Airport South Industrial
Project
SCH# 2022030181
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
&
City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
May 2024
Prepared by
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A, Sacramento, CA 95834
Airport South Industrial Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022030181
Lead Agencies
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission
1112 I Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Scott Johnson
Senior Planner
(916) 808-2762
Prepared By
Raney Planning and Management, Inc.
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 372-6100
Contact:
Rod Stinson
Vice President/Air Quality Specialist
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
1. Introduction .......................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Type and Purpose of the EIR ....................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Known Responsible and Trustee Agencies .................................................. 1-2
1.3 Project Summary .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 EIR Process .................................................................................................. 1-4
1.5 Scope of the EIR .......................................................................................... 1-5
1.6 Definition of Baseline .................................................................................... 1-6
1.7 Notice of Preparation and Scoping ............................................................... 1-6
1.8 Comments Received on the Notice of Preparation ...................................... 1-7
1.9 Draft EIR and Public Review ........................................................................ 1-9
1.10 Organization of the Draft EIR ....................................................................... 1-9
2. Executive Summary ............................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Summary Description of the Proposed Project ............................................. 2-1
2.3 Environmental Impacts and Proposed and
Recommended Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 2-3
2.4 Summary of Project Alternatives .................................................................. 2-3
2.5 Areas of Controversy .................................................................................... 2-5
3. Project Description ................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Project Location ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.3 Project Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................ 3-1
3.4 Project Objectives ......................................................................................... 3-4
3.5 Project Components ..................................................................................... 3-4
3.6 Required Public Approvals ......................................................................... 3-12
4. Existing Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
4.0 Introduction to the Analysis ....................................... 4.0-1
4.0.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.0-1
4.0.2 Determination of Significance .................................................................... 4.0-1
4.0.3 Environmental Issues Addressed in this EIR ............................................. 4.0-2
4.0.4 Technical Chapter Format ......................................................................... 4.0-3
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................... 4.1-1
4.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.1-1
4.1.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.1-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
4.1.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.1-11
4.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.1-13
4.2 Agricultural Resources ............................................... 4.2-1
4.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.2-1
4.2.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.2-2
4.2.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.2-11
4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.2-15
4.3 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy ...... 4.3-1
4.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.3-1
4.3.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.3-1
4.3.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.3-14
4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.3-33
4.4 Biological Resources .................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.4-1
4.4.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.4-1
4.4.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.4-27
4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.4-37
4.5 Cultural Resources .................................................... 4.5-1
4.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.5-1
4.5.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.5-1
4.5.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................... 4.5-5
4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.5-13
4.6 Geology and Soils ..................................................... 4.6-1
4.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.6-1
4.6.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.6-1
4.6.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................... 4.6-6
4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 4.6-9
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ 4.7-1
4.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.7-1
4.7.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.7-1
4.7.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................... 4.7-5
4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.7-12
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................... 4.8-1
4.8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.8-1
4.8.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.8-1
4.8.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................... 4.8-6
4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.8-12 Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
4.9 Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing ............ 4.9-1
4.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 4.9-1
4.9.2 Existing Environmental Setting .................................................................. 4.9-2
4.9.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.9-11
4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.9-14
4.10 Noise ..................................................................... 4.10-1
4.10.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.10-1
4.10.2 Existing Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.10-1
4.10.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.10-8
4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.10-11
4.11 Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems ............. 4.11-1
4.11.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.11-1
4.11.2 Existing Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.11-2
4.11.3 Regulatory Context ................................................................................ 4.11-14
4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.11-25
4.12 Transportation ........................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.12-1
4.12.2 Existing Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.12-1
4.12.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.12-6
4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 4.12-11
4.13 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................... 4.13-1
4.13.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4.13-1
4.13.2 Existing Environmental Setting ................................................................ 4.13-1
4.13.3 Regulatory Context .................................................................................. 4.13-4
4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.13-7
5. Effects Not Found to be Significant ....................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Forestry Resources ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 5-2
5.5 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................ 5-2
5.6 Population and Housing ............................................................................... 5-2
5.7 Wildfire .......................................................................................................... 5-3
6. Statutorily Required Sections ................................................ 6-1
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts .............................................................................. 6-1 Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
6.3 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................... 6-4
6.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ........................................... 6-6
6.5 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................... 6-6
7. Alternatives Analysis ............................................................. 7-1
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 7-1
7.2 Purpose of Alternatives ................................................................................ 7-1
7.3 Selection of Alternatives ............................................................................... 7-4
7.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ......................................................... 7-20
8. References ............................................................................ 8-1
9. EIR Authors and Persons Consulted ...................................... 9-1 Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Appendix B NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Results Appendix D Air Quality Management Plan
Appendix E Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix F Aquatic Resources Delineation
Appendix G Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration
Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix I Preliminary Drainage Study
Appendix J Environmental Noise Assessment
Appendix K Targeted Municipal Services Review
Appendix L Preliminary Water Study
Appendix M Level 1 Sewer Study
Appendix N Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix O Trip Generation and Distribution Memo
Appendix P Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Memo
Appendix Q Vehicle Miles Traveled Mitigation Memorandum Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
FIGURE PAGE
3. Project Description
3-1 Regional Location Map ................................................................................. 3-2 3-2 Project Site Boundaries ................................................................................ 3-3 3-3 Airport South Industrial Park – Preliminary Site Plan ................................... 3-6 3-4 Proposed On-Site Drainage Conditions ..................................................... 3-11 3-5 Off-Site Force Main and Sewer Alignment Options .................................... 3-13
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1-1 Overview Map of Key Viewpoint Locations ............................................... 4.1-6
4.1-2 Existing View of Project Site from I-5 Looking Southeast (Key Viewpoint #1) ............................................................................................. 4.1-7
4.1-3 Existing View of Project Site from Metro Air Parkway Looking Southeast (Key Viewpoint #2) ................................................................... 4.1-7
4.1-4 Existing View of Project Site from I-5 Looking Southwest (Key Viewpoint #3) ............................................................................................. 4.1-8
4.1-5 Existing View of Project Site from Access Roadway Looking Northwest (Key Viewpoint #4A) and Existing View of Project Site from Westlake Subdivision Looking West (Key Viewpoint #4B) ........................ 4.1-9
4.1-6 1-Year and 20-Year Views of Project Site from I-5 Looking Southeast (Key Viewpoint #1) .................................................................................. 4.1-18
4.1-7 1-Year and 20-Year Views of Project Site from Metro Air Parkway Looking Southeast (Key Viewpoint #2) .................................................... 4.1-20
4.1-8 1-Year and 20-Year Views of Project Site from I-5 Looking Southwest (Key Viewpoint #3) .................................................................................. 4.1-21
4.1-9 1-Year and 20-Year Views of Project Site from Access Roadway Looking Northwest (Key Viewpoint #4A) ................................................. 4.1-23
4.2 Agricultural Resources
4.2-1 Project Site Soil Map ................................................................................. 4.2-7
4.2-2 FMMP Designations .................................................................................. 4.2-9
4.2-3 LAFCo Prime Farmland Designation ....................................................... 4.2-10
4.3 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
4.3-1 California Energy Generation by Source ................................................. 4.3-13
4.3-2 California Energy Consumption by Sector ............................................... 4.3-14
4.3-3 AERMOD Results .................................................................................... 4.3-52
LIST OF FIGURES
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
FIGURE PAGE
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4-1 Study Areas ............................................................................................... 4.4-2
4.4-2 Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan 2023 Permit Area .................. 4.4-4
4.4-3 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................... 4.4-9
4.4-4 Tree Locations Within the Project Site .................................................... 4.4-28
4.4-5 Natomas Basin Conservancy 2023 Base Map ........................................ 4.4-77
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-1 Soil Boring and Cone Penetration Test Locations ..................................... 4.6-4
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.7-1 Airport Safety Zones .................................................................................. 4.7-6
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8-1 Regional Drainage Facilities ...................................................................... 4.8-3
4.8-2 Project Area FEMA FIRM .......................................................................... 4.8-4
4.8-3 Proposed On-Site Drainage Conditions .................................................. 4.8-19
4.8-4 Post-Project Drainage Conditions Within the Project Area ...................... 4.8-20
4.10 Noise
4.10-1 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................ 4.10-4
4.10-2 Airport Noise Contours (CNEL) ............................................................... 4.10-7
4.10-3 Nighttime Noise Levels – Proposed Project (dBA L50) .......................... 4.10-20
4.10-4 Daytime Noise Levels – Full Buildout of the Annexation Area (dBA L50) ......................................................................................................... 4.10-21
4.10-5 Nighttime Noise Levels – Full Buildout of the Annexation Area (dBA L50) ......................................................................................................... 4.10-22
4.10-6 Nighttime Noise Levels with an Eight-Foot Wall – Full Buildout of the Annexation Area (dBA L50) .................................................................... 4.10-24
4.11 Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems
4.11-1 City of Sacramento Water Treatment and Distribution System ............... 4.11-8
4.11-2 Existing Water Facilities ........................................................................ 4.11-10
4.11-3 Proposed City/County Water System .................................................... 4.11-40
4.11-4 Schematic Sewer System Layout .......................................................... 4.11-42
4.12 Transportation
4.12-1 Existing Bicycle Network ......................................................................... 4.12-4
4.12-2 Existing Transit Network .......................................................................... 4.12-5
7. Alternatives Analysis
7-1 Reduced Footprint Alternative .................................................................... 7-16 Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
TABLE PAGE
2. Executive Summary
2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................ 2-6
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1-1 Visual Quality Evaluation Table ................................................................. 4.1-5
4.2 Agricultural Resources
4.2-1 Soil Capability Classification ...................................................................... 4.2-2
4.2-2 Storie Index Rating System ....................................................................... 4.2-3
4.2-3 On-Site Soil Capability Classification and Storie Index Rating .................. 4.2-6
4.2-4 LAFCo “Prime Agricultural Land” Comparison ........................................ 4.2-22
4.3 Air Quality and GHG Emissions, and Energy
4.3-1 Summary of Criteria Pollutants .................................................................. 4.3-3
4.3-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards .................................................................. 4.3-4
4.3-3 Sacramento County Attainment Status Designations ................................ 4.3-8
4.3-4 Air Quality Data Summary (2020-2022) .................................................... 4.3-9
4.3-5 GWPs and Atmospheric Lifetimes of Select GHGs ................................. 4.3-11
4.3-6 SMAQMD Thresholds of Significance ..................................................... 4.3-35
4.3-7 Maximum Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions ......................... 4.3-41
4.3-8 Maximum Mitigated Construction-Related Emissions ............................. 4.3-43
4.3-9 Maximum Unmitigated Project Operational Emissions ............................ 4.3-46
4.3-10 AQMP Operational Criteria Pollutant Emissions Reduction Summary (tons/yr) ................................................................................................... 4.3-47
4.3-11 Maximum Cancer Risk and Hazard Index Associated with Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks ........................................................................................... 4.3-51
4.3-12 Health Effects from Proposed Project ..................................................... 4.3-55
4.3-13 Maximum Unmitigated On-Site Construction GHG Emissions – Proposed Project (MTCO2e/yr) ................................................................ 4.3-64
4.3-14 Maximum Unmitigated On-Site Construction GHG Emissions – Full Buildout of the Annexation Area (MTCO2e/yr) ......................................... 4.3-64
4.3-15 Unmitigated Annual Operational GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/yr) .............. 4.3-65
4.3-16 EV Parking Space Requirements for Nonresidential Land Uses ............. 4.3-66
4.3-17 Project Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan .................................... 4.3-68
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4-1 Aquatic Features Observed in the Project Site .......................................... 4.4-8
LIST OF TABLES
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
TABLE PAGE
4.4-2 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur Within the Project Site .. 4.4-12
4.4-3 Natomas Basin HCP 2,500-Acre Block ................................................... 4.4-76
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8-1 Proposed Detention Basin Sizing ............................................................ 4.8-21
4.8-2 Pre- and Post-Project Peak Flow Elevations ........................................... 4.8-26
4.9 Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing
4.9-1 Summary of Adjacent General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning Districts .......................................................................................... 4.9-3
4.9-2 City of Sacramento and Sacramento County Population and Household Growth ..................................................................................... 4.9-9
4.9-3 Average Household Size (Persons Per Household) .................................. 4.9-9
4.9-4 City of Sacramento Population Growth Projections ................................. 4.9-10
4.9-5 City of Sacramento and Sacramento County Regional Housing Needs Allocations (2021-2029) ........................................................................... 4.9-11
4.9-6 Discussion of Relevant Sacramento LAFCo Policies .............................. 4.9-17
4.9-7 City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and SMF Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Discussion ....................................................... 4.9-33
4.10 Noise
4.10-1 Typical Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4.10-2
4.10-2 Summary of Existing Background Noise Measurement Data .................. 4.10-5
4.10-3 Baseline Traffic Noise Levels .................................................................. 4.10-6
4.10-4 Exterior Noise Compatibility Standards for Various Land Uses .............. 4.10-9
4.10-5 Stationary Noise Source Noise Standards ............................................ 4.10-11
4.10-6 Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure .......................................... 4.10-12
4.10-7 Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings ......................................... 4.10-13
4.10-8 Construction Equipment Noise .............................................................. 4.10-16
4.10-9 Project-Related Traffic Noise Level Increases ...................................... 4.10-17
4.10-10 Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment ........................... 4.10-25
4.10-11 Predicted Cumulative Traffic Noise Level Increases ............................. 4.10-28
4.11 Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems
4.11-1 Retail Water Supply and Demand During Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years (AFY) in the Sacramento Service Area ................... 4.11-11
4.11-2 Preliminary Water Study Land Use Acreages ....................................... 4.11-28
4.11-3 Preliminary Water Study Demand Summary ......................................... 4.11-29
4.11-4 Land Use, Acreages, and Sewer ESDs ................................................. 4.11-30
4.11-5 Proposed Project Water Demand Summary ......................................... 4.11-44 Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Table of Contents
TABLE PAGE
4.12 Transportation
4.12-1 Project Trip Generation – Industrial Planned Unit Development Uses .. 4.12-14
4.12-2 Project Trip Generation – Highway Commercial Planned Unit Development Uses ................................................................................ 4.12-15
4.12-3 Queuing at Freeway Ramp Termini During Peak Hours – Baseline Conditions .............................................................................................. 4.12-22
4.12-4 Queuing at Freeway Ramp Termini During Peak Hours – Baseline Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................... 4.12-23
4.12-5 Queuing at Freeway Ramp Termini During Peak Hours – Cumulative Conditions .............................................................................................. 4.12-26
4.12-6 Queuing at Freeway Ramp Termini During Peak Hours – Cumulative with Project Conditions .......................................................................... 4.12-27
7. Alternatives Analysis
7-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts for Project Alternatives ................. 7-22
1. INTRODUCTION
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 TYPE AND PURPOSE OF THE EIR
The Airport South Industrial Project Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21000-21189.91, as amended, and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14, Sections 15000-15387 (CEQA Guidelines). The City of Sacramento (City) and the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) are both Lead Agencies for the environmental review of the Airport South Industrial Project (proposed project) evaluated herein and each have principal responsibility for approving certain aspects of the project.
Because LAFCo must act first on a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment request by the City, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15051, subdivision (c), LAFCo is the Lead Agency for that action.
Should LAFCo approve that request, the City may then consider Prezoning for the project site, as well as other related development entitlements for the project, which are discussed more fully in Section 1.3, Project Summary, of this chapter. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15051, subdivision (b)(2), the City is the Lead Agency for the action for Prezoning and other related development entitlements for the proposed project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15051, subdivision (d), LAFCo and the City entered into an agreement that provides for “cooperative efforts” and “a joint exercise of powers,” in order to comply with the requirements of CEQA for lead agencies to consider the “whole of the action” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15003[h]), avoid duplicative efforts, and provide a clear point of contact for the public and interested public agencies to ask questions and provide comments on this EIR.
As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR will (a) inform public agency decision-makers, and the public generally, of the significant environmental effects of the project, (b) identify possible ways to minimize the significant adverse environmental effects, and (c) describe reasonable and feasible project alternatives which reduce environmental effects. The public agencies shall consider the information in the EIR along with other information that may be presented to the agencies.
As provided in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15021, public agencies are charged with the duty to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. The public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social issues.
CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term project refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).
With respect to the proposed project, the City and LAFCo have determined that the proposed development is a project within the definition of CEQA, which has the potential for resulting in significant environmental effects.
The lead agencies, which, for this project, are both the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento LAFCo, are required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available
1. INTRODUCTION
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
information in deciding whether to approve the application. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts.
The CEQA Guidelines identify several types of EIRs and associated titles. As explained in Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1047-1048 (Treasure Island), courts strive to avoid attaching too much significance to titles in ascertaining whether a legally adequate EIR has been prepared for a particular project. The level of specificity of an EIR is determined by the nature of the project and the “rule of reason,” rather than any semantic label accorded to the EIR. This EIR includes both programmatic and project-level analyses, as appropriate for the level of information available for each entitlement request. For example, because the proposed project would not include any development of the nonparticipating parcels at this time, this EIR includes a program-level analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed entitlements for the nonparticipating parcels, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. With respect to the development of the remainder of the project site, the project applicant has submitted projectspecific information, allowing for a project-level analysis of the potential environmental impacts that would result from such development, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161.
1.2 KNOWN RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
“Responsible agency” means a public agency that proposes to carry out or approve a project for which a lead agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purpose of CEQA, the term responsible agency includes all California public agencies other than the lead agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project or an aspect of the project. The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) are identified as potential responsible agencies for the proposed project.
“Trustee agency” means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. The only known trustee agency is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Although not subject to California law, and, thus, outside the definitions of responsible agency or trustee agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would also be called upon to grant approvals — under federal law — necessary for the development of the project site. The above agencies do not have duties under CEQA, but, rather, are governed by a variety of federal statutes, such as the Clean Water Act, which governs the dredging and filling of waters of the U.S. (e.g., wetlands), and the Endangered Species Act, which requires USACE to consult with the USFWS as part of the review process for any wetland or fill permits that may be required. The aforementioned federal agencies will exercise their permitting authority in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
1.3 PROJECT SUMMARY
The project site is located southeast of the intersection of Power Line Road and Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County, California. The 474.4-acre project site is undeveloped and consists entirely of agricultural land. The project site is bound by I-5 to the north, the City of Sacramento boundary to the east, the West Drainage Canal to the south, and Power Line Road to the west.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Surrounding existing land uses include the Life Storage Facility and Westlake residential subdivision to the east; undeveloped agricultural land and the Paso Verde School to the south; currently undeveloped Sacramento International Airport Master Plan Commercial Development to the west; the Sacramento International Airport to the northwest, across I-5; the Metro Air Park and the Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center to the north, across I-5; and the currently underconstruction Northlake subdivision to the northeast, across I-5.
