Other Information on Distribution and Abundance in Natomas Basin California tiger salamanders have not been recorded in the Natomas Basin.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-43 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
4.11.2 P ROJECT EFFECTS ON SPECIES
LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON HABITAT
Effect on Quantity of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quantity of California tiger salamander habitat. Suitable breeding habitat does not exist in the maximum salamander dispersal distance from these sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of tiger salamander habitat.
Effects on Quality of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quality of California tiger salamander habitat, as salamander habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites.
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
The project would have no effect on tiger salamanders during construction-related activities, as salamander habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites.
EFFECTS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS
The project would have no effect on human-wildlife conflicts relating to tiger salamanders, because salamander habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites.
OVERALL EFFECT ON POPULATION VIABILITY
California tiger salamander is not known from the vicinity of the Greenbriar site or the proposed reserve sites, or adjacent lands. Potentially suitable habitat for this species does not exist at or in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would cause no effects on the population viability of California tiger salamander.
4.12 WESTERN SPADEFOOT TOAD
4.12.1 S PECIES ECOLOGY
HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS/REQUIREMENTS
Habitat Type
Western spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus hammondii) breed in shallow, seasonal wetlands in a matrix of grassland, chaparral or woodland habitat, and are rarely found in creeks, drainages, and ponds. Grassland vernal pools provide optimal spadefoot habitat; the toads attach their eggs to rain pool vegetation and burrow underground after the pools become dry (Stebbins 1972). The NBHCP lists ponds and seasonally wet areas as the only land cover type that provides habitat for this species. Adults feed on insects, worms, and other invertebrates; tadpoles feed on invertebrates and algae.
Home Range Size and Movement
During the breeding season, western spadefoot toads rarely travel more than several meters from breeding pools (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Outside of the breeding season, data are not available on the dispersal distances, movement patterns, or colonization abilities of this species (Jennings and Hayes 1994).
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-44 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Mechanisms of Habitat Degradation
The project would not degrade habitat for this species, as its habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar proposed reserve sites.
DISTRIBUTION
Information on CNDDB Occurrences
When information was compiled for the NBHCP in 2001, there were 173 known occurrences in California, of which 172 were considered extant. At that time, no occurrences were known from the Natomas Basin. As of 2005, there are 308 known occurrences in California, of which 306 are considered extant. At this time, CNDDB does not list western spadefoot occurrences within one mile of the Natomas Basin.
Other Information on Distribution and Abundance in Natomas Basin Western spadefoot toads have not been recorded in the Natomas Basin.
4.12.2 P ROJECT EFFECTS ON SPECIES
LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON HABITAT
Effect on Quantity of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quantity of western spadefoot habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of western spadefoot habitat.
Effects on Quality of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quality of western spadefoot habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of western spadefoot habitat.
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
The project would have no effect on spadefoot toads during construction-related activities, because spadefoot habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
EFFECTS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS
The project would have no effect on human-wildlife conflicts relating to spadefoot toads, because spadefoot habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites.
OVERALL EFFECT ON POPULATION VIABILITY
Western spadefoot toad is not known from the vicinity of the Greenbriar site or the proposed reserve sites, or adjacent lands. Potentially suitable habitat for this species does not exist at or in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would cause no effects on the population viability of western spadefoot toad.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-45 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
4.13 VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP
4.13.1 SPECIES ECOLOGY
HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS/REQUIREMENTS
Habitat Type
Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) inhabit vernal pools (79% of observations) and other seasonal wetlands (Helm 1998). Although they may occur in larger, deeper pools, vernal pool fairy shrimp are typically found in pools less than 2,200 square feet and less than 2 inches deep (Helm 1998). The NBHCP lists ponds and seasonally wet areas as the only land cover type that provides habitat for this species.
Mechanisms of Dispersal
Vernal pool fairy shrimp rely on wind and motile species such as birds, mammals, and amphibians for their dispersal. Shrimp eggs are transported in the stomachs of waterfowl and amphibians, and in small clumps of soil attached to mammalian hooves and hair, bird feet, and feathers. Dispersal distances have not been measured, but will likely equate with movement distances of the egg-transporting animals (Silveira 1998 cited in Bay Area O&M). As such, connectivity of upland and aquatic habitat between vernal pools will benefit shrimp dispersal by increasing the opportunities for egg transport by mammals and amphibians. Dispersal may continue between disconnected pools through avian transport.
Mechanisms of Habitat Degradation
The project would not degrade habitat for this species, because its habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
DISTRIBUTION
Information on CNDDB Occurrences
When information was compiled for the NBHCP in 2001, there were 270 known occurrences in California, all of which were considered extant. At that time, no occurrences were known from the Natomas Basin. As of 2005, there are 366 known occurrences in California, all of which are considered extant. At this time, two occurrences are known in the Natomas Basin and eight additional occurrences are known within one mile of the Basin. All ten of these occurrences are considered extant, and are located near the eastern border of the Basin. At this time, CNDDB does not list vernal pool fairy shrimp occurrences within one mile of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
Other Information on Distribution and Abundance in Natomas Basin Vernal pool fairy shrimp were not detected by Natomas Basin Conservancy surveys, and no additional information is available regarding their distribution in the Basin.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-46 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
4.13.2 P ROJECT EFFECTS ON SPECIES
LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON HABITAT
Effect on Quantity of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quantity of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.
Effects on Quality of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quality of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat.
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
The project would have no effect on vernal pool fairy shrimp during construction-related activities, because habitat for this species does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
EFFECTS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS
The project would have no effect on the quantity of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
OVERALL EFFECT ON POPULATION VIABILITY
Vernal pool fairy shrimp is not known from the vicinity of the Greenbriar site or the proposed reserve sites, or adjacent lands. Potentially suitable habitat for this species does not exist at or in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would cause no effects on the population viability of vernal pool fairy shrimp.
4.14 VERNAL POOL TADPOLE SHRIMP
4.14.1 S PECIES ECOLOGY
HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS/REQUIREMENTS
Habitat Type
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) are found primarily in vernal pools; they inhabit other seasonal wetlands to a limited extent. They occupy vernal pools with a variety of depths and water volumes, and with areas ranging from 20 square feet to over 3,750,000 square feet (Helm 1998). The NBHCP lists ponds and seasonally wet areas as the only land cover type that provides habitat for this species.
Mechanisms of Dispersal
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp rely on wind and motile species such as birds, mammals, and amphibians for their dispersal. Shrimp eggs are transported in the stomachs of waterfowl and amphibians, and in small clumps of vernal pool soil attached to mammalian hooves and hair, bird feet, and feathers. Dispersal distances have not been measured, but will likely equate with movement distances of the egg-transporting animals (Silveira 1998 cited in
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-47 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Bay Area O&M). As such, connectivity of upland and aquatic habitat between vernal pools will benefit shrimp dispersal by increasing the opportunities for egg transport by mammals and amphibians. Dispersal may continue between disconnected pools through avian transport.
Mechanisms of Habitat Degradation
The project would not degrade habitat for this species, because its habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
DISTRIBUTION
Information on CNDDB Occurrences
When information was compiled for the NBHCP in 2001, there were 154 known occurrences in California, of which 153 were considered extant. At that time, no occurrences were known from the Natomas Basin. As of 2005, there are 209 known occurrences in California, of which 208 are considered extant. At this time, one occurrence is known in the Natomas Basin and one additional occurrence is known within one mile of the Basin.
Both of these occurrences are considered extant, and are located near the eastern border of the Basin. At this time, CNDDB does not list vernal pool tadpole shrimp occurrences within one mile of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
Other Information on Distribution and Abundance in Natomas Basin Vernal pool tadpole shrimp were not detected by Natomas Basin Conservancy surveys, and no additional information is available regarding their distribution in the Basin.
4.14.2 P ROJECT EFFECTS ON SPECIES
LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON HABITAT
Effect on Quantity of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quantity of vernal pool tadpole shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of vernal pool tadpole shrimp habitat.
Effects on Quality of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quality of vernal pool tadpole shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of vernal pool tadpole shrimp habitat.
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
The project would have no effect on vernal pool tadpole shrimp during construction-related activities, because habitat for this species does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites.
EFFECTS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS
The project would have no effect on human conflicts with vernal pool tadpole shrimp, because habitat for this species does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-48 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
OVERALL EFFECT ON POPULATION VIABILITY
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp is not known from the vicinity of the Greenbriar site or the proposed reserve sites, or adjacent lands. Potentially suitable habitat for this species does not exist at or in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would cause no effects on the population viability of vernal pool tadpole shrimp.
4.15 MIDVALLEY FAIRY SHRIMP
4.15.1 S PECIES ECOLOGY
HABITAT ASSOCIATIONS/REQUIREMENTS
Habitat Type
Midvalley fairy shrimp (Branchinecta mesovallensis n. sp.) appear to be vernal pool obligates, as 93% of observations have occurred in vernal pools and the remaining 7% have occurred in vernal swales (Helm 1998).
This species is associated with the smallest (less than 2,200 square feet) and most ephemeral (average depth of 4 inches) vernal pools (Helm 1998). The NBHCP lists ponds and seasonally wet areas as the only land cover type that provides habitat for this species.
Mechanisms of Dispersal
Midvalley fairy shrimp rely on wind and motile species such as birds, mammals, and amphibians for their dispersal. Shrimp eggs are transported in the stomachs of waterfowl and amphibians, and in small clumps of vernal pool soil attached to mammalian hooves and hair, bird feet, and feathers. Dispersal distances have not been measured, but will likely equate with movement distances of the egg-transporting animals (Silveira 1998 cited in Bay Area O&M). As such, connectivity of upland and aquatic habitat between vernal pools will benefit shrimp dispersal by increasing the opportunities for egg transport by mammals and amphibians. Dispersal may continue between disconnected pools through avian transport.
Mechanisms of Habitat Degradation
The project would not degrade habitat for this species, because its habitat does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
DISTRIBUTION
Information on CNDDB Occurrences
When information was compiled for the NBHCP in 2001, there were 14 known occurrences in California, all of which were considered extant. At that time, no occurrences were known from the Natomas Basin. As of 2005, there are 62 known occurrences in California, all of which are considered extant. At this time, CNDDB does not list midvalley fairy shrimp occurrences within one mile of the Natomas Basin.
Other Information on Distribution and Abundance in Natomas Basin Midvalley fairy shrimp have not been recorded in the Natomas Basin.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-49 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
4.15.2 P ROJECT EFFECTS ON SPECIES
LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON HABITAT
Effect on Quantity of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quantity of midvalley fairy shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of midvalley fairy shrimp habitat.
Effects on Quality of Habitat
The project would have no effect on the quality of midvalley fairy shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites. Restoration plans for the proposed reserves do not include the creation of midvalley fairy shrimp habitat.
EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES
The project would have no effect on midvalley fairy shrimp during construction-related activities, because habitat for this species does not exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites.
EFFECTS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS
The project would have no effect on the quantity of midvalley fairy shrimp habitat, because habitat for this species does not currently exist in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites.
OVERALL EFFECT ON POPULATION VIABILITY
Midvalley fairy shrimp is not known from the vicinity of the Greenbriar site or the proposed reserve sites, or adjacent lands. Potentially suitable habitat for this species does not exist at or in the vicinity of the Greenbriar and proposed reserve sites. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would cause no effects on the population viability of midvalley fairy shrimp.
4.16 COVERED PLANT SPECIES
Of the seven plant species covered by the NBHCP (Table 4-11), the Greenbriar project would not affect the five vernal pool-associated species because these species are not known to occur in the vicinity of the Greenbriar or proposed reserve sites (or in the Natomas Basin), nor is suitable habitat present at or near these sites. These plant species are: Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop, Sacramento Orcutt grass, slender Orcutt grass, Colusa grass and legenere.
The other two covered plant species (delta tule pea and Sanford’s arrowhead) are not known to occur at the Greenbriar or the proposed reserve sites, or in the Natomas Basin (Table 4-1), but potentially suitable habitat for these species does occur at or near some of these sites, which have not been surveyed for these species. Therefore, the possibility that the project could affect these species cannot be discounted; thus, the DEIR mitigation includes a rare plant survey requirement and the applicable avoidance and minimization measures from the NBHCP for these species. The project also would eliminate approximately 16 acres of canal at the Greenbriar site and would create approximately 201 acres of marsh at the proposed reserves. Thus, overall, the project would increase the acreage of potentially suitable habitat for these species (i.e., marsh and canal habitats) in the Natomas Basin by about 184 acres (or about 4%). Nonetheless, because these species are not known to occur in the Natomas Basin, the project probably would not alter the viability of any of their populations.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 4-50 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Table 4-11
Primary Habitats and Distribution of Plant Species Covered by the NBHCP Species Growth form Primar y Habitat(s) Distribution
Delta tule pea
(Lathyrus jepsonii var.
jepsonii)
Biennial-perennial,
herbaceous vine in the
pea family (Fabaceae)
Riparian scrub, marsh
(primarily tidal, fresh or
brackish)
Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano
Counties; not known from the Natomas
Basin
Sanford’s arrowhead
(Sagittaria sanfordii)
Perennial, rhizomatous
aquatic with emergent
leaves, in the water-
plantain family
(Alismataceae)
Marsh and other shallow
freshwater habitats
Butte, Del Norte, Fresno, Kern, Merced,
Orange, Sacramento, Shasta, San
Joaquin, and Tehama Counties; not
known from the Natomas Basin
Bogg’s Lake hedge-
hyssop
(Gratiola heterosepala)
Small semi-aquatic
annual, up to 4 inches in
height, in the figwort
family
(Scrophulariaceae)
Vernal pools and swallow
lake margins
Fresno, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Merced,
Modoc, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin,
Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, and Tehama
Counties; not known from the Natomas
Basin
Sacramento Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia viscida)
Annual in the grass
family (Poaceae)
Vernal pools (generally
larger, deeper pools)
Sacramento County; not known from the
Natomas Basin
Slender Orcutt grass
(Orcuttia tenuis)
Annual in the grass
family (Poaceae)
Vernal pools (generally
larger, deeper pools)
Butte, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas,
Sacramento, Shasta, Siskiyou, and
Tehama Counties; not known from the
Natomas Basin
Colusa grass
(Neostapfia colusana)
Annual in the grass
family (Poaceae)
Vernal pools (generally
larger, deeper pools)
Colusa, Merced, Solano, Stanislaus, and
Yolo Counties; not known from the
Natomas Basin or Sacramento County
Legenere
(Legenere limosa)
Annual, in the bellflower
family (Campanulaceae)
Vernal pools and swales,
seasonal marshes, artificial
ponds, floodplains of
intermittent streams, and
other seasonally inundated
habitats
Lake, Napa, Placer, Sacramento, San
Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Shasta,
Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, and
Yuba Counties; not known from the
Natomas Basin
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 5-1 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP 5 POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE CONSERVATION
STRATEGY OF THE NBHCP
Based on the analyses presented in sections 3 (Alteration of Population and Habitat Attributes by the Greenbriar Project) and 4 (Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species), this section summarizes the effect of the Greenbriar project on the conservation strategy of the NBHCP that is described is section IV.C of the NBHCP. Overall, the Greenbriar project (with the DEIR mitigation) would not reduce the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s conservation strategy because it would not alter the basis of this conservation strategy. In Section IV.C.1 (pages IV 5-15), the NBHCP describes the basis of the key components of the NBHCP’s conservation strategy and how these components provide effective mitigation for 17,500 acres of urban development. These components are:
► Basis for 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio (Section IV.C.1.a), ► Preparation of site specific management plans (Section IV.C.1.b), ► Buffers within the reserve lands (Section IV.C.1.c),
► Connectivity (Section IV.C.1.d),
► Foraging habitat (Section IV.C.1.e), and
► 2,500-acre/400-acre minimum habitat block size requirements (Section IV.C.1.f).
The effects of the Greenbriar project on each of these components is described in the following sections, and then these effects are synthesized, along with the effects on population viability of the covered species (see chapters 3 and 4) as the overall effect of the Greenbriar project on the effectiveness of the NBHCP’s conservation strategy.
5.1 BASIS FOR 0.5 TO 1 MITIGATION RATIO
On pages IV-6 and IV-7, the NBHCP describes eight key considerations for determining that the 0.5 to 1 mitigation ratio mitigates the impacts of incidental take authorized under the NBHCP. These eight key considerations are summarized below.
1. Overall, reserves will provide greater habitat value than the agricultural land that will be converted to urban development. (This consideration overlaps with other considerations.)
2. Much of the land to be developed is either of limite d value as habitat or serves as habitat to a limited number of species.
3. For several wetland and vernal pool-associated speci es, reserves will provide opportunities for reintroduction to the Basin.
4. Reserves would provide habitat for migratory bird species that have limited habitat in the Basin.
5. Reserves would be managed to mi nimize take related to agricultural and land management activities.
6. Reserves would provide permanent habitat for covered species.
7. Reserves would be monitore d and adaptively managed.
8. Reserves would be consolidated into large blocks of habitat.
Because the Greenbriar project would not alter the habitat value of land authorized for development under the NBHCP, and would not adversely affect the habitat value of TNBC reserves established under the NBHCP, the project would not affect this basis for the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio for the 17,500 acres of urban development
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-2 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP authorized by the NBHCP. Similarly, the project would not adversely affect the monitoring and management of reserves, or opportunities to consolidate reserves into large blocks of habitat. (The project’s effects on the habitat quality of existing reserves, water availability at TNBC reserves, and opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves are evaluated in sections 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9, respectively.) Although not explicitly stated in section IV of the NBHCP, the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio is related to other elements of the conservation strategy (e.g., maintenance of habitat connectivity). With the DEIR mitigation, the Greenbriar project would not adversely affect these other elements of the conservation strategy, and thus the project would not affect this basis of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio.
The 0.5:1 mitigation ratio of the NBHCP is also related to the habitat values provided by other lands in the Natomas Basin (outside of reserves established through the NBHCP). With the DEIR mitigation, the Greenbriar project would not cause a net loss in habitat values for giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk in the Natomas Basin, and thus the project would not affect this basis of the 0.5:1 mitigation ratio.
