–5-10. Updated April 2020.

Sacramento Metropolitan Utility District (SMUD), 2019. Resource Planning Report – IRP Filing Report for Submission to the California Energy Commission, April 2019 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Region 8, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. September 28, 2017.
———. 2017b. Formal Consultation on the Greenbriar Development Project.

CHAPTER 23, GROWTH INDUCEMENT AND URBAN DECAY
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). 2022. Upper Westside Specific Plan Urban Decay Analysis. Prepared for Upper Westside LLC. September 2022.

Lapin, A. 2024. Letter from A. Lapin, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., to T. Smith, Planning Director, County of Sacramento, concerning urban decay analysis. May 13, 2024.

CHAPTER 24, OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
No references are cited in this chapter.

Sacramento City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025