The project site is currently situated adjacent to, but outside of, the City’s SOI. In addition, the project site is located outside of the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) SOI. Prior to the commencement of construction, the proposed project would require approval by Sacramento LAFCo of a SOI Amendment to amend the City’s SOI and SacSewer’s SOI to include the project site. Following the project site’s inclusion within the City’s SOI, the project site would be eligible for annexation into the City limits. In accordance with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (see Government Code Section 56375), prezoning would be applied to the annexation area prior to LAFCo’s consideration of the annexation.
While the entire project site is proposed for annexation into the City limits, only a 353.5-acre portion of the project site is currently proposed for development as part of requested entitlements.
If the annexation is approved, the proposed project would include development of an industrial park that would allow for construction of up to 5,204,500 square feet (sf) of industrial uses within five parcels totaling 235.6 acres, as well as approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality uses, on approximately 13.4 acres of the overall site. Parcels 6A through 6C and 7A through 7C are proposed retail/highway commercial uses generally situated south of the intersection of I-5 and Metro Air Parkway.
The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres. The proposed project would result in first-tier entitlements for future industrial uses of approximately 1,404,800 sf within the nonparticipating parcels. The nonparticipating parcels include five existing parcels controlled by separate owners, which are summarized as follows:
Parcel 8: 64.3 acres (Cayocca);
Parcel 9: 6.5 acres (Campbell);
Parcel 10: 4.6 acres (Isgur Trust); and
Parcel 11: 0.7-acre (Patel).
In addition, the nonparticipating parcels include 6.9 acres of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Remnant right-of-way (ROW). The project site also includes 37.9 acres of Caltrans I-5 fee title ROW, which would not be developed as part of the proposed project.
Finally, the proposed project would require construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch SacSewer North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way.
Sacramento LAFCo and the City of Sacramento have discretionary authority and are each a lead agency for their respective components of the proposed project. In addition to certification of this EIR and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the proposed project requires approval of the following by Sacramento LAFCo:
SOI Amendment to include the project site within the City of Sacramento SOI and the SacSewer SOI; and
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Annexation of the project site into the Sacramento City limits and SacSewer service area and associated detachment from various service providers, such as the Natomas Fire Protection District, Sacramento County Water Agency Zone 13, and County Service Area (CSA) 1.
The proposed project requires approval of the following by the City of Sacramento:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan to include the boundaries of the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels (total of 414.3 acres – not including roadways) as Employment – Mixed Use; Prezoning of 317.9 acres (not including roadways) of the project site to Industrial Planned Unit Development (M-1-PUD), 13.4 acres (not including roadways) of the site to Highway Commercial PUD (HC-PUD), and 83 acres of the site to Industrial (M-1); PUD (Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines)
Tentative Master Parcel Map;
Development Agreement;
Public Facilities Finance Plan; and
Property Tax Exchange Agreement (between the City and the County of Sacramento).
Please refer to Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR for a detailed description of the proposed project and approvals, as well as a full list of the project objectives.
1.4 EIR PROCESS
The EIR process begins with the decision by the lead agencies to prepare an EIR, either during a preliminary review of a project or at the conclusion of an Initial Study. Once the decision is made to prepare an EIR, the lead agencies send a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to appropriate government agencies and, when required, to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) in the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), which will ensure that responsible and trustee State agencies reply within the required time. The SCH assigns an identification number to the project, which then becomes the identification number for all subsequent environmental documents on the project (in this case #2022030181). Commenting agencies have 30 days to respond to the NOP and provide information regarding alternatives and mitigation measures they wish to have explored in the Draft EIR and to provide notification regarding whether the agencies will be a responsible agency or a trustee agency for the project. A scoping meeting to discuss these issues may be held.
Upon completion of the Draft EIR and prior to circulation to State and local agencies and interested members of the public, a notice of completion is filed with the SCH and a public notice of availability is published to inform interested parties that a Draft EIR is available for agency and public review. In addition, the notice provides information regarding the location where copies of the Draft EIR are available for public review and any public meetings or hearings that are scheduled. The Draft EIR is circulated for a minimum period of 45 days, during which time reviewers may submit comments on the document to the lead agencies. The lead agencies must respond to comments received during the comment period in writing. If significant new information, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, is added to an EIR after public notice of availability is given, but before certification of the EIR, the revised EIR or affected chapters must be recirculated for an additional public review period with related comments and responses.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
A Final EIR will be prepared, containing public comments on the Draft EIR and written responses to those comments, as well as a list of any changes to the Draft EIR text made in response to public comments. Before approving a project, the lead agencies shall certify that the EIR (consisting of the Draft EIR and Final EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and that the EIR has been presented to the decision-making bodies of the lead agencies, which have reviewed and considered the EIR. The lead agencies shall also certify that the EIR reflects the lead agencies’ independent judgment and analyses.
The findings prepared by the lead agencies must be based on substantial evidence in the administrative record and must include an explanation that bridges the gap between evidence in the record and the conclusions required by CEQA. If the decision-making body elects to proceed with a project that would have unavoidable significant impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations explaining the decision to balance the benefits of the project against unavoidable environmental impacts must be prepared.
1.5 SCOPE OF THE EIR
This EIR constitutes a project-level analysis for a portion of the proposed project and, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, covers “all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, certain portions of the project are not receiving development permits, and the analysis for those parcels is at a programmatic level. The sections of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist identified for study in this EIR include the following:
Aesthetics;
Agricultural Resources;
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy;
Biological Resources;
Cultural Resources;
Geology and Soils;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality;
Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing;
Noise;
Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems;
Transportation;
Tribal Cultural Resources;
Effects Not Found to be Significant;
Statutorily Required Sections; and
Alternatives Analysis.
The evaluation of effects is presented on a resource-by-resource basis in Chapters 4.1 through
4.13 of the EIR. Each chapter is divided into the following four sections: Introduction, Existing Environmental Setting, Regulatory Context, and Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Impacts that are determined to be significant in Chapters 4.1 through 4.13, and for which feasible mitigation measures are not available to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level, are identified as significant and unavoidable. Chapter 5 discusses the CEQA impact areas for which the proposed project would not result in a significant impact. Chapter 6 presents a discussion of growth-inducing impacts, a summary of cumulative impacts, and significant irreversible as well as Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
significant and unavoidable environmental changes associated with the project. Alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in Chapter 7 of the EIR.
1.6 DEFINITION OF BASELINE
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the “baseline physical conditions” against which project-related changes could be compared. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) states that an EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(a), states in pertinent part:
An EIR shall identify and focus on the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. In assessing the impact of a proposed project on the environment, the Lead Agency should normally limit its examination to changes in the existing physical conditions in the affected area as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or where no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced.
The baseline condition for this EIR is the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published.
The NOP for the proposed project was published on March 4, 2022. Therefore, conditions existing at that time are considered to be the baseline against which changes that would result from the proposed project are evaluated. Impacts could include both direct and indirect physical changes to the baseline condition, as well as cumulative effects. The baseline condition for the proposed project site is described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. The baseline conditions pertaining to each resource area are described in the “Existing Environmental Setting” section of the respective chapters of this EIR.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), the EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans.
An “applicable” plan is a plan that has already been adopted and, thus, legally applies to a project; draft plans need not be evaluated.1 Since the NOP was circulated for public review, the City adopted the 2040 General Plan on February 27, 2024. However, at the time of the NOP, the adopted General Plan for the City was the 2035 General Plan. Nonetheless, the analysis of this EIR has been updated to reflect the 2040 General Plan.
1.7 NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a NOP (see Appendix A of this EIR) was circulated to the public, local, State and federal agencies, and other known interested parties for a 30-day public and agency review period from March 4, 2022 to April 4, 2022. The purpose of the NOP was to provide notification that an EIR for the proposed project would be prepared and to solicit public input on the scope and content of the document.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, Sacramento LAFCo and the City of Sacramento held an NOP scoping meeting during the 30-day review period, on March 16, 2022, for the purpose of receiving comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be prepared for the proposed project. Agencies and members of the public were invited to attend and provide input on the scope of the EIR.
1 Stephen L. Kostka and Michael H. Zischke. Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, Volume 1.
Continuing Education of the Bar: March 2022, Section 12.27.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.8 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION
During the NOP public review period from March 4, 2022 to April 4, 2022, the City of Sacramento received 19 comment letters. Verbal comments were not received at the public scoping meeting held on March 16, 2022. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix B of this EIR. The comment letters received during the NOP public review period were authored by the following representatives of public agencies and groups, as well as individual members of the general public:
Agencies
Native American Heritage Commission – Pricilla Torres-Fuentes; Pacific Gas and Electric Company – Plan Review Team;
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District – Robb Armstrong (3/28/22); Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District – Robb Armstrong (3/30/22); Airport Land Use Commission – Greg Chew;
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District – Molly Wright; Sacramento Regional Transit District – Kevin Schroder; California Department of Transportation – Gary Arnold; California Department of Fish and Wildlife – Kelley Barker; County of Sacramento – Todd Smith; and
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board – Greg Hendricks.
Groups
United Auburn Indian Community – Anna Starkey;
Inland Empire Biking Alliance – Marven E. Norman; and Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), Habitat 2020, Friends of the Swainson's Hawk, Sierra Club, Sacramento Audubon Society – Susan Herre, Barbara Leary, James P. Pachl, Judith L. Lamare, Sean Wirth, and William Bianco.
Individuals
Jeffrey P. Phillips;
Jan Schori;
Nick Zuvela;
Brian Thornton; and
Archana Maniar.
The following list, categorized by issue, summarizes the concerns brought forth in the comment letters and verbal comments received on the scope of the EIR:
Aesthetics Concerns related to:
Increase in light pollution on nearby residential areas.
Agricultural
Resources
Concerns related to:
Conversion of agricultural land to other uses.
Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, and
Energy
Concerns related to:
Construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG emissions.
Health concerns related to truck traffic/truck emissions. Consistency with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS).
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Proximity of emission sources to sensitive receptors.
Biological Resources Concerns related to:
Loss of plant and wildlife habitat.
Lighting, noise, and wildlife-human interactions.
Interference in migratory wildlife corridors.
Compliance with local conservation plans.
Potential removal of wetlands or protected plants and animals.
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Concerns related to:
Use of hazardous materials, such as rodenticides.
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Concerns related to:
Impacts to Caltrans drainage facilities.
Degradation of water quality in area waterways.
Compliance with RWQCB regulations.
Sufficiency of stormwater management on the project site. Increased and/or exacerbation of flood hazard due to changes in drainage patterns.
Land Use and
Planning/Population
and Housing
Concerns related to:
Potential incompatibility with the surrounding land uses. Project consistency with LAFCo and City Sphere of Influence Amendment procedures.
Consistency with the City and County General Plans.
Consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Noise Concerns related to:
Increase in noise levels to nearby residential areas. Impacts on the project site related to the airport and freeway noise.
Public Services,
Utilities, and Service
Systems
Concerns related to:
Annexing into the Regional Sanitation and Sacramento Area Sewer District service area.
Supply and capacity of water and wastewater facilities. Compliance with PG&E requirements when establishing utility connections.
Impacts from construction of necessary utility infrastructure, including electric and wastewater.
Transportation Concerns related to:
Traffic increases in the project vicinity.
Increased traffic delays and congestion during commute hours. Cumulative traffic impacts on the local and regional transportation system.
Impacts to specific County facilities.
Biking level-of-traffic stress.
Hazards for cyclists associated with increased truck traffic. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to allow access to a planned SacRT light rail station.
Pedestrian safety.
Potential cumulative impacts in combination with the Metro Air Park.
Compliance with standards and regulations regarding access roadways.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Approval of an encroachment permit to work in the State’s Right of Way.
A potential need for new infrastructure to support the increase in traffic.
Tribal Cultural
Resources
Concerns related to:
Potential for encountering previously unknown tribal resources at the project site.
Proper consultation with Native American tribes.
Statutorily Required
Sections
Concerns related to:
Growth-inducing impacts.
All of these issues are addressed in this EIR, in the relevant sections identified in the first column.
1.9 DRAFT EIR AND PUBLIC REVIEW
The Draft EIR is being circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. During this period, the general public, organizations, and agencies can submit comments to the Lead Agencies on the Draft EIR's accuracy and completeness. Release of the Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. The public can review the Draft EIR on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports Comments may be submitted both in written form and/or orally at the public hearing on the Draft EIR. Notice of the time and location of the hearing will be published in local newspapers, mailed to property owners and residents surrounding the project, emailed to residents that have requested to be placed on the project’s email notification list, posted on the City and Sacramento LAFCo websites, and posted at and adjacent to the site prior to the hearing.
All comments or questions regarding the Draft EIR should be addressed to:
Scott Johnson, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 808-5842
[email protected]
The City will accept all comments on the Draft EIR, including comments on the portions of the project for which LAFCo is the lead agency. The City will direct all comment letters to LAFCo, and the City and LAFCo will prepare responses to all submitted comments together.
1.10 ORGANIZATION OF THE DRAFT EIR
The EIR is organized into the following sections:
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The Introduction chapter provides an introduction and overview describing the intended use of the EIR and the review and certification process, as well as summaries of the chapters included in the EIR and summaries of the issues and concerns received from the public and public agencies during the NOP review period.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
The Executive Summary chapter summarizes the elements of the project and the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project, describes proposed mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts after mitigation. In addition, the Executive Summary includes a summary of the project alternatives and areas of known controversy.
Chapter 3 – Project Description
The Project Description chapter provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including the project’s location, background information, objectives, and technical characteristics.
Chapter 4 – Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Chapter 4 contains both a project-level and program-level analysis, as defined above, as well as a cumulative analysis of environmental issue areas associated with the proposed project. The technical subchapters for each environmental issue contain an introduction and description of the setting of the project site, identify impacts, and recommend appropriate mitigation measures, if needed.
Chapter 5 – Effects Not Found to be Significant
The Effects Not Found to be Significant chapter of the EIR addresses the project’s effects that were determined not to be significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 requires a brief discussion explaining why these effects were not found to be significant.
Chapter 6 – Statutorily Required Sections
The Statutorily Required Sections chapter of the EIR provides discussions required by CEQA regarding certain impacts that would result from the proposed project, including a summary of cumulative impacts, potential growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible changes to the environment.
Chapter 7 – Alternatives Analysis
The Alternatives Analysis chapter of the EIR describes and evaluates the alternatives to the proposed project.
Chapter 8 – References
The References chapter of the EIR provides bibliographic information for all references and resources cited.
Chapter 9 – EIR Authors and Persons Consulted
The EIR Authors and Persons Consulted chapter lists EIR and technical report authors who provided technical assistance in the preparation and review of the EIR.
Appendices
The Appendices include the NOP, comments received during the NOP comment period, and technical reports prepared for the proposed project.
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Executive Summary chapter of the EIR provides an overview of the proposed project (see Chapter 3, Project Description, for further details) and provides a table summary of the conclusions of the environmental analysis provided in Chapters 4.1 through 4.13. This chapter also summarizes the alternatives to the proposed project that are described in Chapter 7, Alternatives Analysis, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Table 2-1 contains the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, the significance of the impacts, the proposed mitigation measures for the impacts, and the significance of the impacts after implementation of the mitigation measures.
2.2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site consists of approximately 474.4 acres in Sacramento County, located southeast of the intersection of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Power Line Road. The site is identified by Sacramento County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 225-0020-010, -016, -017, -021, -022, -023, -024, - 026, -027, -030, -032, -033, -034, and -035, as well as 225-0030-023, -024, -045, and -048.
The project site is currently located within the Natomas area of unincorporated Sacramento County (County). The County’s General Plan designates the site as Agricultural Cropland and the site is zoned Agricultural 80 (AG-80). The site is bound to the north by I-5 and to the east by the City of Sacramento (City). Within the northern portion of the site, Bayou Way, a paved road consisting of two vehicle lanes, meanders in a west-to-east direction through the site. The project site currently consists of vacant, fallow agricultural land. The site was historically used as hay fields, with intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Unnamed drainage canals run roughly north-south in both the western and eastern portions of the site. Numerous unimproved dirt roads provide access to the interior of the project site, which is subdivided into multiple agricultural plots.
As described further in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is divided into two portions: the industrial park, which consists of the majority of the western portion and the northeast corner of the overall site, and the nonparticipating parcels, primarily located in the southeastern portion of the overall site. While the proposed project would require approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment and Annexation of the entire project site into the City of Sacramento City limits, only the industrial park is currently proposed for development. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way. As such, the proposed project would also require Annexation into the SacSewer service area.
The proposed project would include the development of an industrial park within an approximately 353.5-acre portion of the project site, located immediately south of Bayou Way. The industrial park would allow for construction of up to 5,204,500 square feet (sf) of industrial uses, as well as approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality, on approximately 13.4 acres of the overall site. Parcels 6A through 6C and 7A
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
2-2
through 7C are proposed retail/highway commercial uses generally situated south of the intersection of I-5 and Metro Air Parkway.
Parcels 1 through 4, all planned for industrial use, generally surround the proposed retail/highway commercial uses. Parcel 5, the remaining proposed industrial use, would be located in the northeast corner of the site. Each industrial building would include driveways and associated parking areas to accommodate vehicles and/or trailers, as well as stormwater retention/detention areas to capture stormwater runoff from the newly constructed impervious surfaces and to provide for existing stormwater storage.
The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres. The proposed project would result in first tier entitlements for future industrial uses of approximately 1,404,800 sf within the nonparticipating parcels. The nonparticipating parcels include five existing parcels controlled by separate owners, which are summarized as follows:
Parcel 8: 64.3 acres (Cayocca/Scalora);
Parcel 9: 6.5 acres (Campbell);
Parcel 10: 4.6 acres (Isgur Trust); and
Parcel 11: 0.7-acre (Patel).
In addition, the nonparticipating parcels include 6.9 acres of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Remnant right-of-way (ROW). As part of the Annexation approval process, the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels would receive City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan designations and Prezoning. In addition, it should be noted that the project site includes 37.9 acres of Caltrans I-5 fee title ROW, which would not be developed as part of the proposed project.
Sacramento LAFCo and the City of Sacramento have discretionary authority and are the co-lead agencies for the proposed project. In addition to certification of this EIR and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the proposed project requires approval of the following entitlements by Sacramento LAFCo:
SOI Amendment to include the project site within the City of Sacramento SOI; and Annexation of the project site into the Sacramento City limits and SacSewer service area.
The proposed project requires approval of the following entitlements by the City of Sacramento:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan to include the boundaries of the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels (total of 414.3 acres – not including roadways) as Employment Mixed-Use; Prezoning of 317.9 acres (not including roadways) to M-1-PUD and 13.4 acres (not including roadways) to HC-PUD for the industrial park portion of the site, and 83 acres to M-1 for the nonparticipating parcels;
PUD (Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines)
Tentative Master Parcel Map;
Development Agreement;
Finance Plan; and
Property Tax Exchange Agreement (with County of Sacramento).