In order to be compatible with the conservation strategy of the NBHCP, the Greenbriar project has had to propose a conservation strategy that differs in some regards from the NBHCP conservation strategy. These differences include a larger mitigation ratio, greater emphasis on measures to maintain connectivity, and more extensive restoration and enhancement of preserved land. The implementation of the Greenbriar conservation strategy will likely be more costly (on a per acre basis) than the NBHCP conservation strategy, and thus will likely require a greater endowment for NBHCP reserves.
5.2 PREPARATION OF SITE SPECIFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS
For each reserve, TNBC prepares and implements a site-specific management plan that addresses the specific resources and habitat values of each reserve site, and how these will be managed in support of the goals and objectives of the NBHCP.
The potential effects of the Greenbriar project that could affect reserve management include altering adjacent land uses, connectivity, water availability, or affecting opportunities to establish additional reserves. These effects are evaluated in sections 3.7, 3.6, 3.8, and 3.9, respectively. In brief, the project would not affect water availability, the proposed reserves and mitigation could change adjacent land uses of existing and future reserves but the effect would be beneficial, and with the DEIR mitigation it would not affect connectivity. Therefore, the Greenbriar project probably would not affect the management plans prepared for existing and future reserves with the exception of altering Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Greenbriar site and the proposed reserves, and of preserving and enhancing land that could be consolidated into current or future reserves, which could alter existing site-specific plans.
Also, where the proposed reserves could be consolidated into existing or future reserves, the site-specific management plans of these reserves would need to be revised. These revisions would reflect the beneficial effects of the increased in reserve size. This would occur, for example, at the Cummings reserve, which would probably be consolidated with the proposed Natomas 130 reserve that is immediately adjacent to it.
5.3 BUFFERS WITHIN RESERVE LANDS
Buffers are incorporated into reserves to minimize the effects of incompatible adjoining land uses. These buffers consist of a 30–70 foot wide strip of native or ruderal vegetation along the edge of the reserve. Development at the Greenbriar site would not alter the need for or effectiveness of reserve buffers at existing reserves because the Greenbriar site is not adjacent to an existing reserve. (Potential effects of the Greenbriar project on human- wildlife conflicts and reserve habitat values are evaluated in sections 3.2 and 3.7, respectively.) Also, because under the future condition of the Natomas Basin resulting from the NBHCP, the Greenbriar site would already be bordered by urban development, highways or major roads on all sides, development of the Greenbriar site could
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 5-3 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP cause only very limited effects on the effectiveness of buffers within future reserves, even if reserves were established on adjacent land to the north or southwest (i.e., adjacent land that would not be developed under the future condition of the Natomas Basin).
The proposed reserves could reduce the need for buffers at existing and future reserves. The proposed Natomas 130 reserve borders the existing Cummings reserve (Exhibit 5), and thus along their shared border, there would no longer be a need for a buffer from incompatible adjacent land uses. If in the future, reserves were established adjacent to the reserves proposed by this project, buffers would be unnecessary along their shared borders.
5.4 CONNECTIVITY
The conservation strategy of the NBHCP emphasizes the need for maintaining connectivity of reserves and the importance of existing canals and drains for providing that connectivity. But, the NBHCP would not preserve or enhance habitat along canals, although it does contemplate future needs to preserve habitat along canals in some instances. The NBHCP states (on page IV-8) that elimination of drains or canals would primarily be related to urban development, and thus would be unlikely to affect reserves. Nonetheless, the NBHCP acknowledges (on page IV-9) that once reserves are established and key connectivity corridors have been identified, changes in water delivery and drainage along these waterways could occur, and thus these changes must be considered by TNBC and measures taken to ensure connectivity. Suggested measures include MOAs, easements, or purchase of land.
Lone Tree Canal is a key connectivity corridor between existing reserves (Jones & Stokes 2005). The project’s potential adverse effects on connectivity, and in particular on Lone Tree Canal, would be mitigated so that connectivity would not be reduced (and could be enhanced) along the adjacent section of Lone Tree Canal. This mitigation includes enhancing and preserving habitat within a 250-foot wide setback along the canal, installing a barrier/fencing to keep snakes out of adjacent development and to exclude humans and domestic/feral animals from the Lone Tree Canal corridor, providing an additional assurance for water flow in the canal, and creating habitat along the canal. (Both the potential effects and the mitigation that reduces or eliminates them are described in greater detail in Section 3.5 Connectivity of Habitat in the Natomas Basin and in Section 3.6 Connectivity of Existing TNBC Reserves.) This mitigation would ensure that connectivity would be maintained along this section of Lone Tree Canal, and is comparable to the measures contemplated in the NBHCP (on page IV-9) for ensuring connectivity.
The proposed reserves would likely have a beneficial effect on connectivity of TNBC reserves by enhancing and preserving habitat in between existing and future reserves. For example, the proposed Spangler reserve is located between the Ruby Ranch and Atkinson reserves to the west and the Tufts and Sills reserves to the east (Exhibit 5).
Therefore, the enhancement and preservation of habitat at this site would likely enhance and preserve connectivity between these reserves.
5.5 FORAGING HABITAT
As described on pages IV-11 through IV-13 of the NBHCP, the viability of populations of covered bird species, and in particular the Swainson’s hawk, depends on foraging habitat both on TNBC reserves and on unpreserved agricultural lands in the Natomas Basin. Therefore, the NBHCP includes measures to be implemented if foraging habitat outside of the permit areas (i.e., the areas authorized for urban development under the NBHCP) is converted to urban land uses without adequate provisions to maintain foraging habitat values and the effectiveness of the operating conservation program is potentially compromised. These measures include modifying acquisition criteria, substituting impacted reserves with unaffected replacement sites, modifying the percentages of habitat types at TNBC reserves, and pursuing outside funding to acquire additional reserves.
The Greenbriar project, however, would include adequate provisions to maintain foraging habitat values, and thus would not compromise the effectiveness of the operating conservation program. The effects on habitat acreage
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-4 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP and quality in the Natomas Basin are evaluated in Sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively. (In addition, effects on habitat values of existing reserves are evaluated in Section 3.7.) The project would reduce the acreage of foraging habitat but would increase habitat quality at the proposed reserves and at the DEIR mitigation site. As a result, for Swainson’s hawk, total foraging resources available in the Natomas Basin would not be reduced by the project.
For other bird species, foraging resources of the Natomas Basin either would not be reduced or the reduction would not be sufficient to alter the viability of the species’ population in the Natomas Basin (as described for each species in Section 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species).
To evaluate the effects of habitat loss and enhancement on foraging resources for Swainson’s hawk in the Natomas Basin, the approach used by CH2M HILL in evaluating the NBHCP was used in this effects analysis and a new model developed by EDAW was also used. The EDAW model expresses the habitat value of different habitats, on a monthly basis, in terms of the equivalent acreage of high quality foraging habitat. The basis and structure of this model, and the scenarios evaluated, are described in detail in Section 2.2 Methodology for Analyzing Alterations of Populations and Habitats. Based on CH2M HILL’s approach, there was a net decrease in habitat acreage, but an increase in high quality habitat and an increase in available habitat during April–August.
Based on the EDAW model, during April–June, the increase in foraging habitat value at the proposed reserves and mitigation sites would be slightly greater than the value of the lost foraging habitat (the equivalent of 129 acres of high quality habitat with the project versus 122 acres without the project). During July–September, the increase in foraging habitat value at the proposed reserves and mitigation sites would not fully offset the value of the foraging habitat lost at the Greenbriar site (129 versus 140 acres during July–August and 162 acres in September). However, during these months, foraging resources in the Natomas Basin increase due to harvesting of crops, and so the project’s affect on foraging resources available during July–September is not likely to affect the viability of Swainson’s hawk, nor the effectiveness of the conservation strategy of the NBHCP. The results of these analyses of foraging resources are presented in Section 3.4 Habitat Quality in the Natomas Basin, and are displayed in Exhibits 3 and 4.
5.6 MINIMUM HABITAT BLO CK SIZE REQUIREMENTS
A requirement of the NBHCP is that by the end of the 50-year period, one habitat block within the reserve system will be at least 2,500 acres in size and the balance of reserve lands shall be in habitat blocks of at least 400 acres in size. The NBHCP (on page IV-14) provides four bases for this size requirement. These bases are:
1. large blocks minimize the “perimeter effect”,
2. large blocks promote biodiversity by allowing multiple species and niches to occupy the site,
3. the benefit to genetic diversity of dispersing interconnected reserves throughout the Natomas Basin, and
4. the 400-acre reserve size is considered the minimu m size to allow persistence of covered species.
No aspect of the Greenbriar project would alter any of these bases for the minimum habitat block size requirements of the NBHCP. The project could however affect opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves, and thus affect the ability to consolidate reserves into habitat blocks that satisfy the size requirements.
The Greenbriar project’s potential affect on opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves was evaluated in Section 3.9. In brief, the project would adversely affect the preservation of large blocks of habitat at or adjacent to the Greenbriar site, but elsewhere it would enhance and preserve additional habitat (296 acres plus at least 49 acres of DEIR mitigation), increasing opportunities to establish additional reserves; The project also would reduce the quantity of land available to provide mitigation under the NBHCP, but the remaining acreage of land potentially suitable for preservation would substantially exceed the acreage required for the NBHCP’s reserve system. Overall, the project would probably have a beneficial effect on the fulfillment of the requirement for minimum habitat block size.
Interestingly, the Greenbriar project does illustrate the need for smaller reserves in some instances to preserve connectivity. The Greenbriar project necessitates enhancement and preservation of land along a waterway to maintain connectivity for the giant garter snake. This land would be partially isolated by major roads and both
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 5-5 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP existing and proposed development, and would not become part of a larger habitat block in the future. In general, corridors along canals and drains near roads and development will be more difficult to incorporate into larger blocks of habitat because of the adverse effects of roads and development on reserves. Yet, it is in precisely these locations that preserving and managing corridors would be most beneficial or even necessary. Though it acknowledges that evidence may be discovered in support of smaller reserves, the NBHCP does not address the effects of preserving corridors on the attainment of its minimum habitat block size requirements.
Overall, the project would beneficially affect the establishment of large blocks of preserved habitat. It would enhance and preserve 296 acres of additional habitat, most of which would be adjacent to or near existing TNBC reserves; the DEIR mitigation would increase this benefit by requiring the preservation of at least an additional 49 acres of land. The project would adversely affect the preservation of large blocks of habitat by developing existing habitat at the Greenbriar site. However, under the future condition of the Natomas Basin, this land would be surrounded by major roads and urban development, and the project would preserve the most ecologically important portion of the site, which is the corridor of land along Lone Tree Canal.
5.7 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CONS ERVATION STRATEGY OF THE
NBHCP
As described in the preceding sections, effects on the key components of the NBHCP’s conservation strategy resulting from the Greenbriar project (with the DEIR mitigation) would be minor, and some of these effects would be beneficial. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not reduce the effectiveness of the conservation strategy, and thus no changes in the conservation strategy would be necessitated by the project.
In large part, the project would avoid affecting the effectiveness of the conservation strategy because of its mitigation of effects on connectivity and foraging habitat. This mitigation of effects on connectivity (through substantial investment in wide setbacks, barriers, and habitat management in perpetuity) and foraging habitat (by increasing habitat values on mitigation lands sufficiently to replace habitat values lost on development sites) could serve as a general approach for future projects to avoid reducing the effectiveness of the conservation strategy of the NBHCP.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-1 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP 6 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE GREENBRIAR PROJECT
ON NBHCP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
For each applicable goal and objective in the NBHCP, this section summarizes the effects of the Greenbriar project on attainment of that goal or objective. These effects were analyzed in the preceding sections of this report that addressed effects on covered species, habitat acreage, human-wildlife conflicts, connectivity, habitat values at TNBC reserves, water availability at TNBC reserves, and the opportunity to establish additional reserves.
Because the Greenbriar project would be located outside of the areas where urban development was authorized by the NBHCP, and thus would result in a net increase of land potentially developed in the NBHCP plan area, the project’s avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures could be consistent with the measures of the NBHCP and yet the project could still detrimentally affect attainment of the NBHCP’s goals and objectives, or otherwise reduce the likelihood of sustaining populations of covered species in the Natomas Basin.
For example, the 0.5 to 1 ratio of developed to conserved land in the NBHCP was not necessarily intended to apply to development outside the 17,500 acre permit area (as described on page IV-12 of the NBHCP), and was based, in part, on the interpretation that on average habitat quality was lower in the areas permitted for development than in the areas that would be preserved (City of Sacramento et al. 2003).
Similarly, the NBHCP conservation strategy was based in part on the assumption that most of the Natomas Basin in agricultural use at the time of the NBHCP’s approval would remain in agricultural land uses that provide habitat for most covered species (e.g., as described on page IV-11 of the NBHCP). The retention of a substantial acreage of existing agricultural habitats limits the risks associated with relying on enhancement and restoration efforts to offset habitat losses. It also retains, largely unaltered, the canals and upland corridors that connect habitats; and it would leave reserves surrounded by agricultural lands that increase the benefits of reserves for covered species. Therefore, development outside of areas permitted by the NBHCP could eliminate higher quality habitats, reduce habitat connectivity, and detrimentally affect reserves to a much greater degree than the development permitted by the NBHCP. Such development also could create conflicts with the continued use of adjacent lands for agriculture.
These examples illustrate that both the types and magnitudes of effects caused by development outside of the areas permitted by the NBHCP can differ from those caused by comparable development inside of the areas permitted by the NBHCP; thus, mitigation comparable to that in the NBHCP may not adequately offset these effects. This situation was anticipated during the development of the NBHCP and is reflected in the text of the NBHCP, BO, Final EIR/EIS and the implementation agreement for the NBHCP (e.g., page IV-12 of the NBHCP).
Therefore, interpretations of the Greenbriar project’s effects on the NBHCP were based primarily on the sum of the anticipated effects on the TNBC reserve system, and on the sum of anticipated effects on the viability of populations of covered species using the Natomas Basin. An overall negative effect on the existing reserve system was considered adverse to the attainment of the NBHCP’s goals and objectives. Effects that would preclude attainment of a goal or objective, reduce the viability of a covered species or otherwise necessitate a change in the NBHCP’s conservation strategy were considered substantial effects that would conflict with the NBHCP.
Overall, the Greenbriar project would not conflict with attainment of the goals and objectives of the NBHCP.
Through most mechanisms by which a project could affect the NBHCP, the Greenbriar project causes adverse and beneficial effects on the goals and objectives of the NBHCP. However, many of these effects are small relative to the acreages of development authorized by the NBHCP and of habitats in the Basin. Also, most beneficial and adverse effects would be reduced by opposing effects, and the DEIR mitigation further reduces adverse effects.
Consequently, the Greenbriar project would not cause an overall adverse effect on attainment of any of the goals or objectives of the NBHCP, and the project could provide an overall benefit towards the attainment of several goals. (For example, the project [with DEIR mitigation] would preserve 345 acres of land and this preserved land
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-2 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP would contribute to the connectivity and quality of habitat preserved through the NBHCP.) In the following sections of text, the project’s effects are assessed for each potentially affected goal and objective of the NBHCP.
These assessments, in turn, are based on the analyses presented in Chapter 3 Alteration of Population and Habitat Attributes by the Greenbriar Project and Chapter 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species.
6.1 OVERALL GOALS
6.1.1 O VERALL GOAL 1
Establish and manage in perpetuity a biologically sound and interconnected habitat reserve system that mitigates impacts on Covered Species resulting from Covered Activities and provides habitat for existing, and new viable populations of Covered Species. (NBHCP, p. I-15)
A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting the:
► acreage of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► quality of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► connectivity of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► connectivity of TNBC reserves,
► habitat value of TNBC reserves,
► water availability at TNBC reserves, and opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves.
The Greenbriar project would cause both adverse and beneficial effects on the attainment of this goal through all of these mechanisms, except for water availability at TNBC reserves (which the project would not affect). The project’s beneficial effects would include increased habitat quality resulting from the preservation, creation, and enhancement of habitats, increased connectivity of existing TNBC reserves and of habitats, and increased opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves. Without mitigation, the project’s adverse effects would include a reduction in the acreage of upland and wetland habitats in the Natomas Basin, reduced foraging habitat values within a mile of an existing TNBC reserve, fragmented upland habitats in the vicinity of the Greenbriar site, degraded habitat quality of adjacent agricultural lands to the north and southwest, and possibly reduced connectivity along Lone Tree Canal (despite preserving and enhancing a corridor of habitat along the canal). A detailed assessment of these effects is provided in sections 3 Alteration of Population and Habitat Attributes by the Greenbriar Project and 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species.
The mitigation proposed in the DEIR would reduce the project’s adverse effects by incorporating additional measures to ensure that connectivity along Lone Tree Canal is sustained (as described in Sections 3.5, 3.4, 4.1, and 4.2.), and to preserve and enhance an additional 49 acres of foraging habitat within a mile of existing TNBC reserves (as described in Sections 3.4, 3.7, and 4.3). This mitigation also would cause additional beneficial effects (as described in Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8), because the preserved and enhanced foraging habitat would not only mitigate effects on foraging habitat and on TNBC reserves, but also could increase connectivity of habitat and of TNBC reserves. Similarly, by ensuring that connectivity along Lone Tree Canal would be maintained, the project (with its proposed mitigation) would conserve a portion of an important corridor connecting reserves and habitats of the southern and central Natomas Basin. (The connectivity of upland habitats, however, would still be reduced at the Greenbriar site.)
As described in Section 3.9, the project (with the DEIR mitigation) would have an overall beneficial effect on the establishment and management of reserves for the NBHCP. Because the acreage of land in the Natomas Basin that is potentially available and suitable for preservation substantially exceeds the 8,750 acres that will be preserved by the NBHCP, the project would not preclude the preservation of sufficient land to attain the NBHCP’s goals and objectives. It would provide 345 acres of additional reserve lands, with much of this acreage adjacent to or near existing reserves, which would increase the connectivity of habitats and the resources available
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-3 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP to covered species using reserves established by the NBHCP; in addition, it would conserve an important corridor of canal habitat along Lone Tree Canal. The project also would increase opportunities to establish new reserves, particularly to create larger reserves by preserving additional land adjacent to existing TNBC and project’s proposed reserves. (Sections 3.6–3.9 provide a detailed assessment of effects on the management and establishment of TNBC reserves.)