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
2-3
In addition to the aforementioned entitlements from the City, the proposed project would require approvals/permits from the following State, federal, or local agencies:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); Caltrans;
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E);
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD);
Reclamation District (RD) 1000;
SacSewer; and
Sacramento Area Council of Governments Board of Directors (SACOG Airport Land Use Commission).
Please refer to Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR for a detailed description of the proposed project and entitlements, as well as a full list of the project objectives.
2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED AND
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION
Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Mitigation measures must be implemented as part of the proposed project to reduce potential adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level. Such mitigation measures are noted in this EIR and are found in the following technical chapters: Agricultural Resources; Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; Transportation; and Tribal Cultural Resources. Any impact that remains significant after implementation of mitigation measures is considered a significant and unavoidable impact.
A summary of the identified impacts in the technical chapters of the EIR is presented in Table 2-
1. In Table 2-1, the proposed project impacts are identified for each technical chapter (Chapter
4.1 through 4.13) of the EIR. In addition, Table 2-1 includes the level of significance of each impact, any mitigation measures required for each impact, and the resulting level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures for each impact.
2.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The following section presents a summary of the evaluation of the alternatives considered for the proposed project, which include the following:
No Project (No Build) Alternative;
20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative; and
Reduced Footprint Alternative.
The following summary provides brief descriptions of the three alternatives to the proposed project that are evaluated in this EIR. For a more thorough discussion of project alternatives, please refer to Chapter 7, Alternatives Analysis.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
2-4
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that the project site would remain in its current condition, as described above. The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the identified project objectives and would not result in any impact, with the exception of a slightly greater impact related to Biological Resources due to the lack of impact fees and open space land dedications towards the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Program (HCP). 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative
The 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site as proposed, including the future industrial warehouse buildout. Based on the square footages of the total developable lands, the proposed industrial warehouse development, and the future industrial development, the Alternative would require the active warehouses to maintain 20 percent of the truck fleet as electric vehicles at full buildout of the Annexation area.
Because the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include development of the project site with the same proposed uses, all of the project objectives would be met. In addition, because the 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would include the operation of 20 percent of the overall fleet as electric vehicles over diesel-powered, the project objectives concerning energy efficiency, utilizing alternative energy sources, and minimizing impacts would be improved. In the case of an electric fleet, impacts associated with air quality and GHG emissions would be most significantly reduced by the alternative.
The 20 Percent Electric Fleet Alternative would result in fewer impacts to Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy as compared to the proposed project. However, the Alternative would result in similar impacts related to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources as compared to the proposed project.
Reduced Footprint Alternative
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would consist of buildout of the project site as proposed for the majority of the parcels, and leaving Parcels 9, 10, and 11, as well as an approximately 51.3- acre portion of Parcel 8, as undeveloped agricultural land. In comparison to the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in a reduction of 419,809.4 sf of industrial buildings and would preserve approximately 51.3 acres of agricultural land and 18 acres of other land, including the wetlands contained within Parcels 10 and 11, for a total of 69.3 acres of preserved land. Because the Reduced Footprint Alternative would include development of the project site with the proposed uses for the majority of the parcels, the project objectives would be met.
The Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts to Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Energy, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems, and Tribal Cultural Resources as compared to the proposed project. However, the Alternative would result in similar impacts related to Aesthetics, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing, and Transportation as compared to the proposed project.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
2-5
Environmentally Superior Alternative
An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an environmentally superior alternative be designated and states, “If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” The No Project Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative, because the project site is assumed to remain in its current condition under the alternative. Consequently, the impacts resulting from the proposed project would not occur under the Alternative.
Based on the analysis presented in Chapter 7, Alternatives Analysis, of this EIR, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would meet all project objectives and would result in similar or fewer impacts as compared to the proposed project. In addition, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would result in fewer impacts to Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems, Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources as compared to the proposed project. Therefore, the Reduced Footprint Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
2.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Areas of controversy that were identified in NOP comment letters, and are otherwise known for the region, include the following:
Increase in light pollution on nearby residential areas. Conversion of agricultural land to other uses.
Construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants and/or GHG emissions. Health concerns related to truck traffic/truck emissions and the proximity of emission sources to sensitive receptors.
Loss of plant and wildlife habitat.
Lighting, noise, and wildlife-human interactions.
Removal of wetlands or protected plant and animals.
Potential impacts related to the inadvertent discovery of cultural, historical, or tribal resources at the project site.
Use of hazardous materials, including rodenticides.
Degradation of water quality in area waterways.
Sufficiency of stormwater management.
Increased and/or exacerbation of flood hazards due to changes in drainage patterns. Incompatibility with surrounding land uses.
Consistency with LAFCo and City Sphere of Influence procedures. Consistency with City and County General Plans, and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Increase in noise levels to nearby residential areas. Annexation into the Regional Sanitation and Sacramento Area Sewer District service area. Supply and capacity of water and wastewater facilities. Traffic increases in the project vicinity.
Increased traffic delays and congestion during commute hours. Cumulative traffic impacts on the local and regional transportation system. Hazards for pedestrians and cyclists associated with increased truck traffic. Potential cumulative impacts in combination with the Metro Air Park. Growth-inducing impacts.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.1 Aesthetics
4.1-1 Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista.
LS None required. N/A
4.1-2 Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.
LS None required. N/A
4.1-3 In a non-urbanized area, would
the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point).
S None feasible. SU
4.1-4 Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
LS None required. N/A
4.1-5 Long-term changes in visual
character associated with cumulative development of the proposed project in combination with future buildout of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento County General Plan.
S None feasible. SU
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.1-6 Creation of new sources of light
or glare associated with cumulative development of the proposed project in combination with future buildout of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan.
LCC None required. N/A
4.2 Agricultural Resources
4.2-1 Impacts related to the conversion
of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use.
S Industrial Park
4.2-1 The City shall ensure that, prior to impacting
agricultural/open space resources within the project site by the issuance of a grading permit, any and all project-related subdivision maps satisfy the On-Site Open Space and Off-Site Open Space requirements as defined herein. Open space dedications made pursuant to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) shall be made to the City and/or the Natomas Basin Conservancy and shall be located in the Natomas Basin. The remaining non-Natomas Basin HCP mitigation acreage may be located in unincorporated Sacramento County, Yolo County, and/or Sutter County, and may be held and managed by a qualified third-party entity with the approval of the City. Preservation shall be ensured in perpetuity via conservation easement, fee, or irrevocable offer of dedication to the satisfaction of the City. a. On-Site Agricultural/Open Space
Requirements: The following on-site open space properties are consistent with the mitigation requirements:
SU
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
86 acres of detention basins. 37.9 acres of freeway buffer. 2.3 acres of canal buffers. b. Off-site Agricultural/Open Space
Requirements: The following Off-Site Open Space properties:
141.51 acres of currently
unidentified agricultural/open spaced mitigation property to be located in the unincorporated Sacramento County and/or unincorporated Sutter County. 50-acre habitat mitigation property
APN 225-0020-014.
67.59-acre habitat mitigation
property APN 225-0020-015.
c. Phasing: The Airport South Industrial
Project will develop in phases, as such, the amount of On-Site and Off-Site Open Space to be provided hereunder shall be in proportion to the amount of acreage proposed to be impacted by such development by the issuance of a grading permit therefor.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
d. With respect to each unidentified open
space property listed above, and any proposed substitution of an open space property listed above, the City must determine, in writing, that the proposed agricultural/open space property and/or acreage satisfies the requirements for agricultural/open space to be counted towards the requisite Off-Site Agricultural/Open Space acreage total. e. Nothing in this Agricultural/Open Space
Mitigation is intended to limit or restrict USFWS and CDFW in their consideration of Developer's applications for incidental take and/or other habitat mitigation permits or other entitlements under the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act.
4.2-2 Impacts related to conflicts with
existing zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts.
LS None required. N/A
4.2-3 Impacts related to involving other
changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.2-4 Impacts related to compliance
with the requirements of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg act (Government Code, Section 56000 et. seq.) pertaining to the conversion of agricultural land.
S None feasible beyond Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. SU
4.2-5 Impacts related to cumulative
loss of agricultural land.
CC 4.2-5 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. SU
4.3 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy
4.3-1 Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan during project construction.
S 4.3-1(a) The following SMAQMD’s Basic Construction
Emissions Control Practices (BMPs) for dust control shall be included through a notation on all project grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits, to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. Water all exposed surfaces two times daily.
Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads; Cover or maintain at least two feet of free
board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered; Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to
remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15
miles per hour (mph);
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking
lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; Minimize idling time either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site; Provide current certificate(s) of compliance for
CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation [CCR Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2449.1]. For more information contact CARB at 877-593-6677, [email protected], or www.arb.ca.gov/doors/compliance_ cert1.html.; and Maintain all construction equipment in proper
working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determine to be running in proper condition before it is operated.
4.3-1(b) Prior to approval of any Improvement Plans, the project applicant shall provide proof of compliance
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
with the following to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento Community Development Department:
The project applicant shall show on the plans via notation that the contractor shall ensure that the heavy-duty off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more) to be used in the construction of all project components (i.e., construction of the industrial park, nonparticipating parcels, and off-site force main), including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, shall be a combination of engine Tier 3 or Tier 4 off-road construction equipment, or hybrid, electric, or alternatively fueled equipment (or any combination of the above), sufficient to achieve a fleet-wide average reduction in construction-related NOX emissions to below the applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance (85 lbs/day). For instance, the emissions presented in Table 4.3-8 of the Draft EIR were achieved by requiring all equipment used during construction to be engine Tier 4. In addition, all off-road equipment operating at the construction site must be maintained in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. Idling shall be limited to five minutes or less in accordance with the In-Use OffRoad Diesel Vehicle Regulation as required by CARB. Clear signage regarding idling restrictions Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
shall be placed at the entrances to the construction site. Portable equipment over 50 horsepower must have either a valid SMAQMD Permit to Operate (PTO) or a valid statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) placard and sticker issued by CARB. Conformance with the foregoing requirements shall be included as notes and be confirmed through review and approval of grading plans by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.3-2 Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan during project operation.
S 4.3-2 Prior to the approval of project improvement plans for both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels, the project applicant shall comply with the provisions of the Air Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D), and incorporate all requirements into the Airport South Industrial Project conditions of approval. The measures included in the AQMP include the following:
1. Natural gas use shall be prohibited in all land
uses, with the exception of the restaurant kitchen.
2. The project shall implement a Transportation
Management Association (TMA), such as Jibe North Natomas (for more information, visit https://jibe.org/). The TMA must comply SU
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
with the following criteria, and is subject to approval by the City of Sacramento and SMAQMD:
a. The TMA must be legally constituted
as a non-profit organization, Property/Business Improvement District (PBID), or a government entity with a non-revocable funding mechanism, such as a community finance district, dedicated to TMA operations and services; and b. The TMA must provide a minimum
level of TDM services to employees and residents within the area covered by the AQMP sufficient to achieve the emission reductions claimed by the measure. Services must be enumerated and funded to the satisfaction of the lead agency and SMAQMD.
3. The project applicant shall require all tenants
of the on-site industrial uses to use zeroemission forklifts.
4. The project applicant shall require that 4.5
percent of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet be zero emission by full buildout of the annexation area. It should be noted that in the event there is a disruption in the manufacturing of zero emission vehicles/trucks or that sufficient Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
vehicles/trucks are not commercially available for the intended application, the “clean fleet requirements” may be adjusted as minimally as possible by the City’s Community Development Department to accommodate the manufacturing disruption or unavailability of commercially available vehicles/trucks.
5. The project shall provide complete sidewalks
separated from roadway throughout the project site and pedestrian crossing at intersections on-site to ensure employees and visitors can walk between land uses/businesses. The project shall also connect the pedestrian network on-site to the adjacent properties off-site (including South Bayou Way, Power Line Road and potential future connections) as indicated on the preliminary site plan when those portions of the site develop.
6. Provide EV Ready parking spaces at the ratio
with which the current CalGreen Tier 2 standards require EV Capable spaces.
4.3-3 Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
S 4.3-3 If Parcel 8 (the 64.3-acre nonparticipating parcel owned by Cayocca) is proposed to be developed with a distribution center (i.e., an industrial warehouse that accommodates more than 100 heavy-duty trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units [TRUs] per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week) within 1,000 LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
feet of a sensitive receptor, prior to the issuance of any building permit, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be conducted to calculate the cancer risk associated with on-site truck diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions.
The HRA shall be prepared in accordance with
SMAQMD guidelines, as well as the guidelines identified in the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. If health risks associated with Parcel 8 are determined to exceed the applicable SMAQMD thresholds, a qualified air quality consultant shall identify measures sufficient to reduce the project’s health risks to below the SMAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Reduction measures may include, but are not limited to, relocation of loading docks to further than 1,000 feet from sensitive receptors, electrification of the heavy-duty truck fleet, and/or other options as they become available. Conformance with the foregoing requirement shall be confirmed through review and approval of the HRA by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.3-4 Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.3-5 Result in the inefficient or
wasteful use of energy, or conflict with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
LS None required. N/A
4.3-6 Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).
CC 4.3-6 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.3-2. SU
4.3-7 Generation of GHG emissions
that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
S Construction
4.3-7(a) Prior to the initiation of construction of the industrial park, the project applicant shall demonstrate that construction-related GHG emissions would be reduced to 935 MTCO2e/yr and shall submit proof to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. In addition, prior to the initiation of construction of the nonparticipating parcels, the future applicant of all future development proposals on such parcels shall demonstrate that constructionrelated GHG emissions would be reduced to 165 MTCO2e/yr and shall submit proof to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Construction-related GHG emissions can be reduced
through several options. The SMAQMD recommends the following options for reducing greenhouse gas emission from construction projects:
Modify the construction schedule to reduce
the intensity of construction to lower emissions;
Ensure that phases of development do not
overlap;
Use of renewable diesel for construction fuel
rather than diesel;
Improve fuel efficiency from construction
equipment by:
o Minimizing idling time either by
shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than three minutes (fiveminute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485 of the California Code of Regulations]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site; and o Using equipment with new
technologies (repowered engines, electric drive trains). Perform on-site emission reductions such as
implementing on-site material hauling with
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
trucks equipped with on-road engines (if determined to be less emissive than the offroad engines) or real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable onsite emission reductions; Use alternative fuels for generators at
construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power; Use a CARB-approved low carbon fuel for
construction equipment; (NOX emissions
from the use of low carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases mitigated.) Encourage and provide carpools, shuttle
vans, transit passes and/or secure bicycle parking for construction worker commutes; Reduce electricity use in the construction
office by using LED bulbs, powering off computers every day, and replacing heating and cooling units with more efficient ones; Recycle or salvage non-hazardous
construction and demolition debris (goal of at least 75 percent by weight); Use locally sourced or recycled materials for
construction materials (goal of at least 20 percent based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products utilized should be certified through a sustainable forestry program; Minimize the amount of concrete for paved
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
surfaces or utilize a low carbon concrete option;
Produce concrete on-site if determined to be
less emissive than transporting ready mix;
Use SmartWay certified trucks for deliveries
and equipment transport; and
Develop a plan to efficiently use water for
adequate dust control.
The project applicant may elect to implement any combination of the foregoing measures to reduce construction-related GHG emissions. All GHG emissions reductions must be quantified. Compliance with the aforementioned measures shall be ensured by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. If the quantified reduction measures do not reduce construction-related GHG emissions to below 935 MTCO2e/yr for the industrial park and 165, MTCO2e/yr for the nonparticipating parcels, offsite carbon credits may be purchased to make up the difference. The purchase of off-site mitigation credits shall be negotiated with the City and SMAQMD at the time that credits are sought. Off-site mitigation credits shall be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). The offsets shall be retired, and emissions must be offset through Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
the year 2045. Such credits shall be based on CARBapproved protocols that are consistent with the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 95972 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not allow the use of offset projects originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by the City of Sacramento and/or the SMAQMD. Such credits must be purchased through one of the following: (i) a CARB-approved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) any registry established by SMAQMD.
Operations
4.3-7(b) Prior to the approval of any building permits, the applicant shall implement the following measures:
1. The proposed project shall be designed such
that all project components, with the exception of the on-site restaurant kitchens, are built all-electric. The kitchens shall include pre-wiring to allow for the future retrofit of all natural gas appliances with allelectric appliances. If the kitchens are electrically powered and do not use natural gas, further mitigation is not required; and Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
2. If natural gas is installed in the kitchens, the
applicant shall reduce GHG emissions associated with on-site restaurant kitchens at a rate of 158.77 MTCO2e/yr through any combination of the following on-site mitigation options:
o Requiring on-site renewable energy
generation in excess of Code requirements.
o Increasing the number of EV
charging stations.
o Constructing on-site or fund off-site
carbon sequestration projects (such as tree plantings or reforestation projects). o Implementing a Transportation
Demand Management Program.
o Should new and quantifiable GHG
emission reduction technology become available, the applicant may otherwise achieve the required GHG emissions reduction through other means, subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento and the SMAQMD.
The project applicant may elect to implement any combination of the foregoing measures to reduce operational GHG emissions. All Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
GHG emissions reductions must be quantified. If it is determined that the above on-site mitigation options are not sufficient to achieve the required GHG reduction, subject to the discretion of the City of Sacramento and the SMAQMD, off-site carbon credits may be purchased to make up the difference. The purchase of off-site mitigation credits shall be negotiated with the City and SMAQMD at the time that credits are sought. Off-site mitigation credits shall be real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional, consistent with the standards set forth in Health and Safety Code section 38562, subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2). The offsets shall be retired, and emissions must be offset through the year 2045. Such credits shall be based on CARBapproved protocols that are consistent with the criteria set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 95972 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations, and shall not allow the use of offset projects originating outside of California, except to the extent that the quality of the offsets, and their sufficiency under the standards set forth herein, can be verified by the City of Sacramento and/or the SMAQMD. Such credits must be purchased Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
through one of the following: (i) a CARBapproved registry, such as the Climate Action Reserve, the American Carbon Registry, and the Verified Carbon Standard; (ii) any registry approved by CARB to act as a registry under the California Cap and Trade program; or (iii) any registry established by SMAQMD.
Compliance with the aforementioned measures shall be ensured by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.3-7(c) Consistent with SMAQMD’s GHG BMP-2, prior to the approval of project improvement plans, the applicant shall indicate that EV Ready parking spaces shall be installed throughout the project site at the ratio with which the current CalGreen Tier 2 standards require EV Capable spaces. Compliance with this measure shall be ensured by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.3-7(d) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.12-3.
4.3-8 Result in a cumulatively
considerable inefficient or wasteful use of energy or conflict with a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4-1 Impacts to special-status plant
species, either directly (e.g., threaten to eliminate a plant community) or through substantial habitat modifications.
S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-1(a) Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities associated with development of the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels, the following Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures shall be implemented, as applicable:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.1:
Not less than 30 days or more than 6 months prior to
commencement of construction activities, a preconstruction survey of the portion of the site to be disturbed shall be conducted to determine the status and presence of, and likely impacts to, all Covered Species on the site. However, pre-construction surveys for an individual species may be completed up to one year in advance if the sole period for reliable detection of that species is between May 1 and December 31. The project proponent will be responsible for contracting with qualified biological consultants to carry out the pre-construction surveys, and as necessary, to implement specific take minimization, and other Conservation Measures set forth in the Natomas Basin HCP and approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The results of the pre-construction surveys along with
recommended take minimization measures shall be documented in a report and shall be submitted to the City, USFWS, CDFG and the Natomas Basin Conservancy. Based upon the survey results, the City will identify applicable take avoidance and other site-specific Conservation Measures, consistent with the Natomas Basin HCP, required to be carried out on the site. The approved pre-construction survey documents and list of Conservation Measures will be submitted by the developer to the City to demonstrate compliance with the Natomas Basin HCP.
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.o:
If Sanford’s arrowhead plants are identified through a
pre-construction survey, the City shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFW and the California Native Plant Society. Under such circumstances, the development proponent shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to site disturbance.
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.p: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determines Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento orcutt grass, Slender orcutt grass, Colusa grass, or legenere are present, the City shall require the developer to consult with USFWS to determine Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
appropriate measures to avoid and minimize loss of individuals.
4.4-1(b) With respect to special-status plant species not covered under the Natomas Basin HCP, prior to the commencement of construction activities associated with the nonparticipating parcels, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction protocol-level surveys for special-status plants with potential to occur onsite. The surveys may be conducted concurrently with the preconstruction surveys set forth by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a). The results of the surveys shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department and shall be valid for two years. If special-status plant species are not found, further mitigation shall not be required.
If any special-status plants are located during the
foregoing surveys, the appropriate agency (i.e., CDFW and/or USFWS, depending on the species) shall be consulted to develop appropriate mitigation for the proposed project for expected impacts. If special-status plants would be impacted, as determined by the qualified biologist, a mitigation plan shall be developed in coordination with the appropriate agency and submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. Mitigation shall include that if special-status perennial species are found in Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
areas proposed for disturbance, the plants shall be dug up and transplanted into a suitable avoided area on-site prior to construction. If the plant found is an annual, then mitigation shall consist of collecting seed-bearing soil and spreading it into a suitable location.
4.4-2 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on monarch butterfly.
LS None required. N/A
4.4-3 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on giant garter snake.
S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and
commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall ensure that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures have been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.a:
1. Within the Natomas Basin, all construction
activity involving disturbance of habitat, such as site preparation and initial grading, is restricted to the period between May 1 and September 30. This is the active period for the giant garter snake and direct mortality is lessened, because snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger.
2. Pre-construction surveys for giant garter
snake, as well as other NBHCP Covered Species, must be completed for all LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
development projects by a qualified biologist approved by USFWS. If any giant garter snake habitat is found within a specific site, the following additional measures shall be implemented to minimize disturbance of habitat and harassment of giant garter snake, unless such project is specifically exempted by USFWS.
3. Between April 15 and September 30, all
irrigation ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitat should be completely dewatered, with no puddled water remaining, for at least 15 consecutive days prior to the excavation or filling in of the dewatered habitat. Make sure dewatered habitat does not continue to support giant garter snake prey, which could detain or attract snakes into the area. If a site cannot be completely dewatered, netting and salvage of prey items may be necessary. This measure removes aquatic habitat component and allows giant garter snake to leave on their own.
4. For sites that contain giant garter snake
habitat, no more than 24-hours prior to start of construction activities (site preparation and/or grading), the project area shall be surveyed for the presence of giant garter snake. If construction activities stop on the project site for a period of two weeks or more, a new giant garter snake survey shall be completed no Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
more than 24-hours prior to the re-start of construction activities.
5. Confine clearing to the minimal area
necessary to facilitate construction activities. Flag and designate avoided giant garter snake habitat within or adjacent to the project as Environmentally Sensitive Areas. This area shall be avoided by all construction personnel.
6. Construction personnel completing site
preparation and grading operations shall receive USFWS approved environmental awareness training. This training instructs workers on how to identify giant garter snakes and their habitats, and what to do if a giant garter snake is encountered during construction activities. During this training an on-site biological monitor shall be designated.
7. If a live giant garter snake is found during
construction activities, immediately notify the USFWS and the project’s biological monitor. The biological monitor, or his/her assignee, shall do the following:
a. Stop construction in the vicinity of the
snake. Monitor the snake and allow the snake to leave on its own. The monitor shall remain in the area for the remainder of the work day to make sure the snake is not harmed or if it leaves the site, does not return.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Escape routes for giant garter snake should be determined in advance of construction and snakes should always be allowed to leave on their own. If a giant garter snake does not leave on its own within 1 working day, further consultation with USFWS is required.
8. Upon locating dead, injured or sick threatened
or endangered wildlife species, the project applicant must notify within 1 working day the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement (2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento CA 95825) or the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605, Sacramento, CA 95825, telephone 916 414-6600). Written notification to both offices must be made within 3 calendar days and must include the date, time, and location of the finding of a specimen and any other pertinent information.
9. Fill or construction debris may be used by
giant garter snake as an over-wintering site. Therefore, upon completion of construction activities remove any temporary fill and/or construction debris from the site. If this material is situated near undisturbed giant garter snake habitat and it is to be removed between October 1 and April 30, it shall be inspected by a qualified biologist to assure Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
that giant garter snake are not using it as hibernaculae.
10. No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar
erosion control matting that could entangle snakes will be placed on a project site when working within 200 feet of snake aquatic or rice habitat. Possible substitutions include coconut coir matting, tactified hydroseeding compounds, or other material approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
4.4-4 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on northwestern pond turtle.
S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-4(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall ensure that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.j:
1. Take of the northwestern pond turtle as a
result of habitat destruction during construction activities, including the removal of irrigation ditches and drains, and during ditch and drain maintenance, will be minimized by the dewatering requirement described above for giant garter snake (see Section 5.a.(3)).
4.4-4(b) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-1(a).
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.4-5 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on Swainson’s hawk.
S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-5(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall ensure that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.b:
Measures to Reduce Nest Disturbance
1. Prior to the commencement of development
activities, a pre-construction survey shall be completed to determine whether any Swainson’s hawk nest trees will be removed on-site, or active Swainson’s hawk nest sites occur on or within ½ mile of the development site. These surveys shall be conducted according to the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s (May 31, 2000) methodology or updated methodologies, as approved by the Service and CDFG, using experienced Swainson’s hawk surveyors.
2. If breeding Swainson’s hawks (i.e. exhibiting
nest building or nesting behavior) are identified, no new disturbances (e.g., heavy equipment operation associated with construction) will occur within ½ mile of an active nest between March 15 and September 15, or until a qualified biologist, LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
with concurrence by CDFG, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied. If the active nest site is located within 1/4 mile of existing urban development, the no new disturbance zone can be limited to the ¼ mile versus ½ mile. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine facility maintenance activities within ½ mile of an active nest are not restricted.
3. Where disturbance of a Swainson’s hawk
nest cannot be avoided, such disturbance shall be temporarily avoided (i.e., defer construction activities until after the nesting season) and then, if unavoidable, the nest tree may be destroyed during the nonnesting season. For purposes of this provision the Swainson's hawk nesting season is defined as March 15 to September 15. If a nest tree (any tree that has an active nest in the year the impact is to occur) must be removed, tree removal shall only occur between September 15 and February 1.
4. If a Swainson’s hawk nest tree is to be
removed and fledglings are present, the tree may not be removed until September 15 or until the California Department of Fish and Game has concurred that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest tree.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
5. If construction or other project related
activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling are proposed within the ¼ mile buffer zone, intensive monitoring (funded by the project sponsor) by a Department of Fish and Game approved raptor biologist will be required. Exact implementation of this measure will be based on specific information at the project site.
4.4-5(b) To address potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat that occurs on-site, but outside of the Natomas Basin HCP permit area, the project applicant shall pay the Natomas Basin HCP mitigation fees for land acquisition, enhancement, and management and monitoring activities, should a portion of the City’s surplus HCP coverage be made available to the proposed project.
OR
Pursuant to CDFW guidelines, the applicant shall preserve Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat at a 0.5:1 ratio. The preserved habitat shall be at a location approved by the CDFW. Preservation may occur through purchase of conservation easements or fee title of lands with suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (consistent with CDFW guidelines).
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.4-6 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on burrowing owl.
S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-6 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and
commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall ensure that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measure has been implemented: Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.h:
1. Prior to the initiation of grading or earth
disturbing activities, the applicant/developer shall hire a CDFG approved qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey of the site to determine if any burrowing owls are using the site for foraging or nesting. The pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City prior to the developer’s commencement of construction activities and a mitigation program shall be developed and agreed to by the City and developer prior to initiation of any physical disturbance on the site.
2. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed
during nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist approved by the CDFG verifies through noninvasive measures that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or 2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
3. If nest sites are found, the USFWS and
CDFG shall be contacted regarding suitable mitigation measures, which may include a 300 foot buffer from the nest site during the breeding season (February 1 - August 31), or a relocation effort for the burrowing owls if the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or the juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If on-site avoidance is required, the location of the buffer zone will be determined by a qualified biologist. The developer shall mark the limit of the buffer zone with yellow caution tape, stakes, or temporary fencing. The buffer will be maintained throughout the construction period.
4. If relocation of the owls is approved for the
site by USFWS and CDFG, the developer shall hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must include: (a) the location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation; (b) the location of the proposed relocation site; (c) the number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place; (d) the name and credentials of the biologist who will Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
be retained to supervise the relocation; (e) the proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site; (f) a description of the site preparations at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, onetime or long-term vegetation control, etc.); and (g) a description of efforts and funding support proposed to monitor the relocation. Relocation options may include passive relocation to another area of the site not subject to disturbance through one way doors on burrow openings, or construction of artificial burrows in accordance with the CDFG’s October 17, 1995, Staff Report on Burrowing Owls Mitigation (see Appendix D).
5. Where on-site avoidance is not possible,
disturbance and/or destruction of burrows shall be offset through development of suitable habitat on TNBC upland reserves. Such habitat shall include creation of new burrows with adequate foraging area (a minimum of 6.5 acres) or 300 feet radii around the newly created burrows. Additional habitat design and mitigation measures are described in CDFW’s March 7, 2012, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.
4.4-7 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
habitat modifications, on Aleutian cackling goose, white-faced ibis, and tricolored blackbird.
4.4-8 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on loggerhead shrike.
S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-8 Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and
commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall ensure that the following Natomas Basin HCP Take Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measure has been implemented:
Natomas Basin HCP Section V.A.5.g:
1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the
City shall require a pre-construction survey.
2. If surveys identify an active loggerhead
shrike nest that will be impacted by development, the developer shall install brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 100 feet from the active nest. No disturbance associated with development shall occur within the 100 foot fenced area during the nesting season of March 1 through July 31. A qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS must determine young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied prior to disturbance of the nest site.
LS
4.4-9 Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on northern S Industrial Park and Nonparticipating Parcels LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
harrier, white-tailed kite, song sparrow, and other nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and CFGC.
4.4-9(a) Raptors: If ground disturbance or other construction activities are proposed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a focused survey for nesting raptors protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to the beginning of construction activities in order to identify active nests. The survey shall be conducted within the proposed construction area and all accessible areas within 0.5-mile. A report summarizing the results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. If active nests are not found during the focused survey(s), additional mitigation shall not be required. For any period of project inactivity of more than seven days, the qualified biologist shall conduct a field check of the previously surveyed area before construction activities recommence to confirm nesting raptors have not entered during the interim.
If active raptor nests are found within 0.5-mile of a construction area, construction shall not commence within 0.5-mile of the nest until a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged, or the biologist has determined that the nesting attempt has failed. If construction activities within 0.5-mile of the nest are necessary, the qualified biologist shall be consulted to determine if the nest buffer can be reduced. The applicant and qualified biologist shall Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
jointly determine the nest avoidance buffer, and what (if any) nest monitoring is necessary. If an active raptor nest is found within the project area prior to construction and is in a tree that is proposed for removal, then the project applicant shall implement additional mitigation recommended by a qualified biologist based on CDFW guidelines and obtain any required permits from CDFW.
4.4-9(b) Songbirds: If ground disturbance or other
construction activities are proposed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), a focused survey for birds protected under the MBTA shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within seven days prior to the beginning of construction activities in order to identify active nests. The survey shall be conducted within the proposed construction area and all accessible areas within 500 feet. A report summarizing the results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. If active nests are not found during the focused survey(s), additional mitigation shall not be required. For any period of project inactivity of more than seven days, the qualified biologist shall conduct a field check of the previously surveyed area before construction activities recommence to confirm nesting songbirds have not entered during the interim.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
If active special-status species nests/nesting colonies are located during the survey, the project applicant shall work with a qualified biologist to determine a suitable avoidance buffer and the extent and duration of nest monitoring needed. The perimeter of the protected area shall be indicated by bright orange temporary fencing and signage. Construction activities and/or personnel shall not enter the protected area, except with approval of the biologist. If trees containing nests or burrows must be removed as a result of project implementation, removal shall be completed during the nonbreeding season (late September to January 31). If active songbird nests are found, a qualified biologist shall establish a 100-foot non-disturbance buffer. The non-disturbance buffers may be reduced based on consultation and approval by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. The perimeter of the protected area shall be indicated by bright orange temporary fencing. Construction activities or personnel shall not enter the protected area, except with approval of the biologist. If trees containing nests must be removed as a result of project implementation, removal shall be completed during the nonbreeding season (late September to January 31) or after the adults and young are not dependent on the nest site, as determined by a qualified biologist.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.4-10 Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other Sensitive Natural Community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.
S Industrial Park
4.4-10(a) Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall notify CDFW, pursuant to CFGC Section 1600. The notification shall include a description of all of the activities associated with the proposed industrial park, not just those associated with the drainages and/or riparian vegetation. Impacts shall be outlined in the notification and are expected to be in substantial conformance with the impacts to biological resources outlined in the Biological Resources Assessment prepared for the Airport South Industrial Project by Bargas Environmental Consulting. Impacts for each activity shall be broken down by temporary and permanent impacts. A description of the proposed mitigation for biological resource impacts shall be outlined per activity and then by temporary and permanent impact. Information regarding projectspecific drainage and hydrology changes resulting from project implementation shall be provided, as well as a description of stormwater treatment methods. Minimization and avoidance measures shall be proposed, as appropriate, and may include preconstruction species surveys and reporting, protective fencing around avoided biological resources, worker environmental awareness training, seeding disturbed areas adjacent to open space areas with native seed, and installation of projectspecific stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). Mitigation for impacts to Goodding’s willow –
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
red willow riparian woodland and forest, valley oak riparian forest woodland, and California bulrush marsh may include restoration or enhancement of resources on- or off-site, or any other method acceptable to CDFW. Mitigation shall not result in a net loss of a Sensitive Natural Community. If CDFW determines through the course of the CFGC Section 1600 notification process that the project does not require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) to address potential impacts to Goodding’s willow – red willow riparian woodland and forest, valley oak riparian forest woodland, and California bulrush marsh, further mitigation regarding the aforementioned vegetation communities shall not be required. Written verification of the applicant’s compliance with the Section 1600 LSAA process shall be submitted to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
Nonparticipating Parcels4.4-10(b) As part of any application associated with development of the nonparticipating parcels, the applicant shall ensure that a qualified biologist has reviewed areas proposed for disturbance to identify vegetation communities that occur in the development footprint and confirm the presence and acreages of Sensitive Natural Communities. If a Sensitive Natural Community would not be impacted, Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
further mitigation shall not be required. The qualified biologist shall detail any recommendations to avoid impacts to identified Sensitive Natural Communities in a report, which shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.4-10(c) If a Sensitive Natural Community is identified in a nonparticipating parcel for which a development application has been submitted, the applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-10(a).
4.4-11 Have a substantial adverse effect
on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
S Industrial Park
4.4-11(a) Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit the Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) prepared for the proposed project by Bargas Environmental Consulting to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination and obtain authorization for the fill of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. through the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting process. Timing for compliance with the specific conditions of the Section 404 permit shall be pursuant to the conditions specified by USACE as part of permit issuance. Proof of compliance with the requirements established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.4-11(b) Prior to construction in any areas containing wetlands or waters of the U.S. and/or State, the project
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
applicant shall obtain a water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. Any measures required as part of the issuance of the water quality certification shall be implemented.
4.4-11(c) Prior to construction in any areas containing wetlands or waters of the U.S. and/or State, the project applicant shall file a report of waste discharge with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for activities affecting wetlands or waters of the State that are not also under USACE jurisdiction, if applicable.
4.4-11(d) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-10(a).
Nonparticipating Parcels4.4-11(e) As part of any application associated with development of the nonparticipating parcels, the applicant shall ensure that a qualified biologist has conducted an Aquatic Resources Delineation (ARD) for areas proposed for disturbance to identify potential waters of the U.S. and/or State. The ARD shall be conducted in accordance with the minimum standards set forth by the USACE South Pacific Division and Sacramento District Regulatory Program, as well as the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
West Region of the Western United States or any manuals that supplement or replace these manuals. If potential waters of the U.S. and/or State are not identified, further mitigation shall not be required. The ARD shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department and USACE Sacramento District Regulatory Division.
4.4-11(f) If waters of the U.S. and/or State are identified within areas proposed for disturbance, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-11(a) through 4.4-11(d), as applicable.
4.4-12 Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
S 4.4-12 Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-3. LS
4.4-13 Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
S Industrial Park
4.4-13(a) Prior to the issuance of any grading permit and commencement of ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall hire a qualified arborist to evaluate all trees within areas proposed for disturbance to confirm if the trees meet the definition of a Private Protected Tree, as set forth by Sacramento City Code Section 12.56.020. Results of the tree survey shall be submitted for review and LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
approval to the City of Sacramento Department of Public Works’ Urban Forestry section. Should any onsite tree that would be potentially impacted by the proposed project be found to qualify as a Private Protected Tree, the project applicant shall obtain a Tree Permit from the City of Sacramento Community Development Department and comply with the permit requirements in effect at the time of project grading for removal, pruning, or soil disturbance within the canopy dripline of a Private Protected Tree.
Nonparticipating Parcels
4.4-13(b) As part of any application associated with
development of the nonparticipating parcels, the applicant shall hire a qualified arborist to conduct a tree survey of areas proposed for disturbance to identify any trees that meet the definition of a Private Protected Tree, as established by Sacramento City Code Section 12.56.020. A report detailing the results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department. If protected trees are not identified, further mitigation shall not be required.
4.4-13(c) If protected trees are identified in areas proposed for disturbance of nonparticipating parcels, the applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-13(a).
4.4-14 Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted HCP, NCCP, or other
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
4.4-15 Cumulative loss of habitat for
special-status species.