Although the project would cause a net reduction in the acreage of upland and wetland habitats, the preservation and enhancement of habitat by the project would adequately mitigate for its impacts on upland and wetland habitats for covered species. Effects on the acreage and quality of habitats are summarized below, and a detailed assessment of these effects is presented in Sections 3.3 and 3.4. (These effects are also evaluated separately for each covered species in Chapter 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbrier Project on Covered Species.) For wetland land cover (i.e., rice, canal, and ponds and seasonally wet areas), the net reduction in acreage resulting from the project would be offset by an increase in the habitat quality by creating marsh habitat at the project’s proposed reserves. Based on 2001 land cover mapping, the Greenbriar project would eliminate 388 acres of rice and 16 acres of canal habitats, but would increase the acreage of marsh by 201 acres, creating a net loss of 204 acres of these wetland land cover types and of the habitats they provide. An acre of marsh, however, provides a greater quantity and variety of habitat than does an acre of rice, and thus the additional habitat values provided by the created marsh offsets the habitat lost in the rice and canal land cover types. Managed marsh provides substantially greater habitat values for giant garter snakes than rice for several reasons. These reasons include:
► Giant garter snakes use the full extent of managed marshes, whereas they primarily use the margins of rice fields;
► Marshes provide habitat throughout the active period of the snake, whereas rice fields do not provide habitat during early and mid-spring, and are typically drained before the end of the snake’s active period; and ► Marsh provides habitat in all years, whereas rice is fallowed periodically.
In addition, the project would preserve, and manage for its habitat values, 201 acres of marsh (i.e., about 1.0 acre for each acre lost) and approximately 6 acres of canal habitat. This preservation and management would increase the habitat value of these lands because:
► Habitat would be preserved in perpetuity;
► Habitat would be monitored and actively managed for the benefit of covered species; ► Habitat would not be subject to continuous disturbance caused by farming or canal maintenance activities; and ► Habitat would be relatively free of human intrusion (USFWS 2003).
Therefore, the loss of wetland habitats (i.e., those provided by land cover mapped as rice, canal, and ponds and seasonally wet areas) is more than offset by the creation of a comparable area of marsh (from rice and upland land cover), and the preservation and management of this marsh. These effects are described in detail in Sections 3.3–
3.4 and 4.1–4.2. As described in Section 3.5, the project with its mitigation would also conserve an important corridor of canal and adjacent upland habitat at the Greenbriar site.
For upland land cover (i.e., alfalfa, grassland, idle, non-rice crop, pasture, and ruderal), the net reduction in acreage resulting from the project also would be offset by an increase in the habitat quality of preserved and enhanced habitat. Based on 2001 land cover mapping, the Greenbriar project would cause a net reduction of 281 acres of upland land cover providing habitat for covered species, but would enhance the habitat value of 14 acres at the proposed Natomas 130 site and 45 acres at the Spangler site, and the DEIR mitigation for loss of Swainson’s hawk would enhance at least an additional 49 acres; thus, a total of 109 acres of upland habitat would be enhanced. This habitat would be preserved, as would 27 acres of grassland along Lone Tree Canal and 60 acres of upland components within created marshes; thus, a total of 195 acres of upland habitat would be preserved. For
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-4 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP some covered species associated with uplands (including Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike) the additional habitat values provided by the preservation and enhancement of this upland habitat (i.e., 0.7 acres preserved for each acre lost and over half of this enhanced) would fully offset the habitat values of the upland acreage lost as a result of the project. For other covered species (including Aleutian Canada goose, tricolored blackbird, and bank swallow), the additional habitat values provided by the preservation and enhancement of this 195 acres of upland habitat would only partially offset the habitat values of the upland acreage lost as a result of the project. (The analysis of the foraging habitat value lost at the Greenbriar site and of the value gained at the proposed reserve and mitigation sites is summarized in Section 3.4 Habitat Quality in the Natomas Basin.) For example, based on the methods used by CH2M HILL, the upland habitats that would result from the project would provide a greater acreage of available foraging habitat during April–August, when Swainson’s hawks are nesting in the Basin. Based on EDAW’s model of habitat values, the enhancement of uplands by the project (with the DEIR mitigation) would provide foraging habitat values during the months of April–June that are slightly greater than the habitats that would be eliminated by the project (Exhibits 3b and 4).
During July–August, the project’s enhancement of habitat would not fully offset the lost habitat values, but during these months foraging habitat values increase in the Natomas Basin as a result of crop harvest.
On the basis of the project’s establishment of reserves that provide habitat for covered species and mitigate the project’s impacts to those covered species, implementing the proposed project (with the DEIR mitigation measures) would either not alter or would improve the connectivity of the NBHCP reserve system and provide habitat for viable populations of covered species. In addition, because the viability of covered species would either be unaltered or improved (e.g., giant garter snake, northwestern pond turtle), the project would not adversely affect attainment of this goal.
6.1.2 O VERALL GOAL 3
Preserve open space and habitat that may also benefit local, non-listed and transitory wildlife species not identified within the NBHCP. (NBHCP, page I-16)
A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting the:
► Acreage of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Quality of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of TNBC reserves,
► Habitat value of existing TNBC reserves,
► Water availability at TNBC reserves, and
► Opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves.
The Greenbriar project would cause both beneficial and adverse effects on the attainment of this goal through most of these mechanisms. By preserving, enhancing, and creating habitat, the project would increase the quality of habitats, increase the connectivity of habitats and TNBC reserves, and create additional opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves. By developing most of the Greenbriar site, the project would reduce the acreage of habitat in the Natomas Basin, and it would fragment, degrade, and reduce the connectivity of adjacent habitats, reduce the foraging habitat available at an existing TNBC reserve, and without the DEIR mitigation, it could reduce connectivity along Lone Tree Canal (despite preserving a corridor along it.) The DEIR mitigation reduces the project’s adverse effects by incorporating additional measures to ensure that connectivity along Lone Tree Canal is sustained (including additional requirements for fencing and barriers), and to preserve and enhance an additional 49 acres of upland foraging habitat within a mile of existing TNBC reserves. This additional foraging also could increase connectivity of habitat and of TNBC reserves. Similarly, by ensuring that connectivity along Lone Tree Canal would not be reduced, the project (with the DEIR mitigation)
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-5 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP would conserve a portion of an important corridor connecting reserves and habitats of the southern and central Natomas Basin. (The connectivity of upland habitats, however, would still be reduced at the Greenbriar site.) As described in Sections 3.6–3.9, the project (with the DEIR mitigation) would have an overall beneficial effect on the establishment and management of reserves for the NBHCP. Because the acreage of land in the Natomas Basin that is potentially available and suitable for preservation substantially exceeds the 8,750 acres that will be preserved by the NBHCP, the project would not preclude the preservation of sufficient land to attain the NBHCP’s goals and objectives. It would provide reserve lands adjacent to or near existing reserves, increasing the connectivity of habitats and the resources available to covered species using reserves established by the NBHCP; in addition, it would conserve a portion of an important corridor of canal habitat along Lone Tree Canal. The project also would increase opportunities to establish new reserves, particularly to create larger reserves by preserving additional land adjacent to existing TNBC and project’s proposed reserves.
Because the project would cause both beneficial and adverse effects on the attainment of this goal, and because the project’s adverse effects would not reduce the likelihood that the NBHCP would be able to preserve sufficient habitat for non-listed species to attain this goal, the Greenbriar project would not adversely affect the attainment of this goal.
6.1.3 O VERALL GOAL 4
Ensure that direct impacts of Authorized Development upon Covered Species are avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (NBHCP, page I-16)
A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by causing construction-related effects on the survival or reproduction of individuals that are using the project or mitigation sites and adjacent lands.
Development of the Greenbriar site would likely affect giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike, and could affect several other covered species including northwestern pond turtle, tricolored blackbird, white-faced ibis, Aleutian Canada goose, Sanford’s arrowhead, and Delta tule pea. These potential effects (which are described in detail in Chapter 4) would be comparable to the construction-related effects that could be caused by development permitted by the NBHCP.
The avoidance and minimization measures incorporated into the project and into the DEIR mitigation would substantially reduce these effects. These measures include all of the applicable avoidance and minimization measures that were included in the NBHCP to avoid and minimize construction-related effects, which are a comprehensive set of effective measures for reducing these effects. (An assessment of the applicability of these measures is in Appendix A.) In addition, the DEIR mitigation would include several more stringent minimization measures. Therefore, with its proposed mitigation, the project would not adversely affect attainment of this goal because it would implement a comprehensive set of measures to avoid and minimize effects on covered species.
The Greenbriar project also would not alter the effectiveness of any NBHCP conservation measures for avoiding and minimizing the effects of development authorized by the NBHCP (Appendix A).
6.2 OVERALL OBJECTIVES
6.2.1 O VERALL OBJECTIVE 1
Minimize conflicts between wildlife and human activities, including conflicts resulting from airplane traffic, roads and automobile traffic, predation by domestic pets, and harassment by people. (NBHCP, page I-16) A project could potentially affect attainment of this objective by causing construction-related effects on survival or reproduction of individuals using project sites and adjacent lands, or by altering the area, types of habitats, or level of conflicts in zones with high levels of human-wildlife conflicts.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-6 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Without the DEIR mitigation, the project would reduce the overall area in zones with high levels of human- wildlife conflicts, but it would increase the area of rice habitat and the level of conflicts within such zones, and it would cause construction-related effects in these zones. (Section 3.2 provides a detailed description of effects on zones with high levels of human-wildlife conflicts.) These human-wildlife conflicts and construction-related effects would be comparable to those resulting from the development authorized by the NBHCP.
The DEIR mitigation includes avoidance and minimization measures that would substantially reduce these effects. These measures include all of the applicable measures that were included in the NBHCP to avoid and minimize construction-related effects and to reduce human-wildlife conflicts. (An assessment of the applicability of these measures is included as Appendix A.) As described in Section 3.1, these measures represent a comprehensive set of effective measures for avoiding and minimizing the project’s effects. In addition, the project also incorporates additional measures (e.g., fencing and barriers) to reduce human-wildlife conflicts along Lone Tree Canal.
Therefore, with the DEIR mitigation, the project would not adversely affect attainment of this objective because it would implement a comprehensive set of measures that would minimize human-wildlife conflicts. The Greenbriar project also would not alter the effectiveness of any NBHCP conservation measures for minimizing human- wildlife conflicts (Appendix A).
6.2.2 O VERALL OBJECTIVE 3
Ensure connectivity between TNBC reserves to minimize habitat fragmentation and species isolation. Connections between reserves will generally take the form of common property boundaries between reserves, waterways (primarily irrigation and drainage channels) passing between reserves, and/or an interlinking network of water supply channels or canals. (NBHCP, page I-16)
A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting:
► Connectivity of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of TNBC reserves,
► Habitat value of TNBC reserves, and
► Water availability at TNBC reserves.
The Greenbriar project would cause beneficial and adverse effects on the attainment of this objective through most of these mechanisms. The main beneficial effect would be increased connectivity of habitats and TNBC reserves due to preservation, creation, and enhancement of habitat at the project’s proposed reserves, two of which are adjacent to or near (i.e., within a half mile of) existing TNBC reserves. Adverse effects would include reducing the foraging habitat within a mile of a TNBC reserve, fragmenting and reducing the connectivity of upland habitats adjacent to the Greenbriar site, and possibly reducing the connectivity of wetland habitats and TNBC reserves because of effects on Lone Tree Canal (despite preserving a corridor along the canal). (Sections
3.4–3.7 provide detailed descriptions of these effects.) The DEIR mitigation reduces the project’s adverse effects by incorporating additional measures to ensure that connectivity along Lone Tree Canal is sustained, and to preserve and enhance foraging habitat within a mile of existing TNBC reserves. This mitigation also would cause additional beneficial effects because the preserved and enhanced foraging habitat would not only mitigate effects on TNBC reserves, but also could increase connectivity of habitat and of TNBC reserves. Similarly, by ensuring that connectivity along Lone Tree Canal will not be reduced, the project (with the DEIR mitigation) would conserve a portion of an important corridor connecting reserves and habitats of the southern and central Natomas Basin. (The connectivity of upland habitats, however, would still be reduced at the Greenbriar site.)
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-7 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP In the absence of an adverse effect on connectivity along Lone Tree Canal, the project would cause only small effects on the attainment of this objective, and most of these effects would be beneficial. Therefore, the project’s overall effect on the attainment of this objective would not be adverse.
6.3 WETLAND SPECIES/HABITAT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
6.3.1 W ETLAND SPECIES/HABITAT GOAL/OBJECTIVE 1
Acquire, enhance and create a mosaic of wetland habitats with adjacent uplands and connecting corridors to provide breeding, wintering, foraging, and cover areas for wetland species in the Plan Area. (NBHCP, page I-17) A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting:
► Acreage of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Quality of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of TNBC reserves,
► Habitat value of TNBC reserves,
► Water availability at TNBC reserves, and
► Opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves.
The Greenbriar project with the DEIR mitigation would cause beneficial and adverse effects on the attainment of this goal/objective through several of these mechanisms. By acquiring, enhancing, and creating wetland habitats, the project would increase the area of preserved land in the Natomas Basin, which would increase the connectivity of habitats and create additional opportunities to create larger reserves. By developing most of the Greenbriar site, the project would reduce the acreage of wetland habitats in the Natomas Basin (by approximately 204 acres), and without the DEIR mitigation, could reduce the connectivity of wetland habitats because of effects on Lone Tree Canal, and could cause some degradation of wetland habitats on lands to the north and southwest of the Greenbriar site. With its proposed mitigation, however, the project would not adversely affect connectivity of habitats along Lone Tree Canal. (Section 3.5 provides an assessment and more detailed description of the anticipated effects on connectivity.) Therefore, the main adverse effect of the project on attainment of this goal would be due to the reduction of the acreage of wetland habitats.
This reduction in wetland acreage would not cause an effect on attainment of this goal/objective that would necessitate changes to the conservation strategy of the NBHCP. First, the effect would be offset by the enhancement of 204 acres of wetland habitats on the project’s proposed reserves (which is described in Section
3.4). Second, as described in Section 3.3, only a small percentage of the Basin’s wetland habitats would be lost (approximately 1%). Third, as described in Section 3.5, no reduction in the connectivity of wetland habitats or in opportunities to preserve, enhance, and acquire wetland habitats would result. Fourth, as described in Section 4, the population viability of covered species using these habitats would not be reduced.
Because the project would contribute directly to the attainment of this goal, and would not cause any adverse effects on the goal’s attainment that would need to be offset by changes in the conservation strategy of the NBHCP, the project’s overall effect on the attainment of this goal is not adverse.
6.3.2 W ETLAND SPECIES/HABITAT GOAL/OBJECTIVE 2
Provide habitat to maintain, attract and sustain viable populations of the Covered Species. The habitat areas should be configured to encompass natural species migration areas, minimize species isolation, and prevent future habitat fragmentation. (NBHCP, page I-17)
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-8 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting:
► Zones with human-wildlife conflicts,
► Acreage of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Quality of habitat in the Natomas Basin
► Connectivity of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of TNBC reserves,
► Habitat value of TNBC reserves,
► Water availability at TNBC reserves, and
► Opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves.
The Greenbriar project, with the DEIR mitigation, would cause beneficial and adverse effects on the attainment of this goal/objective through several of these mechanisms. Based on the analyses presented in Section 3 Alteration of Habitat and Population Attributes by the Greenbriar Project, the project (with the DEIR mitigation) would cause a net loss in the acreage of wetland habitats, improve the habitat quality of some wetlands, and could improve connectivity of habitat and TNBC reserves, and increase opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves. Overall, the project would not adversely affect attainment of this goal.
The net loss of habitat acreage resulting from the project would be offset by the creation of marsh at the project’s proposed reserves. Based on 2001 land cover mapping, the Greenbriar project would eliminate 388 acres of rice and 16 acres of canal habitats, but would increase the acreage of marsh by 201 acres, creating a net loss of 204 acres of these wetland land cover types and of the habitats they provide. An acre of marsh, however, provides a greater quantity and variety of habitat than does an acre of rice, and thus the additional habitat provided by the created marsh offsets the habitat lost in the rice and canal land cover types. In addition, the project would preserve, and manage for its habitat values, 201 acres of marsh (i.e., about 1.0 acre for each acre lost). This preservation and management would increase the habitat quality of these lands because:
1. Habitat would be preserved in perpetuity;
2. Habitat would be monitored and actively ma naged for the benefit of covered species;
3. Habitat would not be subject to c ontinuous disturbance caused by farming or canal maintenance activities; and
4. Habitat would be relatively free of human intrusion (USFWS 2003).
Therefore, the loss of wetland (i.e., land cover mapped as rice, canal, and ponds and seasonally wet areas) is more than offset by the creation of a comparable area of marsh (from rice and upland land cover) and the preservation, and management of the created marsh. Because the project would increase the acreage of land preserved in the Natomas Basin, it would provide opportunities to increase the size and connectivity of TNBC reserves (which are described in Sections 3.6 and 3.9). The project with the DEIR mitigation would also conserve an important corridor of canal and adjacent upland habitat at the Greenbriar site (as described in Section 3.5).
Consequently, as described in Section 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species, the project would either benefit or be unlikely to alter the viability of covered species using wetland land cover (i.e., rice, canal, or ponds and seasonally wet areas). Because the project would not reduce the viability of covered species, and creates additional reserves that contribute to efforts to sustain viable populations and prevent fragmentation of habitat, the project does not adversely affect this goal/objective.
6.4 UPLAND SPECIES/HABITA T GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
6.4.1 U PLAND SPECIES/HABITAT GOAL/OBJECTIVE 1
Acquire, enhance and create a mosaic of upland habitat types for breeding, foraging, and cover for species dependent on upland habitats. (NBHCP, page I-17)
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-9 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting:
► Acreage of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Quality of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Habitat value of existing TNBC reserves, and
► Opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves.
For upland habitats, the Greenbriar project would affect the attainment of this goal through each of these mechanisms. The project’s beneficial effects on the attainment of this goal/objective would include the preservation, creation and enhancement of habitats that increase habitat quality and contribute to the connectivity of existing TNBC reserves and of habitats, and increase opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves. The project’s adverse effects on the attainment of this goal/objective would include reduced acreage of upland habitats in the Natomas Basin, reduced foraging habitat within a mile of an existing TNBC reserve, fragmented and reduced connectivity of upland habitats in the vicinity of the Greenbriar site, and probably degraded quality of adjacent habitat to the north and southwest of the Greenbriar site. Sections 3 Alteration of Population and Habitat Attributes by the Greenbriar Project and 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species provide detailed assessments of these effects.
The DEIR mitigation reduces the project’s adverse effects by incorporating a measure to preserve and enhance additional foraging habitat within a mile of existing TNBC reserve(s) that would be sufficient to offset the loss of habitat values due to the Greenbriar project. This mitigation also would cause additional beneficial effects because the preserved and enhanced foraging habitat would not only mitigate effects on TNBC reserves, but also could increase connectivity of habitat and of TNBC reserves.
The project would not cause effects on habitat acreage, quality, and connectivity sufficient to alter the likelihood of attaining this goal/objective. Under the future condition of the Natomas Basin resulting from the NBHCP, approximately 12,000 acres of upland habitats would remain in the Natomas Basin. To attain this goal/objective of the NBHCP, under the future condition of the NBHCP, 18% of this remaining upland habitat would need to be preserved and enhanced as part of the TNBC. The project would reduce the acreage of upland habitat in the Natomas Basin (under the future condition) by about 2.5%. To offset effects resulting from the reduction in upland acreage, the project would preserve and enhance much of another 1.7% of the upland habitats that would remain under the future condition. This land would be unavailable for the NBHCP. Thus, the Greenbriar project would reduce the upland habitat available for preservation through the NBHCP by several percent, which would not be sufficient to affect the attainment of this goal/objective.
In contrast, as described in Section 3.9, the land preserved by this project could increase opportunities to establish reserves. For example, the NBHCP has minimum size requirements for habitat blocks within the reserve system.
At least two of the reserves resulting from this project (the proposed Natomas 130 and Spangler reserves) would be adjacent to or near (i.e., within a half mile or less of) existing reserves (Exhibit 5); these lands would provide opportunities additional to create larger reserves by preserving additional land connected to existing TNBC reserves and/or the project’s proposed reserves. Therefore, the Greenbriar project could contribute directly to preserving, creating, and enhancing blocks of habitat of sufficient size for effective conservation of upland habitats by the NBHCP.
Overall, the project would not adversely (and could beneficially) affect this goal/objective. Because the acreage of upland habitat in the Natomas Basin that is potentially available and suitable for preservation is substantially more than the acreage of upland habitat that would be preserved and enhanced by the NBHCP, and the project would affect only a small percentage of this land, the project would not preclude the preservation of sufficient land to attain the NBHCP’s goals and objectives. The project would, however, increase opportunities to establish new reserves, which would aid the attainment of this goal/objective.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-10 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
6.4.2 U PLAND SPECIES/HABITAT GOAL/OBJECTIVE 2
Ensure reserve land connectivity with travel corridors for upland-dependent species. The habitat areas should encompass grasslands, agricultural croplands, riparian habitats, and shelter and nesting habitat areas (fence rows, clusters of shrubs and small trees), as well as wetland areas to provide a year-round source of water for upland species. The upland areas should be configured to enhance natural species migration, minimize species isolation, and prevent future habitat fragmentation. (NBHCP, page I-17) A project could potentially affect attainment of this goal by affecting:
► Connectivity of habitat in the Natomas Basin,
► Connectivity of existing TNBC reserves,
► Habitat value of existing TNBC reserves, and
► Opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves.
The Greenbriar project, with the DEIR mitigation, would affect the attainment of this goal/objective through each of these mechanisms. Beneficial effects would include the preservation, creation, and enhancement of upland habitats that contribute to the connectivity of existing TNBC reserves and of habitats, and increase opportunities to establish additional TNBC reserves. Adverse effects would include reduced foraging habitat within a mile of an existing TNBC reserve, and fragmented and reduced connectivity of upland habitats in the vicinity of the Greenbriar site. Sections 3.5–3.7 and 3.9 provide a detailed assessment of these effects.
The DEIR mitigation would reduce the project’s adverse effects by incorporating a measure to preserve and enhance foraging habitat within a mile of existing TNBC reserves (or of the Swainson’s hawk zone along the Sacramento River). This mitigation also would cause additional beneficial effects because the preservation and enhancement of at least an additional 49 acres of foraging habitat would not only mitigate effects on TNBC reserves, but also could increase connectivity of habitat and of TNBC reserves.
The project’s proposed reserves at the Spangler and Natomas 130 sites would contribute to travel corridors connecting reserve lands. The proposed Natomas 130 site would contain upland and wetland habitats, and would be immediately adjacent to a TNBC reserve, Fisherman’s Lake, and the Sacramento River (Exhibit 5). The proposed Spangler reserve would contain mainly wetland habitats, but upland habitats would be a component of the created marshes and reserve buffers, and this site is within a quarter mile of an existing reserve and would connect to habitat on buffer lands surrounding Sacramento International Airport to the south (Exhibit 5).
The proposed reserve on the Greenbriar site, along Lone Tree Canal, would contain grassland, marsh, and canal habitats managed to sustain connectivity of habitat for giant garter snake. This would also provide some benefit as a travel corridor for upland species; however, the partial isolation of the site by Elkhorn Boulevard to the north and Interstate 5 to the south would limit this benefit.
The project would, however, reduce connectivity of upland habitats adjacent to the Greenbriar site, and this could reduce dispersal and movement of upland species between reserves in the central and southern Natomas Basin.
Under the future condition of the Natomas Basin resulting from the NBHCP, the Greenbriar site would be a corridor of upland habitat between the Metro Air Park and the City of Sacramento. At Interstate 5, this corridor would be about 0.4 miles wide and at the northern end of the Greenbriar site it would be almost a mile wide. The Greenbriar project would reduce this to a 250-foot wide and approximately one-mile long corridor of grassland, marsh, riparian, and canal habitats that would be preserved and managed as part of the TNBC reserve system. A moderate level of uncertainty exists regarding the attributes necessary for wildlife use of corridors, and this much narrower corridor surrounded by urban development may not be used, or may be used less frequently, by upland wildlife.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 6-11 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP However, as described in Section 3.5, a reduction in connectivity of upland habitats at and adjacent to the Greenbriar site, would affect relatively few upland species. First, most upland species in the Natomas Basin are abundant, widely distributed and highly mobile. (The species observed during monitoring for TNBC support this characterization [Jones & Stokes 2005].) Second, Interstate 5 (which is along the entire southern border of the site), adjacent urban development, and in the future a six lane Elkhorn Boulevard along the site’s northern border, limits use of the site by animals that are less mobile or are highly sensitive to human disturbance.
Based on the assessments presented in Section 4 Potential Effects of the Greenbriar Project on Covered Species, a reduction in connectivity of upland habitats at the Greenbriar site also would be unlikely to alter the viability of the populations of covered species using upland habitats in the Natomas Basin. Of the covered species, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and loggerhead shrike all could be affected, because they probably use the Greenbriar site. These are highly mobile animals that could fly over or around the site, though they may not choose to do so, may do so less frequently, or doing so may expose them to additional risks. Development at the Greenbriar site would reduce and fragment upland habitats, and this could reduce the survival or reproduction of individuals using the site and adjacent lands. However, habitat would be enhanced and preserved along Lone Tree Canal and at the proposed reserves, and the DEIR mitigation would enhance and preserve additional upland habitat within a mile of existing TNBC reserves. This enhanced and preserved land would likely improve connectivity of upland habitats, and could increase the survival or reproduction of individuals using those sites.
Also, burrowing owls and loggerhead shrikes using the Natomas Basin are part of large populations, a reduction of connectivity at the Greenbriar site would affect a very small portion of their range and numbers, and their loss of habitat would be mitigated by habitat preservation, creation, and enhancement at the proposed reserve and DEIR mitigation sites. Thus, the project is unlikely to alter the viability of populations of covered species using the Natomas Basin.
A moderate level of uncertainty exists regarding the overall effect of the Greenbriar project on this goal/objective.
The proposed changes at the Greenbriar site would have an uncertain effect on the movement and dispersal of upland species; also there is some uncertainty regarding the project’s contributions to connectivity elsewhere in the Basin because the location of the DEIR mitigation site has not been determined.
However, because the project would cause adverse and beneficial effects that are similar in nature and magnitude, and because it would affect only a small portion of the Basin’s land area, the project would have only a small overall effect on the attainment of this goal/objective, whether it was beneficial or adverse. This effect would not alter the viability of any covered species using upland habitats, and would not necessitate any changes in the conservation strategy of the NBHCP.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-1 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP 7 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
For the Greenbriar project, this section evaluates cumulative effects as defined by NEPA and ESA. In Section 7 of the Greenbriar DEIR, Other CEQA-Required Analyses, projects contributing to potential cumulative effects are described and the cumulative impacts of these projects, and the Greenbriar project, are analyzed. That analysis evaluates cumulative effects as defined by Section 15130 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines). Because that analysis addresses a range of resources and issues, it is broader and includes more detail on proposed projects than does the following analyses, which only address effects on species covered by the NBHCP.
7.1 ANALYSIS OF CUMULATI VE EFFECTS UNDER NEPA
NEPA defines cumulative impacts as those that result “from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).
7.1.1 C UMULATIVE CONTEXT
The Natomas Basin includes much of the American Basin, which is one of the nine major basins in the Central Valley. Basins are flat, low-lying areas adjacent to the natural levees that form along the major rivers. Theses basins fill with flood waters and over time they accumulate the fine sediments carried by these waters. Prior to urban development, the Natomas Basin would regularly become inundated by the winter river flows, and remain inundated for weeks to months during most years (Kelley 1989; Smith and Verrill 1996). The predominant vegetation was probably seasonal wetland with marsh growing at the lowest elevations, and riparian forest and scrub growing at higher elevations on alluvial soils near the Sacramento and American Rivers.
The City of Sacramento has developed over the past 150-plus years beginning in the late 1840s immediately following the discovery of gold. Over this time the City, and the Sacramento region, has shifted largely, though not entirely, from natural habitat to agriculture and urban development.
Reclamation of the Natomas Basin through a series of levees and drains was first attempted in the 1860s after the state created a Board of Swampland Commissioners. The Board’s appointed engineer estimated that the construction of this system of levees and drains would cost only about $38,000, which was far less than the $1 per acre fee that had been established to fund such reclamation. This estimate was inaccurate and the project ran out of funds within a year, and inundation of the Natomas Basin continued. It was not until 1915 that a system of levees and drainage and irrigation canals was completed, and the Natomas Basin drained. At that time, virtually the entire basin was converted to agricultural land uses.
In the Natomas Basin, urbanization occurred much later than agricultural uses. In 1924, after almost the entire Natomas Basin had been converted to agricultural land uses, developed land uses were still almost nonexistent.
There were few structures, and few roads, most of which were not paved (McClure 1925). By the 1960s, Sacramento International Airport, and major highways had been constructed, and some urban development had begun in the southern Basin, adjacent to Sacramento. Over the next 40 years, this urban development continued, primarily in the southern basin, and by 2001 approximately 21% of the Basin was occupied by developed land cover.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-2 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
7.1.2 P ROJECTS CONTRIBUTING TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY THE NBHCP
The NBHCP authorized 17,500 acres of land in the Natomas Basin for development. About two-thirds of this land has yet to be developed. Once this land is developed it is projected to contain over 50,000 homes as well as a variety of other retail, commercial and industrial uses; to date, about 15,000 homes have been constructed (McCarthy and Lamb 2006). This development is occurring in three areas authorized by the NBHCP: North Natomas and Metro Air Park in Sacramento County, and the Measure M area of Sutter County. Authorized development includes projects sponsored by either private developers or public entities that occur within these permitted areas.
This development is described in more detail below, and the effects of this development have previously been analyzed in conjunction with the NBHCP (CH2M HILL 2002). Additional information on the effects caused by this development is also provided in Section 3.3 Habitat Acreage in the Natomas Basin, and Appendix B Change in Natomas Basin Land Cover in 2001–2004.
North Natomas Community Plan
Development projects in the North Natomas community that have been approved but are yet to be fully built out have been identified and evaluated by the NNCP and the associated environmental review documents prepared in compliance primarily with CEQA.
The North Natomas community is bounded by Elkhorn Boulevard to the north, I-80 to the south, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal to the east, and the West Main Drain Canal to the west, covering more than 9,000 acres in the northwest portion of the city that was predominantly in agricultural use prior to development. The NNCP provides a long-term vision for the development of the North Natomas community. The environmental consequences from implementation of the NNCP were addressed in the 1986 NNCP EIR (certified by the Sacramento City Council in May 1986) as well as the 1993 Supplement to the 1986 NNCP EIR. Development within the NNCP started to take off in 1999.
There are several development projects that have been approved in the North Natomas community. Some of these projects are fully built-out and occupied at this juncture, while others are still in development phases. These projects are generally located to the south and east of the project site and include: the Westborough project, Cambay West, Natomas Crossing, Natomas Town Center, Panhandle, and Natomas Creek. In 2000, there were approximately 2,002 people, occupying 740 housing units in North Natomas (SACOG 2001). Currently, there are about 15,000 homes (McCarthy and Lamb 2006). At buildout (year 2016), the NNCP estimates a population of 66,495 in the North Natomas community occupying 33,257 housing units on approximately 9,038 acres, and 72,016 employees. Buildout has been rapid since approval of the NNCP and NBHCP, and this trend is expected to continue as a result of high demand for developed uses near downtown Sacramento.
Metro Air Park
In addition to development anticipated within the North Natomas community, the Metro Air Park is a newly developing project located adjacent to the Sacramento International Airport and along the westerly edge of the Greenbriar site. The Metro Air Park totals 1,983 acres and has been approved for development of approximately 20 million square feet of commercial and industrial development, and off-site infrastructure. This off-site infrastructure includes the widening of Elkhorn Boulevard along the northern border of the Greenbriar site. The project is located in an area that has historically been dominated by agricultural uses. Construction of the Metro Air Park began in September 2003.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-3 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Development within the Metro Air Park (authorized by the MAP HCP and NBHCP) will eliminate several canals connecting habitats north and south of Interstate 5, and connecting habitats from the Sacramento International Airport to Highway 99. It will eliminate the Powerline Ditch, No. 4 and 4a ditches, and Meister Canal. It also will eliminate water sources to the Airport East Ditch, and replace the open Central Main Canal with an underground pipe, and will affect habitat along Lone Tree Canal by reducing the area of land draining into Lone Tree Canal and placing urban development along one side of the canal (Thomas Reid Associates 2001, USFWS 2002).
Measure M
In 2004, Sutter County voters passed Measure M, an advisory measure intended to provide the Board of Supervisors with an indication of how the citizens of Sutter County feel about the types and level of development in the 7,500-acre area of the South Sutter County Industrial / Commercial Reserve. The southern boundary of the Measure M area forms the Sutter/Sacramento county line, approximately 4 miles north of Greenbriar. The vote did not approve any specific development proposals, but did provide guidance on how development may be viewed in the future. Measure M included potential development for the South Sutter area of the following uses:
► At least 3,600 acres for commercial/industrial development; ► At least 1,000 acres for schools, parks, other public uses, and retail; and ► No more than 2,900 acres for residential development, with a population cap of 39,000.
Applications for the Measure M area have not been submitted to Sutter County, as of December 2005, so the specifics of development proposals are not known beyond the parameters outlined above.
OTHER PROPOSED PROJECTS CONTRIBUTING TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Several other projects are being planned in the Natomas Basin outside of that areas permitted for development by the NBHCP. These projects are described below.
Sacramento International Airport Development Plan
The Airport Development Plan will include the major improvements that are needed over a 20-year planning period. These improvements are safety, security, and capacity enhancement projects that will enable the Sacramento County Airport System to meet customer service goals at increased levels of activity in passengers, air cargo, and aircraft operations.
The plan is still under development; but, the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan Study (PB Aviation 2004) contains a recommended Airport Development Plan that illustrates the type, location, and scale of projects under consideration. Most projects would be within the existing Airport Operations Area (AOA) Outside of the APA, potential projects include roughly 400 acres of development (parking and commercial development) on adjacent land along Interstate 5, and roughly 500 acres of development (aviation-related and commercial development) on adjacent land to the north of the AOA.
The recommended Airport Development Plan also would eliminate several waterways, including:
► 4.4 miles of the drainage ditch north of Elverta Road, ► 2.0 miles of the drainage ditch west of Power Line Road, ► 1.0 miles of the canal adjacent to the access road west of Power Line Road, and ► 0.5 miles of the drainage ditch along Bayou Road.
Together with the elimination of canals permitted by the MAP HCP, the elimination of these waterways could further reduce connectivity of habitats within the Natomas Basin. However, the effect on connectivity would be addressed during environmental review of development projects at the airport, and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would likely reduce the effect on connectivity to an insignificant level.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-4 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Sacramento Area Flood Control Levee Upgrade Project
To assess the risk of levee failure and to identify potential remedies, SAFCA commissioned the Natomas Levee Evaluation Study in 2005. This study indicated that the risk of flooding at the 100-year level was greater than previously assumed (SAFCA 2006). A variety of remedies were proposed for identified problems. Most of these remedies involve levee improvement and bank protection techniques, including construction of cutoff walls within existing levees, and placement of toe rock and revegetation of banks at locations along existing levees that pose erosion problems. These remedies would cause an estimated 8 acres of permanent habitat loss for species covered by the NBHCP (EDAW 2005).