CC Industrial Park
4.4-15(a) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) and 4.4- 1(b), 4.4-3, 4.4-4(a), 4.4-5(a) and 4.4-5(b), 4.4-6, 4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and 4.4-9(b), 4.4-10(a), 4.4-11(a) through 4.4-11(c), and 4.4-13(a).
Nonparticipating Parcels 4.4-15(b) Implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1(a) and 4.4- 1(b), 4.4-3, 4.4-4(a), 4.4-5(a) and 4.4-5(b), 4.4-6, 4.4-8, 4.4-9(a) and 4.4-9(b), 4.4-10(b) and 4.4-10(c), 4.4-11(e) and 4.4-11(f), and 4.4-13(b) and 4.4-13(c).
LCC
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5-1 Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5.
LS None required. N/A
4.5-2 Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a unique archeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
S 4.5-2 The following requirements shall be included through a notation on all project grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In the event subsurface deposits believed to be cultural or human in origin are discovered during construction, all work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of the discovery. A qualified professional archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Professional Qualification Standards for precontact and historic archaeologist, shall be retained to evaluate the significance of the find, and shall have the authority to modify the no-work radius as appropriate, using professional judgment. The following notifications shall apply, depending on the nature of the find:
If the professional archaeologist determines
that the find does not represent a cultural resource, work may resume immediately, and agency notifications are not required. If the professional archaeologist determines
that the find does represent a cultural resource from any time period or cultural affiliation, he or she shall immediately notify the City of Sacramento and applicable landowner. The project applicant shall consult on a finding of eligibility and implement appropriate treatment measures, if the find is determined to be a Historical Resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Appropriate treatment measures that preserve or restore the character and integrity of a find may be, but are not limited to, processing materials for reburial, minimizing handling of historical objects, leaving objects in place within the landscape, construction monitoring of further construction activities, and/or returning Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
objects to a location within the project area where they will not be subject to future impacts. Work shall not resume within the nowork radius until the applicant, through consultation, as appropriate, determines that the site either: 1) is not a historical resource under CEQA, as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; or 2) that the treatment measures have been completed to the City’s satisfaction. If the find includes human remains, or remains
that are potentially human, he or she shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance (Assembly Bill [AB] 2641). The archaeologist shall notify the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento County Coroner (per Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California PRC, and AB 2641 shall be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, the Coroner shall notify the NAHC, which then shall designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the proposed project (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The designated MLD shall have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the landowner does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC shall mediate (Section 5097.94 of the PRC). If an agreement is not reached, the landowner shall rebury the remains where they shall not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the PRC). The burial shall also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate information center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with Sacramento County (AB 2641). Work shall not resume within the nowork radius until the City, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.
4.5-3 Cause a cumulative loss of
cultural resources.
LS None required. N/A
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6-1 Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.6-2 Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil.
LS None required. N/A
4.6-3 Be located on a geological unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, or be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code.
S 4.6-3 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the grading plans shall incorporate the geotechnical recommendations specified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project, including, but not limited to, earthwork recommendations, foundation wall recommendations, pavement recommendations, exterior flatwork recommendations, and the preparation of a design-level geotechnical report. All grading and foundation plans for the development must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official, or their representative(s), prior to issuance of grading and building permits in order to ensure that recommendations in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design.
LS
4.6-4 Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
S 4.6-4 Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease. The City of Sacramento Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian, at the developer’s expense, for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian shall submit to the City of Sacramento Community Development Department for review and approval a LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Work may only resume in the area of discovery when the preceding work has occurred.
4.6-5 Cumulative impacts to geology,
soils, seismicity, and paleontological resources.
LS None required. N/A
4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.7-1 Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
LS None required. N/A
4.7-2 Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment.
S 4.7-2(a) Prior to approval of grading permits, a surficial soil sample laboratory analysis shall be conducted on the project site. Once the soils are collected, the soils shall be tested for OCPs, lead, and asbestos. If soil contaminates are not found, further action is not required; however, if OCPs, lead, or asbestos is found to be higher than the allowable thresholds, the assessment shall include the appropriate mitigation including, but not limited to, soil remediation to an acceptable total threshold limit concentration (TTLC) level per applicable State and federal regulations by excavation of the contaminated soil, and subsequent transportation and disposal off-site at an appropriate Class I or Class II facility permitted by DTSC; or by properly capping the contaminated soil, in compliance with DTSC regulations (e.g., placing soils underneath project roadways, etc.). All recommended mitigation measures shall be LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
implemented by the project applicant, subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.7-2(b) Prior to approval of grading permits for Parcel 1 and/or Parcel 6A, samples of the soil stockpiles onsite shall be obtained for analysis of contaminants of concern and comparison with applicable regulatory screening levels (i.e., Environmental Screening Levels, California Human Health Screening Levels, Regional Screening Levels, etc.). If soil contaminates are not found, further action is not required. However, where the soil contaminant concentrations exceed the applicable regulatory screening levels, the impacted soil shall be excavated and disposed of offsite at a licensed landfill facility to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento Community Development Department.
4.7-3 Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
LS None required. N/A
4.7-4 Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
hazard to the public or the environment.
4.7-5 For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.
S 4.7-5(a) To ensure that the final location and design of the detention basins are consistent with the recommendations of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) regarding wildlife hazards to aviation, the project applicant shall prepare a design and management plan for this proposed drainage feature. This plan shall be prepared in coordination with the Sacramento International Airport Operations Manager before commencement of construction. The plan shall determine an appropriate size and location for the detention basins and incorporate specific design measures deemed sufficient by Sacramento County Airport System (SCAS) and the ALUC to minimize bird strikes and other wildlife-related airspace safety hazards in the vicinity of the project area. The plan shall include information sufficient to satisfy requirements for preparation of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan and shall be prepared by a qualified wildlife hazard damage biologist. The project applicant shall submit a detailed design drawing of the proposed detention basins to SCAS for review. To reduce bird attractants associated with the detention basins, the Wildlife Hazards Management Plan for the detention basins and surrounding landscape shall include the following:
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Any vegetation planted in the vicinity of the
detention basins shall consist of plant species that do not provide birds with opportunities for cover, nesting, perching, or feeding. A detailed design plan for landscaping surrounding the detention basins shall be submitted to SCAS for view; Signs shall be placed at regular intervals
around the perimeter of the detention basins prohibiting the public from feeding any wildlife. The project applicant, and any subsequent property owner shall maintain such signs in good order and replace such signs as necessary. This responsibility shall transfer to the Property Management Association and shall be articulated in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs); The CC&Rs shall specify that the project
proponent and project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring trash receptacles with covers are provided and properly emptied on a regular basis and replaced as needed; Installation of structures near the detention
basins that could serve as perches for gulls and other birds shall be minimized. The CC&Rs, or other mechanism, shall prohibit the future installation of such structures. The project applicant shall prohibit all activities
and uses that could conflict with
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
implementation of the wildlife hazard management program.
An Adaptive Management Plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. The Adaptive Management Plan shall provide for the long-term management of nuisance birds around the detention basins. The management plan shall involve monitoring and employment of various techniques for controlling birds using adaptive information and bird control products. The Property Management Association, or if none exists, the property owner shall be responsible for ensuring the implementation and continued enforcement of the Adaptive Management Plan and provision of adequate funding. This requirement shall be specified in the CC&Rs or other mechanism. The Adaptive Management Plan shall include the following components:
Bird control program that involves use of the
most efficient and effective bird control techniques available that are practicable and compatible with surrounding land uses., Monitoring program that involves patrolling of
the detention basins and assessment of the effectiveness of bird control measures, the presence of potential bird attractants, and the need for modifying or increasing bird control measures, Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Funding mechanism such as use of an
endowment fund or assessment district to fund the long-term monitoring and adaptive management program. Any use of the detention basins that conflicts
with the wildlife control program shall be prohibited.
The Adaptive Management Plan shall include
the best available information on various bird control techniques, an explanation of the situations in which various techniques are best employed, and instructions for implementing such techniques. The entity responsible for implementing the management plan shall employ a qualified and experienced Wildlife Damage Biologist/Manager (Manager) who shall be responsible for determining which bird control techniques to implement based on information provided in the management plan and the best scientific and commercial information available. The Manager shall be trained in bird control techniques by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Wildlife Services (USDA). The initial cost of such training shall be borne by the project applicant. The cost of subsequent training shall be borne by the Property Management Association. The Manager shall have the discretion to use new technologies or information regarding bird control provided Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
they are practicable and within the management budget, and do not conflict with surrounding land uses or storm water control functions of the detention basins.
The monitoring and maintenance portion of the Adaptive Management Plan shall include the following:
Patrol to ensure the detention basin areas are
kept clean and free of refuse and other such material that may attract birds; Patrol to ensure the public is abiding by rules
prohibiting feeding of birds;
Control of vegetative growth around the
detention basins to minimize any vegetation that would attract birds for purpose of cover, nesting, perching, or food; Remove all nesting material prior to
completion of nest if any birds attempt to nest in areas surrounding the detention basins. All nest removal activities must comply with provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the federal Endangered Species Act; Inspect the detention basin areas to determine
whether additional measures are needed to reduce bird use of the detention basins; and Aggressively haze wildlife to discourage use
of the basins.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
If monitoring efforts reveal that additional control efforts are necessary, the Bird Control Program Manager may implement one or more control techniques outlined in the Adaptive Management Plan, or other techniques based on best available scientific and commercial information. Bird control techniques currently being used at airports, on agricultural lands, and in other areas where birds pose a hazard or nuisance shall be described in the Adaptive Management Plan. The Bird Control Program Manager shall have discretion of using any one or more of the techniques based on the need, practicability, and land use compatibility. These techniques may include, but are not limited to, allowing grass to grow over 8 inches in height (currently being employed at some airports). In addition to these control techniques, the Adaptive Management Plan shall outline an education program for the Property Management Association to implement ensuring that the public is aware of the importance of eliminating bird attractants from the area around the lake. The public shall be prohibitive from feeding birds around the detention basins and engaging in any other activities within the boundaries of the development project which may attract wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. The public shall be made aware of the purpose and importance of Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
various bird control measures being implemented by the Bird Control Program Manager. All activities and uses of the detention basins that may conflict with the wildlife control program shall be expressly prohibited. If the SCAS determines that conditions in the Airport South Industrial Project Development are not consistent with the above listed Management Program, SCAS may take the following actions:
Notify the property owner that the wildlife
control measures are out of compliance;
County Airport System may, at its option,
initiate control measures at the site, with the costs of such measures billed to the owner; and In the event of an immediate threat to aircraft
safety, County Airport System personnel can take immediate action to remedy the air hazard emergency.
To reduce attractants for Canada geese, American coots, or gulls associated with the detention basins and surrounding landscape the Management Plan shall include the following:
Signs shall be posted and identify that feeding
birds is prohibited.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Any nest building activity associated with birds
shall be removed including all nesting materials.
To prevent the establishment of resident
populations of Canada geese on the project site, the Bird Control Program Manager shall take the following, but not limited to, actions:
o Chase birds from site, o Use of noise generators (e.g., pyrotechnic devices, blank cartridges),
o Use of visual devices (e.g., flags,
scarecrows, water sprays)
o Use of chase dogs, o Live trapping or netting, and/or o Use of chemical repellants.
4.7-6 Cumulative exposure to potential
hazards and increases in the transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials.
LS None required. N/A
4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8-1 Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction.
S 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the
contractor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the Central Valley RWQCB. The contractor shall file the Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall serve as the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of BMPs. The contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
maximum extent practicable. Construction (temporary) BMPs for the project may include, but are not limited to: fiber rolls, straw bale barrier, straw wattles, storm drain inlet protection, velocity dissipation devices, silt fences, wind erosion control, stabilized construction entrance, hydroseeding, revegetation techniques, and dust control measures. The SWPPP shall be submitted to both the City Director of Public Works, and the City Engineer for review and approval and shall remain on the project site during all phases of construction. Following implementation of the SWPPP, the contractor shall subsequently demonstrate the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.
4.8-2 Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during operations.
S 4.8-2 Prior to approval of final project improvement plans for any on-site development, the project applicant shall submit a detailed Best Management Practice (BMP) and water quality maintenance plan to the City for review and approval. The BMP and water quality maintenance plan shall meet the standards of the City’s NPDES Permit, the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater BMP Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment, and the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento region. Site design measures, source control measures, hydromodification management, and Low Impact LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Development (LID) standards, as necessary, shall be incorporated into the design and shown on the improvement plans.
4.8-3 Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
LS None required. N/A
4.8-4 Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.8-5 Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows, or in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
S 4.8-5 Prior to approval of any grading permits, the applicant shall obtain from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or Conditional Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR-F) for fill within a Special Flood Hazard Area, if required. A copy of the letter shall be provided to the Engineering Services Division. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), or a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill (LOMR-F) from FEMA shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to acceptance of grading permits as complete.
LS
4.8-6 Cumulative impacts related to the
violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, and impacts resulting from the alteration of existing drainage patterns.
LS None required. N/A
4.9 Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing
4.9-1 Cause a significant
environmental impact due to physically dividing an established community.
LS None required. N/A
4.9-2 Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any Sacramento LAFCo plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.9-3 Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
LS None required. N/A
4.9-4 Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure).
LS None required. N/A
4.9-5 Cause a significant cumulative
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
LS None required. N/A
4.9-6 Cause a significant cumulative
environmental impact due to cumulative substantial unplanned population growth.
LS None required. N/A
4.10 Noise
4.10-1 Generation of a substantial
temporary increase in ambient
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
4.10-2 Generation of a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
S 4.10-2 Prior to approval by the City’s Public Works
Department of the final Improvement Plans for the nonparticipating parcels portion of the proposed project, the Improvement Plans shall include the following requirements:
An eight-foot-tall sound wall shall be
constructed along the eastern project boundary, in the location indicated in 4.10-6 and the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared for the proposed project by Saxelby Acoustics, in order to achieve the City’s nighttime 50 dBA L50 noise level standards. Noise barrier walls shall be constructed of
concrete panels, concrete masonry units, earthen berms, or any combination of these materials that achieve the required total height. Wood is not recommended due to eventual warping and degradation of acoustical performance.
LS
4.10-3 Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.
LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.10-4 For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose persons residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
LS None required. N/A
4.10-5 Generation of a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels associated with development of the proposed project in combination with future development.
LS None required. N/A
4.11 Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems
4.11-1 Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services.
LS None required. N/A
4.11-2 Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services.
4.11-3 Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for schools.
LS None required. N/A
4.11-4 Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable performance objectives for parks or other government services; or result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated, or include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
4.11-5 Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
LS None required. N/A
4.11-6 Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.
LS None required. N/A
4.11-7 Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in LS None required. N/A
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
addition to the provider’s existing commitments.
4.11-8 Generate solid waste in excess of
State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, or conflict with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
LS None required. N/A
4.11-9 Cumulative impacts to public
services.
LS None required. N/A
4.11-10 Increase in demand for utilities
and service systems associated with the proposed project, in combination with future buildout of the Sacramento General Plan.
LS None required. N/A
4.12 Transportation
4.12-1 Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities.
LS None required. N/A
4.12-2 Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during operations.
S 4.12-2 The following requirements shall be noted on project improvement plans, subject to review and approval by the City of Sacramento Community Development Department:
LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
The project should construct pedestrian and
bicycle facilities along its frontage to City Standards. Class IV separated bicycle facilities shall be
accommodated within the proposed cross section to provide separation between cyclists and heavy truck traffic. The bicycle network shall be connected to
the existing and planned City and County bikeway system, including, but not limited to, Bayou Way at the northeast corner of the site, the Class I bikeway at the southeast corner of the site, and Metro Air Parkway north of I-5. The off-street Class IV cycle track shown on
the eastern side of the site in the City Bikeway Master Plan shall be accommodated in the proposed plans.
4.12-3 Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
S 4.12-3 Prior to the certificate of occupancy for each on-site industrial building, the owner/operator of each building shall be required to prepare and implement a VMT Reduction Plan that includes a sufficient selection of CAPCOA Trip Reduction Programs (T-6 through T-13) to reduce VMT by at least 22 percent, consistent with the VMT Mitigation Memorandum prepared by the City’s Public Works Department for the proposed project (see Appendix Q to the EIR). CAPCOA Trip Reduction Programs T-6 through T-13 include measures such as implementing a commute trip reduction program and/or marketing, providing a LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
rideshare program, implementing a subsidized or discounted transit program, providing end-of-trip bicycle facilities, providing employer-sponsored vanpool, pricing workplace housing, and implementing employee parking cash-out. The VMT Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the City’s Department of Public Works and Community Development Department for review and approval.
4.12-4 Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) or result in inadequate emergency access.
LS None required. N/A
4.12-5 Substantially increase
cumulative hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).
LCC None required. N/A
4.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.13-1 Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074.
S 4.13-1(a) Conduct Cultural Resources Sensitivity and
Awareness Training Prior to Ground-Disturbing Activities The City shall require the applicant/contractor to
provide a tribal cultural resources sensitivity and awareness training program (Worker Environmental Awareness Program [WEAP]) for all personnel LS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
involved in project construction, including field consultants and construction workers. The WEAP will be developed in coordination with culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The WEAP shall be conducted before any project-related construction activities begin at the project site. The WEAP will include relevant information regarding sensitive tribal cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations.
The WEAP will also describe appropriate avoidance
and impact minimization measures for tribal cultural resources that could be located at the project site and will outline what to do and who to contact if any potential tribal cultural resources are encountered. The WEAP will emphasize the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any discovery of significance to Native Americans and will discuss appropriate behaviors and responsive actions, consistent with Native American tribal values.
4.13-1(b) In the Event that Tribal Cultural Resources are Discovered During Construction, Implement Procedures to Evaluate Tribal Cultural Resources and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Avoid Significant Impact.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
If tribal cultural resources (such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, or human remains) are encountered at the project site during construction, work shall be suspended within 100 feet of the find (based on the apparent distribution of cultural materials), and the construction contractor shall immediately notify the project’s City representative. Avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources. This will be accomplished, if feasible, by several alternative means, including:
Planning construction to avoid tribal cultural
resources, archaeological sites and/or other cultural resources; incorporating cultural resources within parks, green-space or other open space; covering archaeological resources; deeding a cultural resource to a permanent conservation easement; or other preservation and protection methods agreeable to consulting parties and regulatory authorities with jurisdiction over the activity. Recommendations for avoidance of tribal
cultural resources will be reviewed by the City representative, interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and other appropriate agencies, in light of factors such as costs, logistics, feasibility, design, technology and social, cultural and Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
environmental considerations, and the extent to which avoidance is consistent with project objectives. Avoidance and design alternatives may include realignment within the project site to avoid tribal cultural resources, modification of the design to eliminate or reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources or modification or realignment to avoid highly significant features within a cultural resource or tribal cultural resource. Native American representatives from
interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes will be notified to review and comment on these analyses and shall have the opportunity to meet with the City representative and its representatives who have technical expertise to identify and recommend feasible avoidance and design alternatives, so that appropriate and feasible avoidance and design alternatives can be identified. If the discovered tribal cultural resource can
be avoided, the construction contractor(s), will install protective fencing outside the site boundary, including a 100-foot buffer area, before construction restarts. The boundary of a tribal cultural resource will be determined in consultation with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes and tribes will be notified to monitor the installation of Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
fencing. Use of temporary and permanent forms of protective fencing will be determined in consultation with Native American representatives from interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes. The construction contractor(s) will maintain
the protective fencing throughout construction to avoid the site during all remaining phases of construction. The area will be demarcated as an “Environmentally Sensitive Area”.