As a potential remedy, the study also assessed constructing a secondary levee along the upper 5 miles of the east levee of the Sacramento River. This levee would be set back about 1,000 feet from the existing levee. Under this alternative the existing levee would continue to confine the river; the new levee would ensure safe containment of a 200-year flood if the existing levee were to fail. The construction of this levee would directly affect roughly 133 acres of habitat for species covered by the NBHCP. (This estimate assumes a 175-foot wide footprint and is based on additional information in SAFCA 2006, EDAW 2005.) The levee also would bisect several canals and existing TNBC reserves. The overall affect of this potential remedy on covered species also would depend on the future condition of the land between the secondary levee and the Sacramento River, and the future habitat quality of the levee slopes. The design of the secondary levee alternative has not yet been developed to this level of detail.
Natomas Mutual Water Company American Basin Fish Screen and Habitat Improvement Project (ABFSHIP)
The Natomas Mutual Water Company (Natomas Mutual) annually diverts nearly 100,000 acre feet of water from the Sacramento River and the Natomas Cross Canal and distributes that water throughout the Natomas Basin.
Natomas Mutual is currently planning and designing two new diversions to replace its existing five diversions.
These pumps would be located along the Sacramento River near Sankey Road and between Elverta Road and Elkhorn Road, respectively. These new diversions would retain the same pumping capacity of the existing diversions (630 cfs), plus an additional 14 cfs to accommodate the Bolen Ranch, which would then eliminate its existing, independent diversion. The new pumps, however, would be variable frequency drive pumps that would facilitate the management of water levels throughout the canal system. Other changes to the current infrastructure would include:
► Construction of a new highline canal between the proposed Sankey Diversion along the landside of the Natomas Cross Canal south Levee to the existing Northern Pumping Plant; ► Relocation and extension of the existing Vestal Drain adjacent to the new highline canal between RD 1000’s Pumping Plant No. 4 and the new Sankey Diversion site;
► Decommissioning and removal of the existing Verona Diversion Dam and Lift Pumps; ► Additional capacity for the internal re-lift pumps at RD 1000 Pumping Plant No. 3 in place of the removed Riverside Pumping Plant;
► Re-grading the Riverside Main Highline Canal from RD 1000 pumping Plant No. 3 to the existing Riverside Pumping Plant;
► Upgrading of two control structures, the County Line Check and Lift Pump and the Elkhorn Check and Lift Pumps;
► Removing the five pumping plants (two along the Natomas Cross Canal and three along the Sacramento River);
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-5 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP ► Re-grading the North Drainage Canal from the V Drain to Highway 99 in order to improve conveyance; and, ► Re-grading the Elkhorn Main Highline Canal between the existing Prichard Pumping Plant and the existing Elkhorn Pumping Plant.
The design and environmental review of these infrastructure improvements have not been completed, and thus it would be speculative and possibly misleading to assess the effects on covered species based on current information. However, many of these improvements are also being considered as part of the Sacramento River Water Reliability Study, for which we have used available information to make a rough estimate of their effects.
This estimate is provided in the section below that describes the Sacramento River Water Reliability Study.
Sacramento River Water Reliability Study
The Sacramento River Water Reliability Study (SRWRS) was initiated in 2002 by the Bureau of Reclamation, Placer County Water Agency (PCWA), Sacramento Suburban Water District (SSWD), City of Roseville (Roseville), and City of Sacramento (Sacramento). Its goal is to develop a water supply plan that is consistent with the Water Forum Agreement (The Water Forum 2000). It would fulfill this goal by provide additional water supply to PCWA for planned urban growth, to SSWD for groundwater stabilization, to Roseville for planned urban growth and a local conjunctive use program, and to Sacramento for water supply reliability and wheeling services with neighboring water purveyors to meet their water supply demands and to reduce their reliance on groundwater. It also would increase the interconnectivity and source redundancy to the water supply system to maximize long-term water supply reliability.
An initial alternatives report has been prepared for this study (USBR 2005) that developed four alternatives.
These alternatives are:
► SRWS Elverta Diversion Alternative. This alternative consists of a diversion on the Sacramento River with an associated pump station and water treatment plant, and treated water pipelines to water distribution systems of the SRWRS partners. Water pipelines would extend from the Sacramento River across the Natomas Basin along or adjacent to Elverta Road, and from Elverta Road south to the City of Sacramento.
Their total length would be approximately 9 miles.
► Joint SRWS-ABFSHIP Elverta Diversion Alternative. This alternative consists of a consolidated diversion on the Sacramento River and associated facilities to accommodate the needs of the SRWRS partners and the NMWC from the Elkhorn Diversion planned under the ABFSHIP. Water pipelines would extend from the Sacramento River across the Natomas Basin along or adjacent to Elverta Road, and from Elverta Road south to the City of Sacramento. Their total length would be approximately 9 miles. ► ARPS-Elverta Diversion Alternative. This alternative consists of facility expansions by PCWA in Placer County, increased use of groundwater by Roseville, and construction of a diversion on the Sacramento River and of associated treatment and transmission facilities by Sacramento. (Under this alternative, NMWC would construct and operate its planned Elkhorn Diversion independent of the SRWRS, or continue to divert from its existing diversion.) Water pipelines would extend from the Sacramento River along or adjacent to Elverta Road for approximately 5 miles, and from Elverta Road south to the City of Sacramento. Their total length would be approximately 6.5 miles.
► ARPS-Joint Sacramento-ABFSHIP Elverta Diversion Alternative. This alternative would include the same facilities as the ARPS-Elverta Alternative plus additional diversion capacity and facilities at the diversion if the ABFSHIP lead agencies select the Sankey/Elkhorn Diversions alternative for the ABFSHIP.
Water pipelines would extend from the Sacramento River along or adjacent to Elverta Road for approximately 5 miles, and from Elverta Road south to the City of Sacramento. Their total length would be approximately
6.5 miles.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-6 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP The effects of these alternatives have been assessed qualitatively relative to each other, but have not yet been quantified. Similarly, specific designs for these pipelines have not been developed and the likely mitigation is not known. Therefore, their potential effects on existing canals, Jacob’s slough are not known.
However, a rough estimate of the acreage of affected habitat can be made. Assuming a 100-foot wide corridor of habitat would be permanently eliminated along these pipelines, and that the water treatment plant and associated facilities would eliminate 100 acres of habitat, these alternatives would eliminate from 179 to 209 acres of habitat for covered species. This, however, is probably an overestimate, because the corridor of permanently eliminated habitat would probably be much less than 100 feet wide, particularly if pipelines follow existing roads, which may be the case for most of their length.
Downtown Sacramento-North Natomas-Airport Light Rail Line Since the early 1990s, the Sacramento Regional Transit District has been considering a light rail line that would connect downtown Sacramento, North Natomas, and the Sacramento International Airport (SACOG 2000). The route proposed for this rail line would pass through areas permitted for development in North Natomas, cross the Greenbriar site, the Metro Air Park, and then run along Interstate 5, and enter the Sacramento International Airport. This project would affect only a small area of habitat for covered species because most of this route is within existing development, areas permitted for development by the NBHCP, or the likely footprint of other proposed projects.
Assuming a 100-foot wide corridor of habitat was lost along this route, the project would eliminate roughly 21 acres outside of areas permitted for development by the NBHCP. About half of this acreage (10 acres) would be on the Greenbriar site, and a portion of the remainder may be within areas considered for development under the recommended Airport Development Plan for Sacramento International Airport (PB Aviation 2004).
Because this rail line has not been designed nor has any environmental review been performed, it is not known what the effects on canals and connectivity would be. Based on the general location of the proposed route, however, these effects appear to be limited. At the Greenbriar site, the rail line would cross Lone Tree Canal on the Meister Way Road crossing proposed by the Greenbriar project. On the north side of Interstate 5 between MAP and Sacramento International Airport, the only canal is adjacent to the off ramp from the interstate, and this canal is currently unsuitable as habitat for giant garter snake.
West Lakeside
An application for development within the Joint Vision area is on file for the West Lakeside project. No other applications for the Joint Vision area have been filed and its future development potential is in its early consideration stage by the City and County. As such, development of the Joint Vision is considered separately in this analysis. The West Lakeside project is a proposal located approximately 0.25 mile south of the project site adjacent to the eastern border of West Main Drain Canal. This project would develop 133 acres resulting in 524 residential units, a 10-acre elementary school, and approximately 33 acres of open space land uses (e.g., parks and detention basins). Thus, this project could eliminate up to 133 acres of habitat for species covered by the NBHCP.
These effects could include habitat along canals that subsequently drain in to the West Drainage Canal.
FUTURE POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE PROJECT: CITY/COUNTY JOINT VISION Joint Vision
The Joint Vision Plan is a collaborative effort between the City and County of Sacramento to develop a vision for the 10,000-acre area of the County between the northern city limits and Sutter County. Concepts for development have been considered and include a mixture of residential densities, an industrial park (in addition to Metro Air Park), and open spaces throughout, including most extensively in the northern extent separating development from the Sutter County boundary. In fact, a large amount of open space is anticipated to be dedicated (for habitat
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-7 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP preservation and farmland retention) in this area. To date, no land use plans have been adopted, and all considerations to date have been conceptual.
The ultimate development scenario that will be proposed for the Joint Vision area is not known and likely will not be known within the time that this analysis and development are being considered. However, because the development potential of the area is large and it is being actively studied, the Greenbriar EIR and this analysis includes disclosure of the plan to the extent it can be known. It is considered as future potential cumulative development, and because this is a speculative development proposal at this time, it is considered separately and less extensively than the cumulative development that is currently planned and proposed (i.e., specific development proposals have been submitted). The Joint Vision plan will be the subject of extensive CEQA review and consideration by the City and County, neighboring jurisdictions, regulatory agencies including DFG and USFWS, local service providers and the Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and its likely implementation is best described as unknown.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED AND POTENTIAL PROJECTS
Because the extent of habitat prior to conversion to agriculture is unknown, and the location and design of proposed projects has not been fully determined, the total percentage reduction in habitat acreage for covered species cannot be calculated. But, the percentage of the Natomas Basin that has been converted to developed land uses provides a rough approximation of the percentage of habitat for covered species that has been lost.
In 2001, 21% (11,243 acres) of the Basin was in developed uses. By 2004, developed land cover had increased to 24% (12,849 acres). Under the future condition permitted by the NBHCP, 50% (26,769 acres) of the Natomas Basin would be developed or otherwise unsuitable for providing habitat for covered species (e.g., canals and open space inside urban areas). Estimated changes in habitat acreage from 2001 to this future condition are provided by CH2M HILL (2002) and in Section 3.3 Habitat Acreage in the Natomas Basin.
In addition to the development permitted by the NBHCP, other projects proposed in the Natomas Basin (and described in the section Other Proposed Projects Contributing to Cumulative Effects) would increase the extent of developed land cover in the Natomas Basin (Table 7-1). These projects would likely increase developed land cover from 50% (26,769 acres) of the Natomas Basin (under the NBHCP) to 51.8–52.1% (27,733–27,893 acres) of the Natomas Basin. With the Greenbriar project, this change would increase to 52.9– 53.2% (28,322–28,482 acres).
Concurrent with this change in developed land cover, would be an increase in the area preserved and managed for covered species. Assuming that the mitigation ratio for the proposed projects would be between 0.5 and 3 acres preserved for each acre developed, the extent of preserved habitat would increase from 16% (8,566 acres) of the Natomas Basin under the NBHCP to 17.5–24.2% (9,369–12,956 acres) with mitigation land from the additional proposed projects (not including the Greenbriar project). With the additional proposed projects and the Greenbriar project, the portion of the Natomas Basin preserved as habitat for covered species would be 18.3– 25.0% (9,797– 13,385 acres).
Because design, and even the location, of some proposed projects has not been determined, and the quantity, location, and type of mitigation land (e.g., agricultural land, managed marsh) are not known, detailed assessments of their effects on habitat for each covered species would be somewhat speculative, and possibly misleading.
It is important to note that proposed projects would be required to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. Both of these acts require that impacts to endangered species are minimized and fully mitigated. This minimization and mitigation would lessen the impacts of the proposed projects on biological resources, to the extent that they are not considerable. These projects, therefore, would not be expected to contribute substantially to a cumulatively significant impact on these biological resources.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-8 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Table 7-1
Potential Loss of Agricultural and Natural Vegetation Due to Additional Proposed Projects1, 2 Project Acres 3 Notes
Sacramento International Airport
Development Plan
900 Based on recommended Airport Development Plan in
the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan;
does not include drainage and stormwater projects
outside of development areas.
Sacramento Area Flood Control Levee
Upgrade Project
8–133 Based on project description in SAFCA 2006,
supplemental information in EDAW 2005, and an
assumed 175-foot wide footprint for the secondary
levee considered as an alternative in this project.
Natomas Mutual Company American Basin
Fish Screen and Habitat Improvement
Project (ABFSHIP)
— Most components of this project were included in the
acreages estimated for the Sacramento River Water
Reliability Study.
Sacramento River Water Reliability Study 179–209 Based on USBR 2005, and an assumption of a 100- foot wide corridor of permanent habitat loss along
pipelines, and 100 acres of habitat loss due to facilities at diversions.
Downtown Sacramento-North Natomas-
Airport Light Rail Line
21 Based on SACOG 2000, and an assumed 100-foot
wide corridor of permanent habitat loss along sections
of the route outside of areas permitted for
development by the NBHCP or under consideration
for development by Sacramento International Airport.
West Lakeside 133 Acreage is the proposed project footprint.
Subtotal 1,241–1,396
Greenbriar 546 This is the acreage of the Greenbriar site minus the
30.6 acre preserve proposed along Lone Tree Canal
Total 1,794–1,949
Notes:
1 – Proposed projects outside of areas authorized for development by the NBHCP. 2 – Proposed projects do not include the Joint Vision, which was considered a potential proposed project. 3 – Permanent loss of agricultural and natural vegetation based on estimates of project footprints.
Similarly, the Greenbriar project also must minimize and fully mitigate impacts to biological resources to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. Because this minimization and mitigation would lessen the Greenbriar project’s impacts on biological resources, to the extent that they are not considerable, the Greenbriar project would not contribute substantially to a cumulatively significant impact on these biological resources.
In addition to the development authorized by the NBHCP and additional proposed projects, the development in the Joint Vision area represents a potential proposed project. Development within the Joint Vision area could result in the conversion of several thousand acres of open space land that provides various levels of habitat for Swainson’s hawk, giant garter snake, and other species that are currently covered by the NBHCP. It would create a landscape in which it would be more difficult to maintain connectivity among TNBC reserves and to sustain the habitat quality of TNBC reserves. It also would create the need to preserve most other privately owned agricultural land in the Natomas Basin as mitigation for species covered by the NBHCP.
It is very likely, and expected, that any development within this area would require a new habitat conservation plan, consistent with the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. As stated above, compliance with these laws requires that impacts to endangered species are minimized and fully mitigated.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-9 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP However, it must be recognized that this level of additional development would be expected to have residual environmental impacts to the various species in the area.
While the extent of potential mitigation for development within this area is not currently known, there is the potential that mitigating all of the effects of the Joint Vision on populations of covered species in the Natomas Basin may not be feasible, and some other means of mitigation could be proposed for consideration. For example, sufficient land may not be available in the Natomas Basin to preserve and enhance as mitigation for the effects of developing the Joint Vision, and out of basin mitigation could be proposed for consideration. However, this possibility is entirely speculative and cannot be evaluated until development of the Joint Vision area is actually proposed. To date, and as described above, there are no formal proposals for development of the Joint Vision area, and there are no proposals to consider for mitigation of species under the ESA or CESA.
7.2 CUMULATIVE EF FECTS UNDER ESA
For the purposes of Federal Endangered Species Act compliance, cumulative effects include the effects of future state, tribal, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion (USFWS and NMFS 1998). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. In addition, once the Section 7 consultation for a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit has been completed, non-Federal proposals for development within that Section 10(a)(1)(B) planning area are considered part of the environmental baseline for future consultations. Therefore, for this analysis of cumulative effects, as defined for the Endangered Species Act, development projects within those portions of the Natomas Basin that were authorized for development by the NBHCP are considered part of the environmental baseline. The other currently planned and proposed projects described in the cumulative effects analysis in the Greenbriar DEIR and in the NEPA cumulative effects analysis (presented in the preceding section) will require Federal actions and therefore are also not considered in this ESA cumulative effects analysis. (For example, these potential future projects would require a permit to fill wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.) An undetermined number of future State or private actions could occur in the Natomas Basin without a 404 permit to fill wetlands or an ITP through Section 10 of the ESA. Future state or private actions that could potentially affect species covered by the NBHCP include actions that affect:
► herbicide or pesticide applications,
► vegetation management along canals or drains,
► agricultural practices (including crop types cultivated, and fallowing or abandonment of land), ► discharge of contaminants into waterways,
► presence of humans along waterways or on agricultural lands, ► canal flow regimes, or
► traffic levels on local roads.
All of these activities can degrade habitat or cause the injury or death of covered species. Changes in these activities can be caused by state and private actions on agricultural lands. Such changes regularly occur, for example, in response to market conditions and new technologies. For example, the recent increase in water prices in the Natomas Basin is likely to result in changes in crop acreages in the Natomas Basin. Also, in anticipation of development, rice may be fallowed (although land use changes during 2001-2004 do not indicate this has occurred during that time period [Appendix B]). However, attempting to predict the changes in agricultural practices that are likely to occur in the Natomas Basin over long periods of time, and their consequences for species covered by the NBHCP, would be speculation.
Similarly, numerous state and private actions in developed areas also could affect covered species through the same set of mechanisms (herbicide or pesticide applications, vegetation management along canals or drains, etc.), and not all of these actions would involve a federal action and future consultation under Section 7 of the ESA.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 7-10 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Yet, attempting to predict the changes in activities in developed areas that are likely to occur in the Natomas Basin, and their consequences for species covered by the NBHCP, also would be speculation. We are not aware of any state or private actions (for which there is no related federal actions) that are reasonably certain to occur in developed areas of the Natomas Basin and whose effects will significantly affect covered species.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-1 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP 8 REFERENCES
Allan, J. D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 35:257-284.
Aresco, Matthew, J. 2005. Mitigation Measures to Reduce Highway Mortality of Turtles and Other Herpetofauna at a North Florida Lake. In Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2)549–560.
Aubry, Craig. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. November 4, 2005 email correspondence with Amanda Olekszulin regarding Greenbriar project.
Barry, S. J., and H. B. Shaffer. 1994. The status of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) at Lagunita: a 50-year update. Journal of Herpetology 28:159–164.
Baxter, C.V., K.D. Fausch, M. Murakami and P.L. Chapman. 2004. Non-native stream fish invasion restructures stream and riparian forest food webs by interrupting reciprocal prey subsidies. Ecology 85: 2656-2663.
Baxter, C.V., K.D. Fausch and W. C. Saunders. In press. Tangled webs: Reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology.
Baxter, C.V., K.D. Fausch, M. Murakami and P.L. Chapman. In review. Invaders disrupt cross-habitat subsidies to native consumers: an experimental-comparative study in stream salmonids. Ecology.
Beale, Colin M. and Pat Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free predators? In Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335–343.
Bechard, M. J. 1982. Effect of vegetative cover on foraging site selection by Swainson’s Hawk. Condor 84: 153– 159.
Beedy, E. C., and W. J. Hamilton III. 1999. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In The Birds of North America, No. 423 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Beedy, E. C. and A. Hayworth. 1991. Breeding status, distribution and habitat association of tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor), 1850-1989. (JSA 88-187). Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA for the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Belknap, H. W. 1957. Observations on the White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) in Louisiana. M.S. thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Cited in Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Bent, A. C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey, Part 1. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 167. Cited in England, A. S., M. J. Bechard, and C. S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In The Birds of North America, No. 265 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Berryman Ecological. 2005. Greenbriar Farms section 7 biological assessment. Prepared for North Natomas 575 Investors LLC, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Berryman Ecological, Meadow Vista, CA.
Blair, R. B. 1996. Land use and avian species along an urban gradient. Ecological Applications 6:506-519.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-2 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Bloom, P. H. 1980. The status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979. Wildlife Management Branch, Nongame Wildlife Investigation, Job II–8.0. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Blumstein, Daniel T., Laura L. Anthony, Robert Harcourt, and Geoff Ross. 2003. Testing a key assumption of wildlife buffer zones: is flight initiation distance a species-specific trait? In Biological Conservation 110:97–100.
Blumton, A. K. 1989. Factors affecting Loggerhead Shrike mortality in Virginia. M.S. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institution and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Bonnet, Xavier, Guy Naulleau, and Richard Shine. 1999. The dangers of leaving home: dispersal and mortality in snakes. In Biological Conservation 89: 39–50.
Bray, M. P. 1986. Feeding ecology of White-faced Ibises in the Lahontan Valley, Nevada. P-R Report, Federal Aid Project. W-53-R, Study I, Jobs 02, Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, NV. Cited in Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A.
Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Bray, M. P., D. A. Klebenow. 1988. Feeding ecology of White-faced Ibises in a Great Basin valley, USA.
Colonial Waterbirds 11: 24–31. Cited in Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Brinson, M. M., L. J. MacDonnell, D. J. Austen, R. L. Beschta, T. A.Dillaha, D. L. Donahue, S. V. Gregory, J. W.
Harvey, M. C. Molles, E. I. Rogers, and J. A. Stanford. 2002. Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning, National Research Council.
Brode, J. and G. Hansen. 1992. Status and Future Management of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) within the Southern American Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Endangered Species Project. Sacramento, CA. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Brooks, B. L. 1988. The breeding distribution, population dynamics, and habitat availability of an upper midwest Loggerhead Shrike population. M.S. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Bury, R. B. 1972. The effects of diesel fuel on a stream fauna. California Fish and Game 58:291–295. Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Draft recovery plan for the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas).
Portland, OR.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. Five-year status report: Swainson’s Hawk. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Sacramento, CA. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
———. 2005. Change in Area of Winter-Flooded and Dry Rice in the Northern Central Valley of California Determined by Satellite Imagery. In California Fish and Game 91(3):207–215.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-3 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Center for Biological Diversity. 2001. California Endangered Species Act listing petition for the California tiger salamander. <http://www.sw-center.org/swsbd/search.html> CH2M Hill. 2003. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan impacts to covered species. Prepared for City of Sacramento and Sutter County. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Sacramento, CA.
City of Sacramento, Sutter County, and Natomas Basin Conservancy. 2003. Final Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game.
Clevenger, Anthony P., Bryan Chruszcz, and Kari Gunson. 2001. Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and factors affecting passage by mammals. In Journal of Applied Ecology 38:1340–1349.
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database). 2005. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, CA.
Cogswell, H. L. 1977. Water birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cited in Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A.
Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Collinge, S. K., M. Holyoak, C. B. Barr, and J. T. Marty. 2001. Riparian habitat fragmentation and population persistence of the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle in Central California. Biological Conservation 100:103-113.
Collister, D. M. 1994. Breeding ecology and habitat preservation of the Loggerhead Shrike in southeastern Alberta. M.S. thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Cooke, A. S. 1980. Observations on How Close Certain Passerine Species Will Tolerate an Approaching Human in Rural and Suburban Areas. In Biological Conservation 18:85–88.
Craig, R. B. 1978. An analysis of the predatory behavior of the Loggerhead Shrike. Auk 95: 221–234. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A.
Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Crooks, K. R., and M. E. Soulé. 1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.
Nature 400:563-566.
Crooks, K. R., A. V. Suarez, D. T. Bolger and M. E. Soule. 2001. Extinction and colonization of birds on habitat islands. Conservation Biology 15:159-172.
DeHaven, R. L. 2000. Breeding tricolored blackbirds in the Central Valley, California: a quarter-century perspective. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
DeGeus, D. W. 1990. Productivity and habitat preferences of Loggerhead Shrikes inhabiting roadsides in a midwestern agroenvironment. M.S. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-4 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP DeSnoo, G. R. and P. J. de Wit. 1998. Buffer zones for reducing pesticide drift to ditches and risks to aquatic organisms. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 41:112–118.
Dodd, Jr., C. Kenneth, William J. Barichivich, and Lora L. Smith. 2004. Effectiveness of a barrier wall and culverts in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily traveled highway in Florida. In Biological Conservation 118:619–631.
EDAW. 2005. Natomas Levee Evaluation Project: evaluation of potential effects on terrestrial biological resources and cultural resources. January 19, 2005. Memo prepared by EDAW, Sacramento, CA.
Prepared for SAFCA, Sacramento, CA.
———. 2006. Greenbriar Development Project Sacramento, California: Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for: Environmental Planning Services, City of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA.
Prepared by EDAW, Sacramento, CA.
Environmental Law Institute [ELI]. 2003. Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners. Washington, DC.
England, A. S., M. J. Bechard, and C. S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In The Birds of North America, No. 265 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
England, A. S., J. A. Estep, W. R. Holt. 1995. Nest-site selection and reproductive performance of urban-nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California. Journal of Raptor Research 29: 179–186.
Estep, J. A. 1989. Biology, movements and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section Report. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. ———. 2003. Nesting Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area, 2003 Annual Survey Results. Prepared for The Natomas Basin Conservancy. Sacramento, CA.
Estep, J. A. and S. Teresa. 1992. Regional Conservation planning for the Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii) in the Central Valley of California. Pages 775-789 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett (eds.). Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY.
Fisher, David. Office manager, Natomas Mutual Water Company, Natomas, CA. September 27, 2005 telephone conversation with John Hunter, EDAW regarding effect of Greenbriar project on water supply, delivery, and availability.
Forman, R. T. T. and L. E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207-231.
Forman, R. T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bissonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road ecology:
science and solutions. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Frid, Alejandro and Lawrence Dill. 2002. Human-caused Disturbance Stimuli as a Form of Predation Risk. In Conservation Ecology 6(1):11. Available <http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art11>.
Garrison, B. A. 1999. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia). In The Birds of North America, No. 414 (A. Poole and F.
Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Garrison, B. A., J. M. Humphrey, S. A. Laymon. 1987. Bank Swallow distribution and nesting ecology on the Sacramento River, California. Western Birds 18: 71–76. Cited in Garrison, B. A. 1999. Bank Swallow
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-5 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP (Riparia riparia). In The Birds of North America, No. 414 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
Gibbs, James P. and Gegory Shriver. 2002 (December). Estimating the Effects of Road Mortality on Turtle Populations. In Conservation Biology 16(6):1647–1652.
Gill, Jennifer A., Ken Norris, and William J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioral responses may not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. In Biological Conservation 97:265–268.
Gleason, R. S. 1978. Aspects of the breeding biology of Burrowing Owls in southeastern Idaho. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. Cited in Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993.
Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27.
Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Guyot, Ghislaine and Jean Clobert. 1997. Conservation Measures for a Population of Hermann’s Tortoise (Testudo hermanni) in Southern France Bisected by a Major Highway. In Biological Conservation 79:251–256.
Hansen, Eric. Private consultant, Natomas, CA. October 20, 2005 written comments on a preliminary draft of the biology section for the Greenbriar project DEIR provided to Leo Edson, EDAW.
Hansen, G. E. 1988. Review of the status of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis couchi gigas) and its supporting habitat during 1986–1987. Final report for California Department of Fish and Game, Contract C-2060.
Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Portland, OR.
———. 1998. Cherokee Canal Sediment Removal Project Post-construction Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) Surveys. Final report for California Department of Water Resources, Contract No. B-81535.
Unpublished. 9 pp.
Hansen, G. E. and J. M. Brode. 1980. Status of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis couchii gigas) (Fitch). Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Special Publication 80(5):1–14. California Department of Fish and Game.
Sacramento, CA.
———. 1993. Results of relocating canal habitat of the giant garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas) during widening of State Route 99/70 in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California. Final report for Caltrans Interagency Agreement 03E325 (FG7550) (FY 87/88-91-92). Cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Draft recovery plan for the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). Portland, OR.
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Haug, E. A. and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, activity patterns, and habitat use of burrowing owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:27-35. Cited in Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S.
Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-6 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Hayes, D. W., K. R. McAllister, S. A. Richardson, and D. W. Stinson. 1999. Washington state recovery plan for the western pond turtle. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Helm, B. 1998. The biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124–139 in C. W.
Witham, E. Bauder, D. Belk, W. Ferren, and R. Ornduff (eds.), Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems – proceedings from a 1996 conference. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Helzer C. J. and D. E. Jelinski. 1999. The relative importance of patch area and perimeter-area ratio to grassland breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9:1448-1458
Hinsley, S. A., P. E. Bellamy and I. Newton. 1995. Bird species turnover and stochastic extinction in woodland fragments. Ecography 18:41-50.
Holland, D. C. 1991. Status and reproductive dynamics of a population of western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata) in Klickitat County, Washington in 1990. Unpublished report. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife.
Holmes, Tamara L., Richard L. Knight, Libby Stegall, and Gerald R. Craig. 1993. Responses of Wintering Grassland Raptors to Human Disturbance. In Widl. Soc. Bull. 21:461–468.
Huxel, G. R. 2000. The effect of the Argentine ant on the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Biological Invasions 2:81–85.
Ikuta, Laurie A. and Daniel T. Blumstein. 2003. Do fences protect birds from human disturbance? In Biological Conservation 112:447–452.
Jaeger, Jochen A. G. and Lenore Fahrig. 2004 (December). Effects of Road Fencing on Population Persistence. In Conservation Biology 18(6):1651–1657.
Jennings, M. R., and M. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California.
Sacramento. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.
Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, eagles, and falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Jones & Stokes. 2005. Biological effectiveness monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2004 annual survey results (agency version). Prepared for The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA.
Kelley, R. 1989. Battling the inland sea: floods, public policy, and the Sacramento Valley. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Knight, R. L., H. A. L. Knight and R. J. Camp. 1995. Common ravens and number and type of linear rights-of- way. Biological Conservation 74:65-67.
Kridelbaugh, A. L. 1982. An ecological study of Loggerhead Shrikes in central Missouri. M.S. thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-7 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Leidy, G. R. 1992. Ecology, status and management of the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). Prepared for Sutter Bay Associates and the North Natomas Landowners Association, Inc.
Lepczyk, Christopher A., Angela G. Mertig, and Jianguo Liu. 2003. Landowners and cat presation across rural-to- urban landscapes. In Biological Conservation 115: 191–201.
Loredo, I., D. Van Vuren, and M. L. Morrison. 1996. Habitat use and migration behavior of the California tiger salamander. Journal of Herpetology 30:282–285.
Luukkonen, D. R. 1987. Status and breeding ecology of the Loggerhead Shrike in Virginia. M.S. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institution and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Marchand, Michael N. and John A. Litvaitis. 2004 (June). Effects of Habitat Features and Landscape Composition on the Population Structure of a Common Aquatic Turtle in a Region Undergoing Rapid Development. In Conservation Biology 18(3):758–767.
Marzluff, J. M., R. Bowman, and R. Donnelly, editors. 2001. Avian ecology and conservation in an urbanizing world. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.
Mcarthy, M. and C. Lamb. 2006. New Natomas levee angst: Army Corps of Engineers declaration adds heft to reports of risky protection. May 26. Sacramento Business Journal 23(11):1.
McClure, W. F. 1925. Sacramento flood control project revised plans. Submitted to The Reclamation Board.
California State Printing Office, Sacramento, CA.
Miller, A. H. 1931. Systematic revision and natural history of the American shrikes (Lanius). University of California Publishing, Zoology 38: 11–242. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Miller, A. H. 1951. A comparison of the avifaunas of Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands, California. Condor 53:
117–123. Cited in Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Miller, J. R., J. A. Wiens, N. T. Hobbs, and D. M. Theobald. 2003. Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications 13:1041–1059.
Miller, Scott G., Richard L. Knight, and Clinton K. Miller. 2001. Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs. In Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(1):124–132.
Moore, A. A. and M. A. Palmer. 2005. Invertebrate biodiversity in agricultural and urban headwater streams:
implications for conservation and management. Ecological Applications 15:1169-1177.
Moseby, K. E. and J. L. Read. 2006. The efficacy of feral cat, fox and rabbit exclusion fence designs for threatened species protection. In Biological Conservation 127:429-437.
Natomas Basin Conservancy. 2004. Biological effectiveness monitoring for the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area 2004 annual survey results (agency version).
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-8 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>.
Nisbet, Ian C. T. Date unavailable. Commentary: Disturbance, Habituation, and Management of Waterbird Colonies. In Waterbirds 23(2):312–332.
Noss, R. F., H. B. Quigley, H. G. Hornocker, T. Merrill, and P. C. Paquet. 1996. Conservation biology and carnivore conservation in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10:949–963.
Novak, P. G. 1989. Breeding ecology and status of the Loggerhead Shrike in New York state. M.S. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Yosef, R. 1996. Cited in Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Ng, Sandra J., Jim W. Dole, Raymond M. Sauvajot, Seth P. D. Riley, and Thomas J. Valone. 2004. Use of highway undercrossings by wildlife in southern California. In Biological Conservation 115:499–507.
Odell, E. A., and R. L. Knight. 2001. Songbird and medium sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County Colorado. Conservation Biology. 15:1143-1150.
Padre Associates. 2005. Fisherman’s Lake buffer zone study. January 15, 2005 version. Padre Associates, Sacramento, CA.
Paul, Michael J. and Judy L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the Urban Landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365.
PB Aviation. 2004. Sacramento International Airport master plan study. Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Aviation, Sacramento, CA. Prepared for Sacramento County Airport System, Sacramento, CA.
Pellet, Jerome, Antoine Guisan, and Nicolas Perrin. 2004 (December). A Concentric Analysis of the Impact of Urbanization on the Threatened European Tree Frog in an Agricultural Landscape. In Conservation Biology 18(6):1599–1606.
Phillips, Gregory E., William Alldredge, and William W. Andree. 2001. Mitigating Disturbance of Migrating Mule Deer Caused by Cyclists and Pedestrians at a Highway Underpass Near Vail, Colorado. Available <http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/roadeco/Philips2001a>.Davis, CA. John Muir Institute of the Environment, Road Ecology Center, University of California, Davis.
Richardson, Cary T. and Clinton K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human disturbance: a review. In Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(3)634–638.
Risbey, Danielle A., Michael C. Calver, Jeff Short, J. Stuart Bradley, and Ian W. Wright. 2000. The impact of cats and foxes on the small vertebrate fauna of Heirisson Prong, Western Australia. II. A field experiment. In Wildlife Research 27: 223–235.
Roberts, John. Executive director. The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Natomas, CA. October 24, 2005 email correspondence with John Hunter, EDAW, regarding questions about current TNBC preserve management.
Rodgers, Jr., James A. and Henry T. Smith. 1995 (February). Set-Back Distances to Protect Nesting Bird Colonies form Human Disturbance in Florida. In Conservation Biology 9(1)89–99. ———. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging a nd loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. In Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1)139–145.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-9 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Rodriguez, Alejandro, Giulia Crema, and Miguel Delibes. 1996. Use of non-wildlife passages across a high speed railway by terrestrial vertebrates. In Journal of Applied Ecology 33:1527–1540.
Rosen, Philip C. and Charles H. Lowe. 1994. Highway Mortality of Snakes in the Sonoran Desert of Southern Arizona. In Biological Conservation 68:143–148.
Rosenberg, D., B. Noon, and E. Meslow. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function, and efficacy. Bioscience 47:677–687.
Ross, P. V. 1974. Ecology and behavior of a dense colony of Burrowing Owls in the Texas Panhandle. M.S. thesis, West Texas State University, Canyon, TX. Cited in Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F.
Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Ryder, R. A. 1967. Distribution, migration and mortality of the White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) in North America. Bird-Banding 38: 257–277. Cited in Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). 2000. Sacramento International Airport Transit Access Study. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento, CA.
Semlitsch, R. D. and J. R. Bodie. 2003. Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17:1219–1228.