If a tribal cultural resource cannot be avoided, the
following performance standard shall be met prior to continuance of construction and associated activities that may result in damage to or destruction of tribal cultural resources:
Each resource will be evaluated for California
Register of Historical Resources- (CRHR) eligibility through application of established eligibility criteria (California Code of Regulations 15064.636), in consultation with consulting Native American tribes, as applicable.
If a tribal cultural resource is determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, the City will avoid damaging effects to the resource in accordance with California PRC Section 21084.3, if feasible. The City shall Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
coordinate the investigation of the find with a qualified archaeologist (meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology) approved by the City and with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes that respond to the City’s notification. As part of the site investigation and resource assessment, the City and the archaeologist shall consult with interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes to assess the significance of the find, make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary and provide proper management recommendations should potential impacts to the resources be determined by the City to be significant. A written report detailing the site assessment, coordination activities, and management recommendations shall be provided to the City representative by the qualified archaeologist. These recommendations will be documented in the project record. For any recommendations made by interested culturally affiliated Native American tribes that are not implemented, a justification for why the recommendation was not followed will be provided in the project record.
Native American representatives from interested
culturally affiliated Native American tribes and the City representative will also consult to develop measures for long-term management of any discovered tribal cultural resources. Consultation will Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
be limited to actions consistent with the jurisdiction of the City and taking into account ownership of the subject property. To the extent that the City has jurisdiction, routine operation and maintenance within tribal cultural resources retaining tribal cultural integrity shall be consistent with the avoidance and minimization standards identified in this mitigation measure.
If the City determines that the project may cause a
significant impact to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, the following are examples of mitigation capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to the resource. These measures may be considered to avoid or minimize significant adverse impacts and constitute the standard by which an impact conclusion of less-than significant may be reached:
Avoid and preserve resources in place,
including, but not limited to, planning construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
Treat the resource with culturally appropriate
dignity taking into account the Tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
o Protect the cultural character and
integrity of the resource.
o Protect the traditional use of the
resource.
o Protect the confidentiality of the
resource.
o Establish permanent conservation
easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or using the resources or places. o Protect the resource.
4.13-1(c) Implement Procedures in the Event of the
Inadvertent Discovery of Native American Human Remains.
If an inadvertent discovery of human remains is made
at any time during project-related construction activities or project planning, the City will implement the procedures listed above. The following performance standards shall be met prior to implementing or continuing actions such as construction, which may result in damage to or destruction of human remains. In accordance with Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
the California Health and Safety Code (HSC), if human remains are encountered during grounddisturbing activities, the City shall immediately halt potentially damaging excavation in the area of the remains and notify the Sacramento County Coroner and a professional archaeologist to determine the nature of the remains. The Coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or State lands (HSC Section 7050.5[b]).
If the human remains are of historic age and are
determined to be not of Native American origin, the City will follow the provisions of the HSC Section 7000 (et seq.) regarding the disinterment and removal of non-Native American human remains.
If the Coroner determines that the remains are those
of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (HSC Section 7050[c]). After the Coroner’s findings have been made, the archaeologist and the NAHCdesignated Most Likely Descendant (MLD), in consultation with the landowner, shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains. The responsibilities of the City for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in California PRC Section 5097.9 et seq.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
N/A = Not Applicable; LS = Less Than Significant; LCC = Less Than Cumulatively Considerable; S = Significant; CC = Cumulatively Considerable; SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Chapter 2 – Executive Summary
Table 2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact
Level of
Significance
Prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
After
Mitigation
4.13-2 Cause a cumulative loss of tribal
cultural resources.
LS None required. N/A
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
3.1 INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an EIR to include a description of the physical conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, from both a local and regional perspective. Knowledge of the existing environmental setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the description of the environmental setting shall not be longer than necessary to understand the potential significant effects of the project and its alternatives.
This chapter of the EIR provides a comprehensive description of the Airport South Industrial Project (proposed project), in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. This chapter provides an overall general description of the existing environmental conditions; however, more detailed discussions of the existing setting as they relate to each given potential impact area are included in each technical chapter of this EIR.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, an EIR is required to include a project description that includes the following information: project location, project objectives, a general description of the project’s technical, economic and environmental characteristics, and a statement briefly describing the intended uses of the EIR, including a list of agencies expected to use the EIR, a list of permits and other approvals required to implement the project, and a list of related environmental review required by federal, state or local laws, regulations or policies. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the project description is not required to supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impacts.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The 474.4-acre project site is located to the southeast of the intersection of Interstate 5 (I-5) and Power Line Road in Sacramento County, California (see Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2). The site is identified by Sacramento County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 225-0020-010, -016, -017, -021, -022, -023, -024, -026, -027, -030, -032, -033, -034, and -035, as well as 225-0030-023, - 024, -045, and -048.
3.3 PROJECT SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is currently located within the Natomas Community of unincorporated Sacramento County (County). The County’s General Plan designates the site as Agricultural Cropland and the site is zoned Agricultural 80 (AG-80). The site is bound to the north by I-5 and to the east by the City of Sacramento (City). Within the northern portion of the site, Bayou Way, a paved road consisting of two vehicle lanes, meanders in a west-to-east direction through the site. The project site currently consists of vacant, fallow agricultural land. The site was historically used as hay fields, with intermittent rice fields from 1937 until at least 2020. Unnamed drainage canals run roughly north-south in both the western and eastern portions of the site. Numerous unimproved dirt roads provide access to the interior of the project site, which is subdivided into multiple agricultural plots.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3
– Project Description
Figure 3-1
Regional Location Map
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Figure 3-2
Project Site Boundaries
Legend
Annexation/SOI Amendment Area
Approved SMF Master Plan
Metro Air Park
Existing City Limit Boundary
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
3-4
Surrounding land uses include a Life Storage facility and the Westlake single-family residential subdivision to the east; the West Drainage Canal, vacant agricultural land, open space land, and the Paso Verde K-8 School to the south; undeveloped agricultural land to the west; the Sacramento International Airport to the northwest, across I-5; and the Metro Air Park, Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center, and the under-construction Northlake (Greenbriar) subdivision to the north, across I-5.
3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The following project objectives have been developed in concert with Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) staff, City of Sacramento staff, and the project applicant:
1. Utilize a targeted municipal service review to amend the City’s Sphere of Influence, followed by Annexation of the project site into the City of Sacramento, to construct a highquality industrial park with elevated aesthetics to be capable of serving warehouse, distribution, research, and other light industrial uses, as well as retail and commercial uses.
2. Utilize a targeted municipal service review to amend the Sphere of Influence of the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) to provide wastewater services to the project site.
3. Create substantial, permanent employment opportunities for residents of the City of Sacramento and surrounding areas, including the North Natomas area and the Northlake project site.
4. Provide light industrial and warehousing opportunities closer to the City of Sacramento developed areas, thereby lowering local and regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and traffic congestion.
5. Provide retail, commercial, and hotel uses along the I-5 corridor in close proximity to Sacramento International Airport.
6. Attract new businesses and jobs to the City, thereby improving the jobs/housing balance both in the City and the region.
7. Construct an industrial park that incorporates energy efficiency and low water use principles in order to promote the City’s environmental goals.
8. Utilize alternative energy sources, including solar panels, where feasible.
9. Locate the project as near as possible to existing developed areas and utility infrastructure with anticipated capacity.
10. Create an internal roadway network for the project site that will allow for efficient access to the site and limit impacts to offsite roadways by directing truck traffic directly to I-5.
11. Phase project construction to be responsive to market demands.
12. Minimize environmental impacts to surrounding areas, including residential communities and other sensitive land uses.
3.5 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The proposed project would include the development of an industrial park within an approximately 353.5-acre portion of the project site, located immediately south of Bayou Way. The industrial park would allow for construction of up to 5,204,500 square feet (sf) of industrial uses on approximately 235.6 acres, as well as approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality, on approximately 13.4 acres. Throughout this EIR, the term “industrial park” is used as an umbrella term for the proposed industrial and retail/highway commercial uses. Thus, unless a distinction between the proposed industrial and Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
3-5
retail/highway commercial uses is specifically defined, the term “industrial park” can be assumed to incorporate both of the foregoing uses.
Parcels 6A through 6C and 7A through 7C are proposed retail/highway commercial uses generally situated south of the intersection of I-5 and Metro Air Parkway (see Figure 3-3). Parcels 1 through 4, all planned for industrial use, generally surround the proposed retail/highway commercial uses.
Parcel 5, the remaining proposed industrial use, would be located in the northeast corner of the site. Each industrial building would include driveways and associated parking areas to accommodate vehicles and/or trailers, as well as stormwater retention/detention areas to capture stormwater runoff from the newly constructed impervious surfaces and to provide for existing stormwater storage.
The project site also includes several nonparticipating parcels, comprised of approximately 83 acres, and would result in first tier entitlements for future industrial uses of approximately 1,404,800 sf. The parcels will receive General Plan and Prezoning designations as part of the Annexation process, which is discussed further below. Finally, the project site includes 37.9 acres of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) I-5 fee title right-of-way (ROW), which would not be developed as part of the proposed project.
The proposed project would require the following approvals:
LAFCo approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment to amend the City of Sacramento SOI; and Annexation of the project site into the City limits and SacSewer service area;
City of Sacramento approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Prezoning, Planned Unit Development (PUD), Tentative Master Parcel Map, Development Agreement, Finance Plan, and Property Tax Exchange Agreement (with County).
The proposed project components, along with all required approvals, are described in the following sections.
Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation
Consistent with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (see Government Code Sections 5600 through 57500), the proposed project requires Sacramento LAFCo approval of a SOI Amendment to amend the City SOI to include the project site (474.4 acres). As detailed in Chapter V of the Sacramento LAFCo Policy, Standards and Procedures Manual, Sacramento LAFCo approves applications for annexation only if said proposals conform to and lie wholly within the approved boundaries of affected agencies’ SOIs. The project site is currently situated adjacent, but outside, of the City of Sacramento’s SOI. A Targeted Municipal Services Review is required, and has been prepared, to support modification of the City’s SOI to be coterminous with the boundaries of the project site, as well as annex the project site into the SacSewer service area.
General Plan Amendment
As part of Annexation of the project site into the City limits, the proposed project would require a GPA of the City’s existing General Plan policy area to include the boundaries of the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels (total of 414.3 acres – not including roadways and Caltrans Remnant/ROW) as Employment – Mixed Use.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
3-6
Figure 3-3
Airport South Industrial Park – Preliminary Site Plan
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Prezoning
In accordance with the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (see Government Code Section 56375), City of Sacramento zoning designations would be applied to the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels through Prezoning. The industrial park portion of the project site would be Prezoned to include 317.9 acres of Industrial PUD (M-1-PUD) zoning and 13.4 acres Highway Commercial PUD (HC-PUD) zoning. The nonparticipating parcels would be Prezoned to include 83 acres of Industrial (M-1).
Planned Unit Development
As detailed in Section 17.452.010 of the City’s Municipal Code, the purpose of a PUD is to provide greater flexibility in the design of integrated developments than otherwise possible through strict application of zoning regulations. With respect to industrial development, a PUD allows for welldesigned and controlled groupings of research, service, or light industrial uses within an area containing visual and operational amenities and features, such as selective occupancies, setbacks, landscaping, and bulk and building material controls.
The proposed project includes PUD Guidelines related to the proposed M-1-PUD and HC-PUD zoning. The PUD Guidelines include regulations and standards for permitted/prohibited uses, site design, building design, landscaping/visual screening, signage, and lighting.
Tentative Master Parcel Map
The requirements for Master Parcel Maps are set forth in Chapter 17.836 of the City’s Municipal Code. As established in Section 17.836.020 of the Municipal Code, the purpose and intent of the Master Parcel Map process is to allow subdivision of land to correspond to General Plan and applicable community plan land use designations and infrastructure elements without allowing the creation of individual residential lots. For nonresidential property, while the master parcel map process may create parcels which may or may not be subdivided further, no building may be undertaken on any master parcel unless and until all other required discretionary entitlements have been lawfully obtained, as required by applicable land use and development regulations.
According to Section 17.836.030 of the City’s Municipal Code, before land may be divided by a Master Parcel Map, a Tentative Master Parcel Map must be submitted. The proposed project includes a Tentative Master Parcel Map that divides the project site into 18 parcels for the proposed Industrial Park development and four nonparticipating parcels. The parcels allow for the following uses:
Industrial Uses
The total estimated square footage of industrial buildings would be 5,204,500 sf within five parcels totaling 235.6 acres. As shown in Figure 3-3, Parcels 1 through 4, all planned for industrial use, generally surround the proposed retail/highway commercial uses; Parcel 5, the remaining proposed industrial use, would be located in the northeast corner of the site. The area of each of the aforementioned parcels and associated warehouse buildings would be as follows:
Parcel 1: 47.7 acres, 979,400-sf building;
Parcel 2: 53.4 acres, 1,335,200-sf building;
Parcel 3: 34.4 acres, 772,900-sf building;
Parcel 4: 54.7 acres, 1,335,200-sf building; and
Parcel 5: 45.4 acres, 781,800-sf building.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Each industrial building would include driveways and associated parking areas to accommodate vehicles and/or trailers, as well as stormwater retention/detention areas to capture stormwater runoff from the newly constructed impervious surfaces and to provide mitigation for existing stormwater storage.
While the future tenants of the proposed industrial buildings are not currently known, a large segment of the current retail market consists of regional suppliers, such as Amazon and Walmart, that deliver goods directly to consumers. As such, a strong need exists for light industrial warehousing to act as fulfillment centers for regional retailers. With the site’s close proximity to I5, I-80, SR 99, the Sacramento International Airport, and the highly developed urban center of the City to the east and northeast, the project site is well-suited for this purpose and for the proposed highway commercial uses. In addition, each use would be required to comply with all regulations and standards established by the PUD.
Commercial Uses
The commercial component of the proposed project would include six lots comprised of approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality, on approximately 13.4 acres. All six retail/highway commercial lots would be clustered south of the intersection of I-5 and Metro Air Parkway, near the center of the project site. Parcels 6A through 6C would be located west of the planned internal roadway, and Parcels 7A through 7C would be located to the east. The area of each of the aforementioned parcels and associated commercial buildings would be as follows:
Parcel 6A: 2.1 acres, 3,900-sf restaurant building;
Parcel 6B: 1.5 acres, 3,900-sf restaurant building;
Parcel 6C: 3.0 acres, 8,100-sf fueling station/carwash; Parcel 7A: 4.0 acres, 73,400-sf hotel building;
Parcel 7B: 1.5 acres, 3,900-sf restaurant building; and Parcel 7C: 1.3 acres, 5,000-sf restaurant building.
Nonparticipating Parcels
The proposed project includes several nonparticipating parcels comprised of approximately 83 acres, which would receive first-tier entitlements, such as the proposed SOI Amendment to amend the City of Sacramento SOI and Annexation of the site into the City limits and SacSewer service area, for future industrial uses of approximately 1,404,800 sf. These future development areas include six existing parcels controlled by separate owners, which are summarized as follows:
Parcel 8: 64.3 acres (Cayocca);
Parcel 9: 6.5 acres (Campbell);
Parcel 10: 4.6 acres (Isgur Trust); and
Parcel 11: 0.7-acre (Patel).
In addition, the nonparticipating parcels include 6.9 acres of Caltrans Remnant ROW. The Caltrans Remnant ROW has been included as developable because it may be a candidate for future private acquisition. The parcels would receive General Plan and Prezoning designations as part of the City process. Any development proposed for these sites would require additional entitlement requests and review pursuant to CEQA.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Access and Circulation
Access to the project site would be provided from the north by Metro Air Parkway, which would connect to the proposed Airport South Industrial Drive. The proposed project would include abandonment of the existing South Bayou Way within the project limits, and replacement with a new internal roadway system. Concurrent with abandonment, an access easement would be dedicated over the eastern segment of South Bayou Way (from a proposed cul-de-sac to the new round-a-bout) to serve future industrial Parcels 9-11, and the Caltrans Remnant.
In order to guide truck traffic directly to I-5 and limit traffic impacts to Bayou Way east of the project site, the project would be served by a new internal roadway system including Airport South Industrial Drive, a modified two-lane Local Industrial roadway with a 75-foot-wide ROW, that would bisect the property west to east by connecting Power Line Road to a future street (labeled “A” Drive in Figure 3-3) that would run north along the site’s eastern border and connect to a proposed round-a-bout where Bayou Way meets the project site. It is anticipated that the rounda-bout will have signage and be configured to prohibit off-site truck traffic from the project site, east and south along Bayou Way/El Centro Road to Del Paso Road. Metro Air Parkway, a modified four-lane Local Industrial roadway with a 97-foot-wide ROW, would be extended south from the existing I-5 interchange to the proposed Airport South Industrial Drive, providing a direct connection for trucks.
Utilities and Service Systems
The project site does not currently include utilities infrastructure; however, the proposed project would include water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater improvements, which would connect to existing infrastructure in the project vicinity.
Sanitary sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by SacSewer. The proposed project would include installation of new eight-inch sewer lines within the project site’s parcels, which would convey flows to a new sewer line in Airport South Industrial Drive that would range in diameter between 12 and 18 inches. From the sewer line in Airport South Industrial Drive, flows would be directed to a new pump station sited within Lot F. From the new pump station, flows would be conveyed to the existing 48-inch SacSewer North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way by way of a new off-site force main that would extend from the northeast corner of the site and proceed off-site towards the south within Bayou Way and El Centro Road. At the El Centro Road/Del Paso Road intersection, the off-site force main would connect to the North Natomas interceptor line through one of three options, which are discussed further under the OffSite Improvements heading below. From the North Natomas interceptor, wastewater flows from the project site would be conveyed to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) for treatment.
The site is contiguous to the City’s current retail water service area, which is coterminous with the City limits. Following annexation, the City would be responsible for providing potable water to the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to an existing City 30-inch water transmission main that terminates near the east end of the proposed project site in South Bayou Way. This 30-inch transmission main was extended from a metering station that is currently located directly east of the project site in South Bayou Way to “wheel” City of Sacramento water to the west and north to County of Sacramento lands, namely Sacramento International Airport and the Metro Air Park. The project site has existing County of Sacramento transmission mains through the project in South Bayou Way. The County T-mains continue west of the Project to a dual 1.4 MG County Zone 50 Water Tank site located on the west side of Power Line Road. It is Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
currently proposed that this County system continue to operate as a separate system and that a separate City-operated and maintained water distribution system connected to the City 30-inch T-Main “upstream” of the City/County metering station be constructed on site, as well as other points of connection to the City water system.