Shaffer, H. B. and R. Fisher. 1991. Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game: California tiger salamander surveys, 1990. Contract (FG9422). Rancho Cordova, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
Shaffer, H. B., and S. Stanley. 1992. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game: California tiger salamander surveys, 1991. Contract (FG9422). Rancho Cordova, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division.
Sheffield, S.R. 1997. Current status, distribution, and conservation of the burrowing owl in Midwestern North America. Pp. 399-407 in J.R. Duncan, D.H. Johnson, and T.H. Niccolls, (eds.). Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, GTR NC-190. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. Cited in Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Cited in Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Silveria, J. G. 1998. Avian uses of vernal pools and implications for conservation practice. Pages 92–106 in C. W.
Witham, E. Bauder, D. Belk, W. Ferren, and R. Ornduff (eds.), Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems – proceedings from a 1996 conference. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
Small, A. 1994. California birds: their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista, CA. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-10 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Smith, D. W. and W. L. Verrill. 1996. Vernal pool-soil-landform relationships in the Central Valley, California.
Pages 15–23 in C. W. Witham, E. T. Bauder, D. Belk, W. R. Ferren, and R. Ornduff (eds.) Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems: proceedings from a 1996 conference.
California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Stahlecker, D. W. 1975. Impacts of a 230 kV transmission line on Great Plains wildlife. M.S. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Cited in Connelly, J. W., S. T. Knick, M. A. Schroeder, and S. J.
Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of Greater Sage-Grouse and sagebrush habitats. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Unpublished Report. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA.
Stebbins, R. C. 1972. California amphibians and reptiles. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Steen, David A. and James P. Gibbs. 2004. Effects of Roads on the Structures of Freshwater Turtle Populations.
In Conservation Biology 18(4):1143–1148.
Steenhof, K., M. N. Kochert AND J. A. Roppe. 1993. Nesting by raptors and common ravens on electrical transmission line towers. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:271-281.
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC). 2001. Nesting Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area, 2001 annual survey results. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy. September, 2001. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Thelander, C. G. (ed). 1994. Life on the Edge: A Guide to California’s Endangered Natural Resources: Wildlife.
BioSystems Books. Santa Cruz, CA.
The Natomas Basin Conservancy [TNBC]. 2006. Draft briefing paper on the NBHCP fee. The Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA.
The Water Forum. 2000. Water forum agreement. The Water Forum, Sacramento, CA. Available at:
http://www.waterforum.org/AGREE.HTM
Thomas Reid Associates. 2000. Draft habitat conservation plan for the Metro Air Park project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California. Prepared for Metro Air Park Property Owners Association.
Prepared by Thomas Reid Associates, Palo Alto, CA. November 2000. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Thomas Reid Associates. 2001. Habitat conservation plan for the Metro Air Park project in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento County, California. Prepared for Metro Air Park Property Owners Association. Prepared by Thomas Reid Associates, Palo Alto, CA.
Trenham, P. C. and H. B. Schaffer. In review. Upland spatial distribution and habitat use in a declining amphibian. Section of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, UC Davis.
Trost, C. H.1989. White-faced Ibis, Plegadis chihi. Pp. 57–58 in Rare, sensitive, and threatened species of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (T. W. Clark, A. H. Harvey, R. D. Dorn, D. L. Genter, and C. Groves, eds.). Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Jackson, WY. Cited in Ryder, R. A., and D. E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
USBR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). 2005. Sacramento River water reliability study: initial alternatives report, final version. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-11 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Portland, OR. ———. 1992. 90-Day finding and commencement of status reviews for a petition to list the western pond turtle and California red-legged frog. Federal Register 57(193):45761-45762. ——. 1996. Mitigation guidelines for the valley el derberry longhorn beetle. Sacramento, CA. ——. 1997. Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Ar my Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yolo Counties, California. Letter to Art Champ, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from Joe Medlin, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.
——. 1999a. Draft recovery plan for the giant garter snake ( Thamnophis gigas). Portland, OR. ——. 1999b. Conservation guidelines for the valley elderb erry longhorn beetle. Updated July 9, 1999. ——. 2001. Final environmental impact statement for the Me tro Air Park habitat conservation plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.
——. 2002. Intraservice biological opinion and conference opinion on issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit to the Metro Air Park Property Owners Association for urban development in the Natomas Basin, California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.
——. 2003. Intra-service biological opinion on issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit to the City of Sacramento and Sutter County for urban development in the Natomas Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.
USFWS and NMFS. 1998. Endangered species consultation handbook: procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Wellicome, T.I., G.L. Holroyd, K. Scalise, and E.R. Wiltse. 1997. The effects of predator exclusion and food supplementation on burrowing owl population change in Saskatchewan. Pp. 487-497 in J.R. Duncan, D.H. Johnson, and T.H. Niccolls, (eds.). Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, GTR NC-190. North Central Forest Experiment Station, St.Paul, MN. Cited in Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 61 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Wenger, S. 1999. A Review of the Scientific Literature on Riparian Buffer Width, Extent and Vegetation. Revised Version. March 5. Prepared for the Office of Public Service & Outreach, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia. Athens, Georgia.
Wildlands, Inc. 2005. Greenbriar Project: Draft Conceptual Habitat Restoration Design. Wildlands, Inc., Rocklin, CA.
Wylie, G. and M. Cassaza. 2000. Investigation of Giant Garter Snakes in the Natomas Basin: 1998-1999. U.S.
Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division, Dixon, CA. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento 8-12 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Wylie, G. D., M. Cassaza, and J. K. Daugherty. 1997. 1996 progress report for the giant garter snake study.
Preliminary report, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. Cited in Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.
Yanes, Miguel, José M. Velasco, and Francisco Suárez. 1995. Permeability of Roads and Railways to Vertebrates:
the Importance of Culverts. In Biological Conservation 71:217–222.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In The Birds of North America, No. 231 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
Yosef, R., T. C. Grubb. 1992. Territory size influences nutritional condition in non-breeding Loggerhead Shrikes:
a ptilochronology approach. Conservation Biology 6: 447–449. ———. 1994. Resource dependence and territory size in Loggerhead Shrikes. Auk 111: 465–469.
Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, and K. E. Mayer (eds.). 1988. California’s wildlife. Volume I: Amphibians and reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.
Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, K. E. Mayer and M. White (eds.). 1990a. California’s wildlife. Volume II:
Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.
Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990a. California’s wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.
Appendix A
Assessment of Avoidance and Minimization of
Construction-Related Effects and Human Wildlife Conflicts
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-1 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
OF CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EFFECTS AND
HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS
The effects analysis evaluates the overall effect of the Greenbriar project on the viability of species covered by the NBHCP, on the effectiveness of the NBHCP conservation strategy, and on the attainment of the goals and objectives of the NBHCP. As part of that evaluation, this appendix evaluates the effectiveness and completeness of the Greenbriar project’s avoidance and minimization measures.
The NBHCP includes a goal and objective that address avoidance and minimization of direct impacts and of human wildlife conflicts. These are listed below.
Overall Goal 4. Ensure that direct impacts of Authorized Development upon Covered Species are avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable. (NBHCP, page I-16) Overall Objective 1. Minimize conflicts between wildlife and human activities, including conflicts resulting from airplane traffic, roads and automobile traffic, predation by domestic pets, and harassment by people. (NBHCP, page I-16).
To attain this goal and this objective, the NBHCP includes a set of avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented where applicable. For these measures, we assessed the effects of the Greenbriar Project on their effectiveness as avoidance and minimization measures for activities covered by the NBHCP. We also used this set of measures from the NBHCP to assess the effectiveness and completeness of the Greenbriar project’s avoidance and minimization measures.
EFFECTIVENESS OF NBHCP MEASURES WITH THE GREENBRIAR
PROJECT
For each of the NBHCP’s land use agency’s conservation measures, the potential for the Greenbriar project to reduce the measure’s effectiveness as a means of avoiding or minimizing construction-related effects or human- wildlife conflicts was evaluated. The Greenbriar project would not alter the effectiveness of any of these measures. Most of these NBHCP measures are seasonal avoidance or exclusion zone measures based on the ecology of the species and the nature of construction activities. Because no individual construction project alters this basis, there are few means by which one construction project could affect the effectiveness of these measures.
For example, the effectiveness of pre-construction surveys for a particular species is largely unaffected by the extent or location of development. Similarly, the effectiveness of requiring that developers consult with the USFWS regarding covered species observed during preconstruction surveys also is unaffected by development on other sites. Similarly, the ability to apply these measures to a development project in general would not be altered by the effects of another development project.
It is possible, however, that by fragmenting habitat, a development project can create barriers to animal movement to and from a future development site. In this instance, the effectiveness measures that reduce construction-caused mortality by allowing animals to leave construction sites would likely be reduced because animals may no longer be able to move to habitat outside of the construction site. For example, NBHCP measures 3 and 7 are intended to increases the movement of giant garter snakes off of construction sites. If a construction site is isolated from other giant garter snake habitat, these measures would be ineffective. The Greenbriar project is not more likely to cause this set of circumstances than are projects permitted by the NBHCP. The Greenbriar site is isolated from the development authorized by the NBHCP by Interstate 5 and SR 99, and development of the Greenbriar site
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-2 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP therefore would not reduce the connectivity of areas authorized for development by the NBHCP to habitat in the remainder of the Natomas Basin.
The assessment of all of the land use agency’s conservation measures of the NBHCP is summarized below.
MEASURES FOR PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS
The effectiveness of pre-construction surveys is based on each species’ ecology and on the attributes of the site being surveyed and the biologist’s conduct of the survey. The Greenbriar project would not affect this basis of the effectiveness of pre-construction surveys, nor would it affect the ability to implement pre-construction surveys for development authorized by the NBHCP.
MEASURE FOR PRESERVATION OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO FISHERMAN’S LAKE This measure consists of the City agreeing to initiate a North Natomas Community Plan amendment to potentially widen the agricultural buffer along the City side of Fisherman’s lake to 800 feet wide. The Greenbriar site is not in or adjacent to this zone. The project would, however, preserve the Natomas 130 site, which is in and adjacent to this zone. The preservation of the Natomas 130 site is unlikely to affect the City’s initiation of an amendment to potentially widen an agricultural buffer along Fisherman’s Lake. The project also would not otherwise affect the City’s initiation of an amendment to potentially widen an agricultural buffer at this site.
GENERAL MEASURES TO MINIMIZE TAKE
The NBHCP includes four general measures to minimize take. These measures are to 1) protect large trees, 2) incorporate native plants into buffers, developed areas and parks, 3) schedule construction activities to avoid the raptor nesting season, and 4) conduct pre-construction surveys at an appropriate time of year. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to implement these measures. But, development at the Greenbriar site might affect the habitat value of protected trees or native vegetation incorporated into landscaping.
In general, additional development could affect the value for wildlife of preserved trees and natural vegetation incorporated into landscaping by increasing the isolation of these features from natural or agricultural vegetation that provides habitat. To do so, additional development would have to reduce connectivity between the preserved tree or native vegetation inside a developed area and habitat outside of the developed area. Because Interstate 5 and SR 99 already separate the Greenbriar site from the City of Sacramento, this potential effect would be limited to possible consequences for Swainson’s hawks nesting in a preserved tree within the City of Sacramento adjacent to the Greenbriar site. While this effect is conceivable, no Swainson’s hawk nests are known within 1 mile to the east of the Greenbriar site, and a future nest in this portion of the City of Sacramento, while possible is unlikely and would not have limited access to foraging habitat even if the Greenbriar site remained undeveloped.
Conversely, the Greenbriar project’s preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the Natomas 130 and Spangler sites, which are adjacent to areas authorized for development under the NBHCP, could increase the effectiveness of the measures to preserve large trees in developed areas and to incorporate native vegetation into buffers and landscaping. Because trees may not be preserved and native species may not be planted in the vicinity of these sites, this effect may not occur.
MEASURES TO MINIMIZE TAKE OF VERNAL POOL SPECIES
The Greenbriar project would not affect vernal pool habitat, is not near vernal pool habitat, and would not affect the ability to implement the measures in the NBHCP. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not alter the effectiveness of measures for minimizing the take of vernal pool-associated species or alter the effectiveness of these measures.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-3 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE FOR INDIVIDUAL SPECIES
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE OF GIANT GARTER SNAKE
The NBHCP includes twelve measures to reduce take of giant garter snake by construction activities.
Construction of the Greenbriar project will not reduce the effectiveness of these measures at sites authorized for development by the NBHCP. These measures include a seasonal restriction on site preparation and grading, preconstruction surveys, dewatering of canals prior to excavation, minimization of grading, construction monitoring, a restriction on the use of materials that could entangle giant garter snakes, and measures for fences and barriers along the North Drainage Canal and the East Drainage Canal to restrict the movement of giant garter snake into adjacent development.
The effectiveness of seasonal restrictions, preconstruction surveys and of restrictions on materials that could entangle snakes are based on the ecology of giant garter snakes, site attributes, how the conduct of the survey is conducted, and the nature of construction activities. Individual construction projects, including the Greenbriar project, would not alter this basis, or otherwise affect the effectiveness of these measures.
Measures for dewatering of canals or to cease development if a construction monitor locates a giant garter snake on-site also, in general would not be affected by other development projects. But, if another development project were to fragment habitat and thus reduce the ability of a snake to move from a construction site to suitable habitat off-site, then the effectiveness of these measures would be reduced. The Greenbriar project is not likely to cause this situation for development projects authorized by the NBHCP. The Greenbriar site is isolated from the development authorized by the NBHCP by I-5 and SR 99, and development of the Greenbriar site therefore would not reduce the connectivity of areas authorized for development by the NBHCP to habitat in the remainder of the Natomas Basin. Thus, the effectiveness of these measures would not be reduced.
The Greenbriar site is not adjacent to the North Drainage Canal or the East Drainage Canal. Therefore, it is unlikely to affect the effectiveness of measures for fences and barriers along these waterways.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE OF SWAINSON’S HAWK
The NBHCP includes a measure to reduce cumulative effects on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, five measures to reduce disturbance of nest trees, and seven measures to prevent or mitigate the loss of nest trees.
The measure to reduce cumulative effects established a 1 mile-wide Swainson’s hawk zone along the Sacramento River along within which there would be no development. This zone was established because Swainson hawk nests are concentrated along the Sacramento River. The Greenbriar project is not in or adjacent to this zone, and thus it would not alter its effectiveness.
The measures to reduce disturbance of nest trees are based on the ecology of Swainson’s hawk and the nature of construction activities; this basis would not be altered by the Greenbriar project. The Greenbriar project also would not affect the ability to implement these measures.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE TO VALLEY ELDERBERRY LONGHORN BEETLE (VELB) These measures include the avoidance of VELB habitat, and measures for the transplanting of elderberry bushes and for the planting and monitoring of elderberry bushes. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to avoid, transplant, plant, or monitor elderberry bushes, nor would it affect the effectiveness of those measures for reducing the take of VELB. (The project does not affect VELB habitat except for preserving a small area of land [at the Natomas 130 site] at which planting or natural establishment of elderberry could provide suitable habitat for VELB at a desirable location.)
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-4 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON TRICOLORED BLACKBIRD
Measures for pre-construction surveys and exclusion zones around nesting colonies are included in the NBHCP as measures to reduce the take of tricolored blackbird. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre-construction surveys or establish exclusion zones at construction sites in areas that were authorized for development by the NBHCP.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON ALEUTIAN CANADA GOOSE
Measures for pre-construction surveys and consultation with USFWS and CDFG (if Aleutian Canada goose is present) are included in the NBHCP as measures to reduce the take of Aleutian Canada goose. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre-construction surveys at construction sites in areas that were authorized for development by the NBHCP or to consult with USFWS or CDFG if Aleutian Canada goose is present.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON WHITE-FACED IBIS
Measures for pre-construction surveys and a seasonal restriction on construction activities within a ¼ mile of active nests were included in the NBHCP. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre- construction surveys at construction sites in areas that were authorized for development by the NBHCP or to seasonally restrict construction at sites authorized for development by the NBHCP.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE
Measures for pre-construction surveys and exclusion zones around active nests are included in the NBHCP as measures to reduce the take of loggerhead shrike. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre-construction surveys or establish exclusion zones at construction sites in areas that were authorized for development by the NBHCP.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE OF BURROWING OWL
Several measures to reduce the take of burrowing owls are included in the NBHCP. These measures include, pre- construction surveys, establishment of exclusion zones, seasonal restrictions on the disturbance of occupied nests, relocation of owls, and mitigation for disturbed nests. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct preconstruction surveys, restrict activities, or establish exclusion zones at construction sites in areas that were authorized for development by the NBHCP. The Greenbriar project also would not affect the feasibility or potential benefits of relocating owls or of mitigating effects on burrowing owls. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not affect the effectiveness of measures for reducing the take of burrowing owl.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON BANK SWALLOW
Pre-construction surveys and establishment of an exclusion zone (if a bank swallow colony is present) are included in the NBHCP as measures to reduce the take of bank swallow. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre-construction surveys or establish exclusion zones at construction sites in areas that were authorized for development by the NBHCP.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE
The only measure included in the NBHCP to reduce take of northwestern pond turtle is the canal dewatering requirement that was included for giant garter snake. The Greenbriar project would not affect the dewatering of canals in areas authorized for development by the NBHCP, or the ability of animals to move from dewatered canals to suitable habitat off-site. (The Greenbriar site is only directly connected to areas authorized for
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-5 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP development through the Lone Tree Canal crossing of I-5, and the ability of turtles to use this crossing and to move up Lone Tree Canal would not be reduced by the Greenbriar project.)