Storm drainage for the project site would be provided by the City of Sacramento and Reclamation District (RD) 1000. RD 1000 owns and operates the existing canals and pump stations in the project vicinity that move storm drainage from the local area to the Sacramento River. The City would own and operate the future on-site system that would detain and/or retain storm drainage runoff prior to discharge into the RD 1000 System.
Off-site runoff would enter the project site along Reach 8 of the Lone Tree Canal, which flows through three box culverts within I-5 to the north, and extends south, bisecting the easternmost one-third of the project site. The Lone Tree Canal then flows south, through the site, to join the West Drainage Canal located along the south boundary of the project site. Where the Lone Tree Canal and the West Drainage Canal intersect, drainage runoff can either flow east and south to Pumping Plant 3 on the Sacramento River, or west and northwest to Pumping Plant No. 5 on the Sacramento River. The RD 1000 system in the Lone Tree Canal and West Drainage Canal has a permanent backwater condition whereby the canals contain water at all times of the year.
The proposed project would include an on-site storm drain system composed of post construction stormwater quality measures such as Low Impact Development (LID) components, dedication of landscaping areas, and six on-site detention basins. Runoff from on-site impervious surfaces would be captured by the on-site stormwater drainage system consisting of a series of detention basins located adjacent to the RD 1000 ditches and canals that border the western and southern boundaries of the project site, and areas adjacent to the RD 1000 L Drain (which bisects the eastern portion of the project site) (see Figure 3-4). The basins would each be interconnected with 36-inch diameter culvert(s) or larger in order to provide a single continuous system. The basins would be connected to the RD 1000 system through weirs to meet the pre-project spill conditions and to provide on-site floodplain storage. The on-site stormwater drainage system would be controlled by a pump station currently planned to be located near the intersection of the RD 1000 L Drain and the proposed Airport South Industrial Drive. A low-flow pump may also be incorporated to maintain the flood control depth needed in the basin for the winter months, or as needed to keep the basins drawn down in the summer months. The proposed detention/retention basins are discussed in further detail in Chapter 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.
The project is located in two Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), designated as A99 and A zones on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The project site lies within a local 100-year floodplain based on basin-wide modeling prepared by RD 1000. As such, the project site, in the current undeveloped state, provides storage of floodwaters during the 100-year storm. In order to develop the property and remove the floodplain, the developed area of the site would need to be raised above the floodplain. Given the approximate depth of inundation, building finished floors would need to be raised. Furthermore, parking areas would need to be elevated to limit the 100-year flood depth as much as practical, and must comply with the City Department of Utilities Onsite Design Manual. The lost storage would also need to be compensated. The detention/retention basins located on the outer boundaries of the project site, labeled as Lots A through D in Figure 3-4, have been designed to make up for the lost storage volume.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Figure 3-4
Proposed On-Site Drainage Conditions
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Electrical service would be provided by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). SMUD has facilities in the vicinity of the project. To the extent allowed under the City’s recent electrification ordinance, natural gas would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), which also has facilities in the vicinity of the project. Telecommunication and other tech service providers will be determined and included in their services to the project.
Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project would require construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch SacSewer North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way (see Figure 3-5). As previously discussed, the off-site force main would extend from the northeast corner of the site and proceed off-site towards the south within Bayou Way and El Centro Road. At the El Centro Road/Del Paso Road intersection, the off-site force main would connect to the North Natomas interceptor line through one of three of the following options:
Option 1: From the El Centro Road/Del Paso Road intersection, Option 1 would include installation of the force main within a City highway buffer parallel with the westerly side of I-5. About 0.5-mile south of Del Paso Road, the Option 1 alignment would cross under I5 within City ROW and then discharge into the North Natomas interceptor line within East Commerce Way.
Option 2: From the El Centro Road/Del Paso Road intersection, Option 2 would route the force main north of the I-5 on/off ramps, cross under I-5, and then proceed within Del Paso Road towards East Commerce Way.
Option 3: From the El Centro Road/Del Paso Road intersection, Option 3 would route the force main south of the I-5 on/off ramps, cross under I-5, and then proceed eastward towards East Commerce Way.
Development Agreement
As defined in Section 18.16.020 of the City’s Municipal Code, the Development Agreement would allow the City and the applicant to enter into an agreement to assure the City that the proposed project would be completed in compliance with the plans submitted by the applicant and assure the applicant of vested rights to develop the project.
3.6 REQUIRED PUBLIC APPROVALS
Sacramento LAFCo and the City of Sacramento have discretionary authority and each are the lead agencies for different aspects of the proposed project, as discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EIR. In addition to certification of this EIR and the associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the proposed project requires the following approvals by Sacramento LAFCo:
SOI Amendment to include the project site within the City of Sacramento SOI; and Annexation of the project site into the Sacramento City limits and SacSewer service area.
The proposed project requires the following approvals by the City of Sacramento:
GPA of the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan to include the boundaries of the industrial park footprint and nonparticipating parcels (total of 414.3 acres – not including roadways) as Employment Mixed-Use;
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Figure 3-5
Off-Site Force Main and Sewer Alignment Options
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 3 – Project Description
Prezoning of 317.9 acres (not including roadways) to M-1-PUD and 13.4 acres (not including roadways) to HC-PUD for the industrial park portion of the site, and 83 acres to M-1 for the nonparticipating parcels;
PUD (Schematic Plan and PUD Guidelines)
Tentative Master Parcel Map;
Development Agreement;
Finance Plan; and
Property Tax Exchange Agreement (with County of Sacramento).
Review or Approvals by Other Agencies
A number of other agencies will serve as Responsible and Trustee Agencies, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15381 and Section 15386, respectively. This EIR will provide environmental information to these agencies and other public agencies, which may be required to grant approvals or coordinate with other agencies, as part of project implementation. These agencies could include, but may not be limited to, the following:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE);
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); Caltrans;
PG&E;
SMUD;
RD 1000 (reclamation district);
SacSewer; and
Sacramento Area Council of Governments Board of Directors (SACOG Airport Land Use Commission).
4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING,
IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION
4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.0 – Introduction to the Analysis
4.0.1 INTRODUCTION
The technical chapters of the EIR analyze the potential impacts of buildout of the proposed project on a range of environmental issue areas. Chapters 4.1 through 4.13 of the EIR describe the environmental setting related to each specific issue area, method of analysis, project-specific impacts and mitigation measures, and a cumulative impact analysis for each issue area. The format of each of the technical chapters is described at the end of this chapter. It should be noted that all technical reports are either attached to this EIR, available by request from the City, or available on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports
4.0.2 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21068). The CEQA Guidelines require that the determination of significance be based on scientific and factual data. The specific criteria for determining the significance of a particular impact are identified within in each technical chapter and are consistent with significance criteria set forth in the CEQA Guidelines or as based on the professional judgment of the EIR preparers.
Significance Criteria
The CEQA Guidelines define a significant effect on the environment as “a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance.” In addition, the Guidelines state, “An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).
As presented in Section 4.0.4 below, the level of significance of an impact prior to mitigation is included at the end of each impact discussion throughout the technical chapters of this EIR. The following levels of significance prior to mitigation are used in this EIR:
1) Less than Significant: Impacts that may be adverse, but that do not exceed the specified thresholds of significance;
2) Significant: Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and require mitigation;
3) Less than Cumulatively Considerable: Where cumulative impacts have been identified, but the project’s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impacts would not be considered significant; and
4) Cumulatively Considerable: Where cumulative impacts have been identified and the project’s incremental contribution towards the cumulative impacts would be considered significant.
4.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.0 – Introduction to the Analysis
If an impact is determined to be significant or cumulatively considerable, mitigation is included, if available, in order to reduce the specific impact to the maximum extent feasible. A statement of the level of significance of an impact after mitigation is also included in each impact discussion throughout the technical chapters of this EIR. The following levels of significance after implementation of mitigation are used in the EIR:
1) Less than Significant: Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance but can be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures;
2) Less than Cumulatively Considerable: Where the project’s incremental contribution towards cumulative impacts would be eliminated or reduced to a less than cumulatively considerable level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures; and 3) Significant and Unavoidable Impact: An impact (project-level or cumulative) that cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant or less than cumulatively considerable level through the implementation of feasible mitigations measures.
Each environmental area of analysis uses a distinct set of significance criteria. The significance criteria are identified at the beginning of the Impacts and Mitigation Measures section in each of the technical chapters of this EIR. Although significance criteria are necessarily different for each resource considered, the provided significance levels ensure consistent evaluation of impacts for all resource areas evaluated.
4.0.3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS EIR
The EIR provides the analysis necessary to address the technical environmental impacts of the proposed project. The following environmental issues are addressed in the separate technical chapters of this EIR:
Aesthetics;
Agricultural Resources;
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy;
Biological Resources;
Cultural Resources;
Geology and Soils;
Hazards and Hazardous Materials;
Hydrology and Water Quality;
Land Use and Planning/Population and Housing;
Noise;
Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems;
Transportation; and
Tribal Cultural Resources.
Chapter 5, Effects Not Found to be Significant, will address the project’s effects that were determined not to be significant, and, thus, were not discussed in detail in a technical chapter of the EIR. See Section 6.3, Cumulative Impacts, of Chapter 6, Statutorily Required Sections, for additional information on the scope of the cumulative impact analysis for each environmental issue addressed in the EIR.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.0 – Introduction to the Analysis
4.0.4 TECHNICAL CHAPTER FORMAT
Each technical chapter addressing a specific environmental issue begins with an introduction describing the purpose of the section. The introduction is followed by a description of the project’s existing environmental setting as the setting pertains to that particular issue. The setting description is followed by the regulatory context and the impacts and mitigation measures discussion, which contains the standards of significance, followed by the method of analysis.
The standards of significance section includes references to the specific checklist questions consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The impacts and mitigation measures discussion includes impact statements prefaced by a number in bold-faced type (for both projectspecific and cumulative analyses). An explanation of each impact and an analysis of the impact’s significance follow each impact statement. All mitigation measures pertinent to each individual impact follow directly after the impact statement (see below). The degree of relief provided by identified mitigation measures is also evaluated. An example of the format is shown below.
Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts is based on the implementation of the proposed project in comparison with the standards of significance.
4.x-1 Statement of Project-Specific Impact
Discussion of impact for the proposed project in paragraph format.
Statement of level of significance of impact prior to mitigation is included at the end of each impact discussion. The following levels of significance are used in the EIR:
less than significant, significant, or significant and unavoidable. If an impact is determined to be significant, mitigation will be included in order to reduce the specific impact to the maximum extent feasible. Impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of all feasible mitigation would be considered to remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Statement of level of significance after the mitigation is included immediately preceding mitigation measures.
4.x-1(a) Required mitigation measure(s) presented in italics and listed in consecutive order.
4.x-1(b) Required additional mitigation measure, if necessary.
Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of cumulative impacts is based on implementation of the proposed project in combination with cumulative development within the applicable area or region.
4.x-2 Statement of Cumulative Impact
Discussion of cumulative impacts for the proposed project in paragraph format.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.0 – Introduction to the Analysis
As discussed in detail in Chapter 6, Statutorily Required Sections, of the EIR, the cumulative setting for the proposed project is generally considered to be a summary of projections contained in the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento County General Plan.
Statement of level of significance of cumulative impact prior to mitigation is included at the end of each impact discussion. The following levels of significance are used in the EIR for cumulative impacts: less than significant, less than cumulatively considerable, cumulatively considerable, or significant and unavoidable. If an impact is determined to be cumulatively considerable, mitigation will be included in order to reduce the specific impact to the maximum extent feasible. Impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant or less than cumulatively considerable level with the implementation of all feasible mitigation would be considered to remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure(s)
Statement of level of significance after the mitigation is included immediately preceding mitigation measures.
4.x-2(a) Required mitigation measure(s) presented in italics and listed in consecutive order.
4.x-2(b) Required additional mitigation measure, if necessary.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Aesthetics chapter of the EIR describes the existing visual resources of the project site and vicinity. The CEQA Guidelines describe the concept of aesthetic resources in terms of scenic vistas, scenic resources (including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings), scenic highways, visual character or quality of public views of the project site, and light and glare.
Information for the chapter has been primarily drawn from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan,1 the City of Sacramento 2040 Master EIR (MEIR),2 the Sacramento County General Plan,3 and the associated EIR.4
The analysis within this chapter will focus primarily on impacts related to public views, rather than private views. Private views are views seen from privately-owned land and are typically viewed by individual viewers, including views from private residences. Public views are views that are experienced by the collective public. CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21000 et seq.) case law has established that only public views, not private views, are protected under CEQA. For example, in Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 720 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 488] the court determined that “we must differentiate between adverse impacts upon particular persons and adverse impacts upon the environment of persons in general. As recognized by the court in Topanga Beach Renters Assn. v. Department of General Services (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 188 [129 Cal.Rptr. 739]: ‘[A]ll government activity has some direct or indirect adverse effect on some persons. The issue is not whether [the project] will adversely affect particular persons but whether [the project] will adversely affect the environment of persons in general.’” This conclusion is consistent with the thresholds of significance established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, it is appropriate to focus the aesthetic impact analysis on potential impacts to public views, rather than private views.
As discussed further in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project site is divided into two portions: the industrial park, which consists of the majority of the western portion and the northeast corner of the overall site, and the nonparticipating parcels, primarily located in the southeastern portion of the overall site. While the proposed project would require approval of a Sphere of Influence (SOI) Amendment and Annexation of the entire project site into the City limits, only the industrial park is currently proposed for development. In addition, the proposed project would include construction of an off-site force main to convey wastewater generated from the proposed uses to the 48-inch Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) North Natomas interceptor line in East Commerce Way.
1 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan. Adopted February 27, 2024. 2 City of Sacramento. Sacramento 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Master Environmental Impact Report. August 2023. 3 Sacramento County. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005 – 2030. Amended through October 25, 2022. 4 Sacramento County. Sacramento County General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. April 2010.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Concepts and Terminology
The following terms are used throughout this chapter and have important bearing upon properly evaluating aesthetics within the context of the CEQA. As a result, this section begins by providing definitions of key terms, as follows:
A “viewshed” is all of the surface area visible from a particular location or sequence of locations (e.g., roadway or trail).
“Visual character” pertains to the order of patterns composing a landscape. The elements of these patterns are the form, line, color, and texture of the landscape’s visual resources. Form: The unified mass or shape of an object that often has an edge or outline and can be defined by surrounding space. For example, a high-rise building would have a highly regular, rectangular form whereas a hill would have an organic, mounded form. Line: Perceived when there is a change in form, color, or texture and where the eye generally follows this pathway because of the visual contrast. For example, a city’s highrises can be seen silhouetted against the blue sky and be seen as a skyline, a river can have a curvilinear line as it passes through a landscape, or a hedgerow can create a line where it is seen rising up against a flat agricultural field. Color: The light reflecting off of an object at a particular wavelength that creates hue (green, indigo, purple, red, etc.) and value (light to dark hues). Texture: The perceived coarseness of a surface that is created by the light and shadow relationship over the surface of an object. For example, a rough surface texture (e.g., a rocky mountainside) would have many facets resulting in a number of areas in light and shadow and, often, with distinct separations between areas of light and shadow.
Conversely, a smooth surface texture (e.g., a beach) would have fewer facets, larger surface areas in light or shadow, and gradual gradations between light and shadow. “Distance zones” are based on the position of the viewer in relationship to the landscape. Views might be discussed in terms of foreground, midground, and background views. Foreground views are those immediately presented to the viewer, and include objects at close range that could tend to dominate the view. Midground views occupy the center of the viewshed and tend to include objects that are the center of attention if they are sufficiently large or visually different from adjacent visual features. Background views include distant objects and other objects that make up the horizon. Objects in the background fade to obscurity with increasing distance. In the context of the background, the skyline can be an important location because objects above this point are highlighted against the background of the sky.
“Scenic vista” is defined as an area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency.
“Scenic highway” is defined as any stretch of public roadway that is designated as a scenic corridor by a federal, State, or local agency.
“Visual resources” are the visible features that make up the landscape, including but not limited to cultural or human-made components such as buildings and other structures, linear elements (e.g., ridgelines, landforms, roads), greenscapes such as agricultural crops, or natural resources such as waterways and forest/woodland.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
“Visual Quality”, as defined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),5 describes what viewers like and dislike about visual resources that compose the visual character of a particular scene. Different viewers may evaluate specific visual resources differently based on their interests in the types of visual resources comprising a particular landscape.
4.1.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The following setting information provides an overview of the existing conditions of the project site and surrounding area in relation to visual resources.
Visual Character of Regional Environment
Sacramento County lies near the center of California’s Central Valley, at the southern end of the Sacramento Valley. Aesthetic views within the valley region are generally characterized by broad sweeping panoramas of flat agricultural lands and open space dotted with trees, divided by numerous rivers and creeks, and populated with scattered towns and cities. To the east, the Sierra Nevada and their foothills form a background, and the Coast Range provides a backdrop on the western horizon.
The City of Sacramento is located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers.
These river corridors create two of the primary natural scenic resources of the City. The Sacramento River is situated in a north/south direction, and serves as the western boundary for much of the City. The American River flows eastward through the City and meets the Sacramento River near the City’s western boundary. The American River Parkway, an open space greenbelt/riparian corridor, extends 29 miles from the confluence of the Sacramento River east to Folsom Dam. The two rivers provide recreational opportunities, create a permanent visual break in the pattern of urban development, and provide scenic contrast and interest in the City.
The American River is designated as a recreational river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act from the confluence with the Sacramento River to Nimbus Dam, located just east of the City. This prohibits Federal construction, assistance, or licensing of water projects “adversely affecting the characteristics qualifying the river for the national system.”6 This designation recognizes the importance of recreational opportunities and preservation of the river’s natural qualities.
Open space provides visual relief from urbanized areas, including views for residents, motorists, and pedestrians. Because a majority of Sacramento is currently developed or planned for development, open space within the City is provided in the form of conserved lands, parks, agricultural land, and vacant lands.
Visual Character of Local Environment
The following information provides an overview of the existing visual character of the local environment, including the project site and immediate vicinity.
The visual resources on the project site consist primarily of disced fields marked by earth tones of the topsoils. Scattered trees and bushes grow in the northeastern portion of the project site, 5 Federal Highway Administration. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (Publication No. FHWA-HEP-15-029). January 2015. Although the FHWA guidelines were initially created to provide an analytical framework for identifying and assessing qualitative changes to the visual environment that could be introduced as part of a transportation project, this methodology has become an industry standard for evaluating visual impacts associated with local and state non-transportation projects as well. 6 Sacramento County. Sacramento County General Plan of 2005 – 2030. Amended November 9, 2011.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
near an unnamed drainage canal. In addition, a portion of Bayou Way is located within the project site and is generally laid out in an east-to-west direction. The project site does not contain any existing structures.
The existing visual resources of the immediate project vicinity are mostly characterized by agricultural lands to the south, west, and north, across Interstate 5 (I-5). The Paso Verde K-8 School is located south of the easternmost corner of the project site, and the Life Storage facility and the Westlake single-family residential subdivision are located immediately east of the project site. In addition, the Sacramento International Airport, Metro Air Park, Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center, and the under-construction Northlake (Greenbriar) subdivision are located to the north, across I-5 and past the intervening agricultural land.
Viewer Types
For the purposes of this analysis, individuals in the vicinity with views of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project are categorized as follows:
Motorists along I-5, Power Line Road, and Bayou Way have direct views as they pass the site. Views from the access roadway between the Paso Verde K-8 School and Egret Park (hereafter referred to as Access Roadway) are moderately obstructed by an existing vegetative berm. Views are available to motorists commuting or touring, hauling trucks, as well as pedestrians and bicyclists along Power Line Road, Bayou Way, and Access Roadway, who have direct views for longer period of time as they pass the site. However, because I-5, Power Line Road, and Bayou Way do not include paved shoulders or sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian traffic along the project frontages of these roads is limited. Conversely, Access Roadway is designed exclusively for pedestrian and bicycle use.
Neighbors7 are considered those who temporarily or permanently occupy land adjacent or visible to the project site and can be defined as residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, civic, and recreational neighbors. Views of the site from the Life Storage facility and the residential neighbors east of the project site are moderately obstructed due to an intervening vegetative berm and other vegetation. Similarly, views of the site from the Paso Verde K-8 School, southeast of the project site, are partially obstructed by an existing vegetative berm.
Specifically, motorists and pedestrians on I-5, Power Line Road, Bayou Way, and Access Roadway have publicly available views of the site, whereas neighbors have private views.
Existing Visual Quality of the Project Site
Visual quality is the experience of having pleasing visual perceptions. In other words, what people like and dislike about the visual character of the area.8 Different viewers may value visual resources in different ways and come to varying conclusions about visual quality. Generally, natural open views, unobstructed by cultural (i.e., human-made) structures/features are preferred.
Table 4.1-1 below identifies three categories of visual quality: high, moderate, and low. 7 The term neighbor does not always mean that a person resides adjacent to the project site. Rather, it refers to people who may see it from their geographic location. 8 Federal Highway Administration. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (Publication No. FHWA-HEP-15-029) [pg. 5-11]. January 2015.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
When viewing a scene’s environment, viewers inherently evaluate the visual quality of the existing scene, determining if the composition is harmonious. Using the evaluation table, the visual quality of the overall project site is relatively moderate/average quality considering that the agricultural setting of the project site is somewhat memorable and its unity forms a perceivable pattern.
Agricultural crops, while a result of human activity, are comprised of vegetation that can provide harmony with a uniform texture and color if relatively uninterrupted by above-ground farm structures, as is the case for the project site. Given that striking visual patterns and distinct focal points are absent from the project site, the visual quality of the site is not considered to be high, but rather moderate.
Table 4.1-1
Visual Quality Evaluation Table
High Quality
Moderate/Average
Quality Low Quality
Highly memorable.
Elements combine in striking
visual patterns.
Presence of distinct focal
point(s).
Lack of man-made
development does not disrupt
the natural landscape.
Minimal to no encroachments
to the landscape are visible.
Somewhat memorable.
Elements form perceivable
pattern(s).
Man-made development and
the natural landscape are
disturbed and encroach on the
visual setting.
Not vivid.
Elements appear random with
no perceivable pattern(s).
The landscape has
encroaching elements that
create an eyesore to viewers.
While human-made development encroaches on the visual setting, these relatively minor encroachments do not pose an eyesore. Human-made elements on the project site consist of unnamed drainage canals that proceed through the site generally in a north-to-south direction in both the site’s western and eastern portions. All such drainage canals are below grade and are not visible from the surrounding viewpoints.
Generally, the project site does not contain any distinct visual characteristics that are unique from other agricultural lands within the County, the City, or the surrounding region. The overall visual quality of the project site is considered moderate/average quality.
Determination of Key Public Viewpoints
Key views are those public views that provide an image that captures the existing visual character and visual quality of the landscape unit that would be altered by the proposed project. In the case of the proposed project, public views would consist of views from I-5, Power Line Road, Bayou Way, and Access Roadway in the project vicinity. Private views of the project site would consist of views from the residential uses and the Paso Verde K-8 School, east of the project site. Figure
4.1-1 provides a location and direction of each of the photos provided in Figure 4.1-2 through Figure 4.1-5. Figure 4.1-2 and Figure 4.1-4 provide examples of public views of the site from I-5, and Figure 4.1-3 shows views from Metro Air Parkway. Figure 4.1-5 shows views from Access Roadway, as well as the neighboring residential subdivision and the Paso Verde K-8 School.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Figure 4.1-1
Overview Map of Key Viewpoint Locations
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Figure 4.1-2
Existing View of Project Site from I-5 Looking Southeast (Key Viewpoint #1)
Figure 4.1-3
Existing View of Project Site from Metro Air Parkway Looking Southeast (Key Viewpoint #2)
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Figure 4.1-4
Existing View of Project Site from I-5 Looking Southwest (Key Viewpoint #3)
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Figure 4.1-5
Existing View of Project Site from Access Roadway Looking Northwest (Key Viewpoint #4A) and
Existing View of Project Site from Westlake Subdivision Looking West (Key Viewpoint #4B)
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Key Viewpoint # 1
Key Viewpoint #1 represents the view of the project site looking southeast from the eastbound lane of I-5. Motorists experience views of low to moderate visual quality with the foreground dominated by human-made elements, such as gravel, pavement, fencing, and utility poles with overhead lines. Midground views are dominated by a paved roadway and an open vista of disced vegetation, and background views consist of distant trees and vegetation, structures outlines, and open sky. The overall visual quality of this view is low to moderate quality.
Key Viewpoint # 2
Key Viewpoint #2 represents the view of the project site from Metro Air Parkway, looking southeast. Metro Air Parkway is an elevated road that crosses above I-5 and leads into the project site. This view is overall similar to Key Viewpoint #1, with foreground views consisting of pavement, road shoulder, guardrail barriers, and grassy vegetation. Midground views are dominated by a paved roadway and an open vista of disced vegetation, and background views consist of distant trees and vegetation, structures outlines, and open sky. The overall visual quality of this view is low to moderate quality.
Key Viewpoint # 3
Key Viewpoint #3 represents two views of the project site looking southwest from the eastbound lane of I-5. The foreground of these viewpoints are dominated by pavement, gravel, guardrail barriers, and grassy vegetation. Similar to Key Viewpoint #2, midground views consist of wire fencing, a paved roadway, and an open vista of disced vegetation. Background views consist of distant trees and vegetation, a couple structure outlines, distant hills, and open sky. The overall visual quality of these views is low to moderate quality.
Key Viewpoint # 4A
Key Viewpoint #4A represents the view of the project site looking northwest from Access Roadway. The foreground of this viewpoint consists of flooded grassy field. Midground views are dominated by a grassy berm as well as a utilities shed and three power line poles. Background views consist of distant trees, the outlines of hills, and open sky. The overall visual quality of this view is low quality.
Key Viewpoint # 4B
Key Viewpoint #4B represents the view of the project site looking west from the Westlake Subdivision and Egret Park. The foreground of this viewpoint consists of a paved walking path, sparsely vegetated dirt areas, a low chain fence and trees. Midground views are dominated by a grassy berm that blocks background views, which are limited to open sky. The overall visual quality of this view is low quality.
Light Pollution and Glare
Light pollution refers to unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass, sky glow, and over-lighting. Views of the night sky can be an important part of the natural environment, particularly in communities with extended viewsheds. Excessive light and glare can also be visually disruptive to humans and nocturnal animal species.
The project site is generally undeveloped and unlit, with the exception of two street lights on either side of Metro Air Parkway where the road enters the project site. The land south of the project site is rural and does not contain existing sources of light and glare. Existing sources of light and Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
glare consist of headlights from vehicles traveling on I-5 and light poles located along I-5; outdoor lighting on the Life Storage facility and the Westlake single-family residential subdivision located east of the project site; and outdoor lighting from the Metro Air Park and the Sacramento International Airport located north of the project site, across I-5.
4.1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT
Applicable federal laws or regulations pertaining to the aesthetic quality of the project area do not exist. Existing State and local laws and regulations applicable to the proposed project are listed below.
State Regulations
The following are applicable State regulations related to aesthetic resources.
California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
The California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PRC Section 5093.50 et seq.) was passed in 1972 to preserve designated rivers possessing extraordinary scenic, recreation, fishery, or wildlife values.
The Lower American River, from Nimbus Dam to its junction with the Sacramento River, is designated as recreational under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
California Scenic Highway Program
The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. Such highways are identified in Section 263 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code.
Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Zones
The California Legislature passed a bill in 2001 requiring the California Energy Commission (CEC) to adopt energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sector. In November 2003, the CEC adopted changes to the Title 24, parts 1 and 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards became effective on October 1, 2005, and included changes to the requirements for outdoor lighting for residential and nonresidential development.
The new standards will likely improve the quality of outdoor lighting and help to reduce the impacts of light pollution, light trespass, and glare. The standards regulate lighting characteristics such as, maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off.
Different lighting standards are set by classifying areas by lighting zone. The classification is based on population figures of the 2000 Census. Areas can be designated as LZ1 (dark), LZ2 (rural), or LZ3 (urban). Lighting requirements for dark and rural areas are stricter in order to protect the areas from new sources of light pollution and light trespass. Sacramento County contains all three light zones. The developed portions of the County, including the City of Sacramento, are within LZ3 and the undeveloped portions, that include the proposed growth areas Jackson Highway Corridor and Grant Line East, are within LZ2. The LZ1 designation applies to government designated parks, recreation areas, and wildlife preserves.
Local Regulations
The following are the regulatory agencies and regulations pertinent to the proposed project at a local level.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Local Scenic Highways
The City of Sacramento does not contain designated federal or State Scenic Highways. However, State Route (SR) 160 is a designated Scenic Highway that extends north from the Contra Costa County line for 35 miles before terminating at the southern City limit. State Scenic Highways are not located in the project vicinity.
City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
The relevant goals and policies from the City’s 2040 General Plan related to aesthetics are presented below:
Land Use and Placemaking Element
Goal LUP-4 Walkable, transit-oriented centers and corridors that concentrate new jobs, housing, and entertainment opportunities to support frequent, reliable transit service and foster connected, accessible neighborhoods.
Policy LUP-4.6 Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. The City shall ensure that the introduction of higher-intensity mixed-use development along major arterial corridors is compatible with adjacent land uses, particularly residential uses, by requiring features such as the following:
Buildings set back from rear or side yard property lines adjoining single-unit dwelling residential uses;
Building heights stepped back from sensitive adjoining uses to maintain appropriate transitions in scale and to minimize impacts to privacy and solar access;
Landscaped off-street parking areas, loading areas, and service areas screened from adjacent residential areas
to the degree feasible; or
Lighting shielded from view and directed downward to
minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Policy LUP-4.7 Visual and Physical Character. Using development standards and design standards/guidelines, the City shall promote development patterns and streetscape improvements that
transform the visual and physical character of automobileoriented corridors to create a positive impact on the human and natural systems that interact with them.
Goal LUP-7 Industrial opportunities in suitable locations to provide employment for Sacramento residents and promote inclusive economic growth in the city.
Policy LUP-7.5 Industrial Aesthetics. The City shall encourage the development and maintenance of well-designed industrial and light industrial properties and structures that meet adopted standards for visual quality and design, especially where interfacing with other uses.
Goal LUP-8 A unique and varied sense of place, defined by distinctive natural and urban elements that contribute to local quality of life and hometown pride.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Policy LUP-8.1 Unique Sense of Place. The City shall promote quality site, architectural, and landscape design that include the following:
Connected walkable blocks;
Distinctive parks and accessible open spaces;
Tree-lined streets; and
Varied architectural styles.
4.1.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The section below describes the standards of significance and methodology used to analyze and determine the proposed project’s potential impacts related to aesthetics. A discussion of the project’s impacts, as well as mitigation measures where necessary, are also presented.
Standards of Significance
The significance criteria used for this analysis were developed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable policies and regulations of the City of Sacramento. An aesthetic impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway; In a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point);
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; or
Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating impacts to aesthetics.
Method of Analysis
The following analysis utilizes a methodology based upon the FHWA publication Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988) and supplemented by the FHWA Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects (January 2015), combined with the State CEQA Guidelines' Appendix G Checklist questions for Aesthetics. Together, these provide the key analytical framework and guide the visual impact assessment process for the proposed project.
Although the FHWA guidelines were initially created to provide an analytical framework for identifying and assessing qualitative changes to the visual environment that could be introduced as part of a transportation project, this methodology has become an industry standard for evaluating visual impacts associated with local and state non-transportation projects as well.
Generally, the process includes the following basic steps:
Defining the project setting and viewshed.
Assessing existing visual resources and character of the project site and immediate vicinity.
Identify viewer types.
Assess visual quality of the proposed site.
Identify key viewpoints and assess visual character and quality of viewpoints. Assess the visual impacts of the proposed project as seen from these viewpoints.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Proposing methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts, if necessary.
As part of the analysis, an evaluative framework that defines the visual setting in terms of key views is utilized. A key view is a point from which a select view is analyzed from the perspective of potential viewer groups.
The following analysis assesses the anticipated changes in visual character (e.g., descriptive, non-evaluative characteristics such as land use, topography, scale, form, and color) and visual quality, evaluating them with respect to anticipated viewer response.
In February 2023, computer-generated simulations were prepared to aid in the visual character evaluation of the proposed project.
Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following discussion of impacts related to aesthetic resources is based on implementation of the proposed project in comparison to existing conditions and the standards of significance presented above.
4.1-1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Based on the analysis below, the impact would be less than significant.
Although the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels components of the proposed project would be developed at different times, because both would occur within the same project site, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.
Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
A scenic vista, as defined in this EIR, is an area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. A scenic vista includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency. As discussed in the Existing Environmental Setting section of this chapter, the Sacramento and American river corridors, as well as the Capitol building, Tower Bridge, and Sutter’s Fort, consist of the primary scenic resources of the City. However, the City’s MEIR does not identify any scenic vistas within the City, and the County’s General Plan EIR does not identify any scenic vistas in the project vicinity.
The project site is generally surrounded by agricultural uses to the south, west, and north, with the Life Storage facility and the Paso Verde K-8 School located to the east.
In addition, the Sacramento International Airport, Metro Air Park, Amazon SMF-1 Fulfillment Center, and the under-construction Northlake (Greenbriar) subdivision are located to the north, across I-5 and past intervening agricultural land. As such, the scenic resources identified in the MEIR are not located in the project vicinity.
Therefore, buildout of both the industrial park, nonparticipating parcels, and off-site improvement components of the proposed project would not obstruct public views of any such resources.
Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
Based on the above, neither component of the proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect on a designated scenic vista, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.
4.1-2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway. Based on the analysis below, the impact would be less-than-significant.
Although the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels components of the proposed project would be developed at different times, because both would occur within the same project site, the following analysis applies to both components of the proposed project. In addition, the analysis includes evaluation of the proposed off-site improvements.
Industrial Park, Nonparticipating Parcels, and Off-Site Improvement Area
As stated in the City’s MEIR, existing scenic resources within the City include the American River and Sacramento River, including associated parkways, the State Capitol, and important historic structures listed on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources, California and/or National Registers. Although State scenic highways do not exist within the City, SR 160 is designated as a scenic highway from the Contra Costa County line to the southern City limit, for a length of 35 miles. Known as the River Road, the highway runs through the Delta agricultural area and small towns along the Sacramento River. Additional scenic highways do not exist within Sacramento County.
The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of the American River, Sacramento River, or the State Capitol. In addition, the project site does not include historic buildings or rock outcroppings. As discussed in Chapter 4.4, Biological Resources, of this EIR, the project site contains trees that are protected under Chapter
12.56, Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Conservation, of the City Code. Because the proposed project would include the removal of on-site trees, compliance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 12.56 of the Sacramento City Code would be required. Given compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.4-13(a) through 4.4-13(c), which require implementation of such requirements for both components of the proposed project, adverse impacts related to the removal of on-site trees would not occur. Additionally, installation of the proposed off-site force main, including each of the three potential force main segment options, would occur either in existing roadway right-of-way (ROW) or in other previously disturbed areas. As such, construction of the proposed off-site improvements would not adversely affect scenic resources.
Based on the above information, because officially designated State scenic highways are not located near the project site, the buildout of both the industrial park and nonparticipating parcels components of the proposed project would not substantially Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics
damage scenic resources, including but limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings, within a State scenic highway. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.
4.1-3 In a non-urbanized area, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). Based on the analysis below, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Given that the existing development in the immediate vicinity of the site is primarily rural in nature, the analysis within this chapter considers the project area to be nonurbanized. The following discussion includes both a project-level and program-level analysis of potential impacts related to visual character and quality of pubic views of the site and its surroundings.
Industrial Park and Off-Site Improvement Area
The industrial park component of the proposed project would include the development of an industrial park within an approximately 353.5-acre portion of the project site, located immediately south of Bayou Way. The industrial park would allow for construction of up to 5,204,500 square feet (sf) of industrial uses, as well as approximately 98,200 sf of retail/highway commercial uses, including approximately 73,400 sf of hotel/hospitality, on approximately 13.4 acres of the overall site.
Each industrial building would include driveways and associated parking areas to accommodate vehicles and/or trailers, as well as stormwater retention/detention areas to capture stormwater runoff from the newly constructed impervious surfaces and to provide for existing stormwater storage. According to the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guidelines, the maximum building height for the proposed industrial buildings would be 70 feet. The proposed retail/highway commercial uses would be generally situated south of the intersection of I-5 and Metro Air Parkway, with the proposed industrial uses generally surrounding the retail/highway commercial uses. According to the proposed PUD Guidelines, the maximum building height for the hotel in the proposed Highway Commercial PUD (HC-PD) zone would be 80 feet.
Other structures in the HC-PD zone (i.e., restaurants and a fueling stating/carwash) would not exceed the maximum heights for the proposed industrial buildings and hotel.
The PUD Guidelines would also allow for increased height, subject to FAA and City of Sacramento approval, through a concurrent process in the future.
The proposed project would involve planting new trees along the northern border of the project site. Such landscaping would help screen the project from public views.
As discussed above, public views of the project site are afforded from I-5, Metro Park Airway, and Access Roadway. Changes to each of the aforementioned public views Draft EIR
Airport South Industrial Project
May 2024
Chapter 4.1 – Aesthetics