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON CALIFORNIA TIGER SALAMANDER
The Greenbriar project would not affect California tiger salamander habitat, is not near California tiger salamander habitat, and would not affect the ability to implement the measures in the NBHCP. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not alter the effectiveness of measures for minimizing the take of California tiger salamander.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON WESTERN SPADEFOOT TOAD
The Greenbriar project would not affect western spadefoot toad habitat, is not near western spadefoot toad habitat, and would not affect the ability to implement the measures in the NBHCP. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not alter the ability to implement measures for minimizing the take of western spadefoot toad.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE OF VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP, VERNAL POOL TADPOLE SHRIMP,
AND MIDVALLEY FAIRY SHRIMP
The Greenbriar project would not affect habitat for these branchiopod species, is not near habitat for these branchiopod species, and would not affect the ability to implement the measures in the NBHCP. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not alter the effectiveness of measures for minimizing the take of vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and midvalley fairy shrimp.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE OF DELTA TULE PEA
The NBHCP includes a pre-construction survey and the opportunity to transplant any Delta tule pea located during the survey as measures to reduce take of Delta tule pea. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre-construction surveys of sites authorized for development by the NBHCP, or to transplant Delta tule pea to suitable habitat elsewhere. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not affect the effectiveness of these measures at reducing take of Delta tule pea.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON SANFORD'S ARROWHEAD
The NBHCP includes a pre-construction survey and the opportunity to transplant any Delta tule pea located during the survey as measures to reduce take of Sanford’s arrowhead. The Greenbriar project would not affect the ability to conduct pre-construction surveys of sites authorized for development by the NBHCP, or to transplant Sanford’s arrowhead to suitable habitat elsewhere. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not affect the effectiveness of these measures at reducing take of Sanford’s arrowhead.
MEASURES TO REDUCE TAKE ON BOGGS LAKE HEDGE-HYSSOP, SACRAMENTO ORCUTT GRASS,
SLENDER ORCUTT GRASS, COLUSA GRASS, AND LEGENERE
The Greenbriar project would not affect habitat for these vernal pool-associated plant species, is not near vernal pool habitat, and would not affect the ability to implement the measures in the NBHCP for minimizing the take of these species. Therefore, the Greenbriar project would not alter the effectiveness of these measures.
ASSESSMENT OF AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION BY THE GREENBRIAR
PROJECT
For this assessment, the avoidance and minimization measures in the NBHCP were considered a comprehensive set of effective measures to avoid and minimize the construction-related effects and human-wildlife conflicts potentially resulting from the NBHCP.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-6 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Development at the Greenbriar site is comparable to the development permitted by the NBHCP, and the construction-related effects and human-wildlife conflicts potentially caused by the Greenbriar are the same as those potentially caused by the development permitted by the NBHCP.
Therefore, for comparable effects potentially caused by the Greenbriar project, incorporation of the applicable measures from the NBHCP was considered to be avoidance and minimization to the maximum extent practicable.
The NBHCP’s avoidance and minimization measures related to development were reviewed to determine the measures that were applicable to the Greenbriar project, and if the measure or a comparable (but more specific or stringent) measure was incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). All applicable measures (or comparable but more stringent measures) were incorporated into the DEIR. The results of this assessment are summarized in Table A-1.
In addition, the Greenbriar project could cause other effects that differ from those addressed by the avoidance and minimization measures of the NBHCP. These effects are the construction and human-wildlife conflict-related effects on giant garter snakes and giant garter snake habitat along Lone Tree Canal. Avoiding and minimizing these effects to the maximum extent practicable requires measures in addition to the applicable measures from the NBHCP. The DEIR mitigation for the Greenbriar project contains a comprehensive set of such measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate human disturbance and other related effects on giant garter snake use of Lone Tree Canal.
These measures include:
a. To ensure that the project does not diminish habitat connectivity for giant garter snake between the southwest and northwest zones identified in the NBHCP, approximately 30.6 acres along Lone Tree Canal shall be protected and managed as giant garter snake habitat. This on-site habitat preservation shall protect an approximately 250-foot wide corridor of giant garter snake habitat that includes the canal and approximately 200 feet of adjacent uplands. Uplands within the linear open space/buffer area shall be managed as perennial grassland as described below. Additional aquatic habitat for giant garter snake shall be created along the east bank of Lone Tree Canal by construction and maintenance of a 2.7 acre tule bench. The habitat shall be managed in perpetuity as high-quality habitat for giant garter snake. Compliance and biological effectiveness monitoring shall be performed and annual monitoring reports prepared within six months of completion of monitoring for any given year. This monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management shall be performed as described in Section IV of the NBHCP.
b. To ensure that the project does not diminish gian t garter snake movement along Lone Tree Canal, all new road crossings of Lone Tree Canal shall be designed to minimize obstacles to giant garter snake movement.
The use of culverts under new road crossings on Lone Tree Canal shall be prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that the culverts will not diminish the potential for giant garter snake movement through the section of Lone Tree Canal protected by the setback fence and conservation easement. . c. Upland giant garter snake habitat within the Lone Tree Canal linear open space/buffer area shall be created and managed to provide cover, basking areas, and refugia during the winter dormant period. Hibernaculae would be constructed at regular intervals by embedding concrete or coarse rock in the bank or in a berm along the Lone Tree Canal corridor to provide additional winter refugia. Upland habitat with the linear open space/buffer areas shall be converted to native perennial grassland and managed, in perpetuity, as perennial grassland habitat.
d. Aquatic habitat shall be maintain ed throughout the giant garter snake active season in Lone Tree Canal, in perpetuity. This is the legal responsibility and obligation of Metro Air Park property owners (MAP). The MAP HCP includes provisions for maintaining water in the canal such that the basic habitat requirements of the giant garter snake are met. The MAP HCP also provides a road map, through “Changed Circumstances”, to address procedures to follow if water is not being maintained in the canal to meet these requirements. As described in the MAP HCP, the MAP is legally obligated to assure these requirements are met, and financial and procedural mechanisms are included in the MAP HCP to enforce this. It is, therefore, assumed that MAP
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-7 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP will provide water to Lone Tree Canal, as required by the MAP HCP and ITP, in perpetuity. It is also assumed that USFWS will use all reasonable means available to it, to enforce this MAP HCP requirement. If water is not provided to Lone Tree Canal by the MAP to meet the habitat requirements of giant garter snake, as required by the MAP HCP, and USFWS exhausts its enforcement responsibilities, the project applicant shall assume the responsibility of providing suitable giant garter snake aquatic habitat throughout the section of Lone Tree Canal protected by the fence and conservation easement. However, as stated herein, the project applicant shall only assume this responsibility if it has been sufficiently demonstrated to the City that USFWS has exhausted all reasonable means to compel MAP to comply with the relevant conditions of the MAP ITP.
Specific requirements related to ensuring suitable aquatic habitat in Lone Tree Canal is present, in perpetuity, throughout the giant garter snake active season shall be developed through consultation with DFG and USFWS, and included in the new or amended HCP for Greenbriar, and may include mechanisms, such as installation of a well, to assure water is provided in the canal to meet habitat requirements. e. A barrier shall be installed between the giant ga rter snake habitat linear open space/buffer area and the adjacent Greenbriar development to ensure that giant garter snakes do not enter the development area, and to prohibit humans and pets from entering the giant garter snake habitat. The design of this barrier shall be subject to USFWS and CDFG review and approval. The entire length of the barrier, which shall be bordered by yards rather than roadways, shall be maintained on the preserve side by a nonprofit land trust to ensure that vegetation or debris does not accumulate near the barrier and provide opportunities for wildlife and pets to climb over the barrier. On the development side, Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CCRs) shall prohibit accumulation of vegetation or debris adjacent to the barrier. Chain link fencing shall be placed at both ends of the corridor, with locked gates permitting entry only by RD 1000 and NMWD for channel maintenance, and by the preserve manager for habitat monitoring and maintenance purposes. f. Specific requirements associated with the barrier sh all be developed through consultation with USFWS and DFG, and may include the following and/or other specifications that DFG and USFWS consider to be equally or more effective:
► Adequate height and below-ground depth to prevent snakes or burrowing mammals from providing a through-route for snakes by establishing burrows from one side to the other crossing; ► Constructed using extruded concrete or block construction extending a minimum of 36-inches above ground level;
► Maintenance to repair the barrier and to prevent the establishment of vegetation or collection of debris that could provide snakes with a climbing surface allowing them to breech the barrier; ► A cap or lip extending at least two-inches beyond the barrier’s vertical edge to prevent snakes from gaining access along the barrier’s top edge; and
► Signage to discourage humans and their pets from entering the area. g. The Lone Tree Canal linear open space/buffer area sha ll be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement and managed to sustain the value of this area for giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Compliance and biological effectiveness monitoring shall be performed and annual monitoring reports prepared. This monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management shall be performed as described in Section IV of the NBHCP or following procedures developed in formal consultation with USFWS and DFG and contained in an ESA Incidental Take Permit for the Greenbriar project.
The need for, and purpose and effectiveness of, these additional measures are described in Section 3.5 Connectivity of Habitat in the Natomas Basin and in Section 4.1 Giant Garter Snake.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-8 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale
1. Pre-construction Surveys (p V-1) shall be conducted not less than 30 days or more than 6 months prior to commencement of construction activities, to determine the status and presence of, and likely impacts to, all Covered Species on the site. 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.
Applicable Included
Comparable and more stringent
measures have been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR for each species with potential to
occur on-site.
2. Preservation of the Area Adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake (p V-2): Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the City has agreed to initiate a North Natomas Community Plan amendment to potentially widen the agricultural buffer along the City side of Fisherman’s lake to 800 feet wide.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
3. General Measures to Minimize Take (p V-3)
a. Tree Preservation: Valley oaks and other large trees should be preserved whenever possible. Preserve and restore stands of riparian trees used by Swainson’s hawks and other animals for nesting, particularly adjacent to Fisherman’s Lake.
N/A Included The Greenbriar site currently has not
large trees.
b. Native Plants: Improve the wildlife value of landscaped parks, buffers, and developed areas by planting trees and shrubs which are native to the Natomas Basin and therefore are used by native animals.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
c. Protect Raptor Nests: Avoid the raptor nesting season when scheduling construction near nests. Specific avoidance criteria are set forth in the species specific measures later in this chapter.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
d. Protected Plant/Animal Species, also referred to as “Special Status Species”: Search for protected plant species during flowering season prior to construction and protected animal species during the appropriate season.
Applicable Included Comparable and more specific
measures have been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR for each species with potential to
occur on-site.
4. Measures to Minimize Take of Vern al Pool Species (p V-3) N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site. a. General Biological Survey and Information Required (p V-4): In the event a biological reconnaissance survey or the pre-construction survey identifies that vernal pool resources are on-site, a vernal pool species specific biological assessment must be provided during the appropriate season (as established by USFWS) to determine the type N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-9 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale and abundance of species present.
1. Where site investigations indicat e vernal pool species may occur, the developer shall notify the Land Use Agency regarding the potential for impacts to vernal pool species.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
2. USFWS and CDFG shall identif y specific measures required to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to vernal pool species to be implemented prior to disturbance and in accordance with adopted standards or established guidelines.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
3. The requirement by USFWS to preserve a vernal pool within development would be based on identification of an intact vernal pool with minimal disturbance where the presence of one or more of the following species is recorded: slender orcutt grass, Sacramento orcutt grass, Colusa grass, or vernal pool tadpole shrimp. No such preservation requirement shall be made unless the vernal pool is a suitable site for TNBC Mitigation Lands.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
4. Such vernal pool areas, including any required buffer land dedication, shall apply toward the Land Acquisition Fee component of the development project’s NBHCP mitigation obligation.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
b. Mitigation Strategies (p. V-5) N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
1. Avoidance and Preservation On-S ite to Minimize Impacts: In the event USFWS requires on-site preservation in accordance with Section a.3 above, on-site mitigation shall be required. In the event USFWS does not require on-site mitigation, a developer or private land owner may still propose to dedicate fee title or conservation easement for that portion of the property with vernal pool resources and an associated 250-foot buffer surrounding the vernal pool resource to the TNBC. If the dedication is accepted, a reduction in the Land Acquisition Fee portion of the habitat Mitigation Fee shall be granted the developer for the portion (calculated on an acreage basis) of the site permanently preserved by easement or dedication. However, habitat Mitigation Fees, in full, must be paid on the remaining developable acreage on the site, and all fees other than Land Acquisition Fees shall be paid N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-10 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale for all acres on the site. Additional conditions to preserve the biological integrity of the site (such as reasonable drainage conditions) may be imposed by the Land Use Agency in
consultation with TNBC and the TAC.
2. Construction Period Avoidance and Relocation of Vernal Pool Resources (p. V-6).
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
a. No grading, development or modification of the vernal pool site or the buffer area extending 250 feet around the
perimeter of the vernal pool site may occur during the vernal pool “wet” season as identified by USFWS. Protective
fencing shall be established around the perimeter of the vernal pool site and the buffer area during the vernal pool wet season.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
b. In consultation with TNBC and the TAC, soils and cysts from the vernal pool may be relocated as soon as practicable during the dry season to a suitable TNBC or other reserve site provided the relocation/recreation site is approved by TNBC, and the USFWS.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
3. Payment Into a USFWS Approved Conservation Bank (p. V-6).
In the event all of the above approaches are not appropriate for the site, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to purchase credits from a USFWS-approved mitigation bank in accordance with the following mitigation ratios: 2:1 for preservation in mitigation banks, 1:1 for creation in mitigation banks, 3:1 for preservation in acres outside of mitigation banks, 2:1 for creation in acres outside of mitigation banks.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
5. Measures to Reduce Take for Individual Species (p. V-7) a. Measures to Reduce Take of Gi ant Garter Snake (p. V-7)
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.
Applicable Included A comparable and more detailed
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-11 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale
2. Pre-construction surveys for gian t garter snake, as well as other NBHCP Covered Species, must be completed for all
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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR, combined with
measure 4 below.
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 snakes to leave on their own.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
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 more than 24-hours prior to the re-start of construction activities.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
5. Confine clearing to the mi nimal 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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
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 Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-12 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale 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:
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
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. 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 one working day, further consultation with USFWS is required.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
8. Upon locating dead, injured or sick threatened or endangered wildlife species, the Permittees or their designated agents must notify within one working day the Service’s Division of Law Enforcement and Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
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 that giant garter snake are not using it as hibernaculae.
Applicable Included A compar able and more stringent
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR.
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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-13 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale
11. Fences will be constructed along the shared boundary of urban development and the North Drainage Canal and the East
Drainage Canal within Sutter County’s Permit Area.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
a. A minimum of 100 feet will be provided from fence-to-fence and access to the canals shall be limited by gates.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
b. A snake deterrent will be placed along the fences on the North Drainage Canal and the East Drainage Canal (i.e., fence construction that restricts snake movement or an
appropriate vegetative barrier either inside or outside of the boundary fence). The design of the deterrent shall be subject to approval by the Wildlife Agencies.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
c. The specific fence/snake barrier design adjacent to a given development will be determined within Sutter County’s
review of the proposed development and the fence/barrier shall be installed immediately after site grading is completed.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
12. At the time of urban development along the North and East Drainage Canals, Sutter County shall consult with the Wildlife Agencies to determine design strategies that would enhance conditions for giant garter snake movement through the North and East Drainage Canals. Possible strategies may include expanded buffer areas and modified canal cross sections if such measures are, in the determination of Sutter and the Water Agencies, found to be feasible.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
b. Measures to Reduce Take of Swainson’s Hawk (V-9)
1. Measures to Reduce Cumulative Impacts to Foraging Habitat (V-9): Sutter County and the City of Sacramento will not will not grant development approvals within the one-mile wide
Swainson’s Hawk Zone adjacent to the Sacramento River.
N/A This measure is specific to locations
outside the project area.
2. Measures to Reduce Nest Disturbance (V-10)
1. Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by the
respective developer 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 Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-14 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale development site.
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, with
concurrence by CDFG, has determined that young have
fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied. Routine disturbances such as agricultural activities, commuter traffic, and routine facility maintenance activities within ½ mile of an active nest are not restricted.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
3. Where disturbance of a Swainson’s hawk nest cannot be avoided, the nest tree may be destroyed during the non- nesting 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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
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 determined that the young have fledged and are no longer dependent upon the nest tree.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
5. If construction or other project related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledgling are proposed within the 1/4 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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
3. Measures to Prevent the Loss of Nest Trees Section heading
1. Valley oaks, tree groves, riparian habitat and other large trees will be preserved wherever possible, particularly near Fisherman’s Lake and elsewhere where large oak groves,
N/A There are currently no large trees at the
Greenbriar site.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-15 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale tree groves and riparian habitat have been identified.
2. The raptor nesting season shall be avoided when scheduling construction near nests in accordance with applicable
guidelines published by the Wildlife Agencies or through consultation with the Wildlife Agencies.
Applicable Included A comparable and more detailed
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR, combined with measure 2.2
above.
4. Measures to Mitigate the Lo ss of Nest Trees (V-11)
1. Fifteen trees (five gallon container size) must be planted, maintained and monitored within the habitat reserves for every Swainson’s hawk nesting tree anticipated to be
impacted by Authorized Development.
N/A No Swainson’s hawk nesting trees exist
on site.
2. The Land Use Agency Perm ittee approving a project that impacts an existing Swainson’s hawk nest tree shall provide funding sufficient for monitoring survival success of trees for a period of 5 years. For every tree lost during this time period, a replacement tree must be planted immediately upon the detection of failure. Trees planted to replace trees lost shall be monitored for an additional 5-year period to ensure survival until the end of the monitoring period. A 100% success rate shall be achieved. All necessary planting
requirements and maintenance (i.e., fertilizing, irrigation) to ensure success shall be provided. Trees must be irrigated for a minimum of the first 5 years after planting, and then gradually weaned off the irrigation in an approximate 2-year period. If larger stock is planted, the number of years of irrigation must be increased accordingly. In addition, 10 years after planting, a survey of the trees shall be completed to assure 100% establishment success. Remediation of any dead trees shall include completion of the survival and establishment process described.
N/A No Swainson’s hawk nesting trees exist
on site.
3. Of the replacement trees planted, a variety of native tree species will be planted to provide trees with differing growth rates, maturation, and life span. This will ensure that nesting habitat will be available quickly (5-10 years in the case of cottonwoods and willows), and in the long term (i.e., valley N/A No Swainson’s hawk nesting trees exist
on site.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-16 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale oaks, black walnut and sycamores). Trees shall be sited on reserves in proximity to hawk foraging areas. Trees planted shall be planted in clumps of 3 trees each. Planting stock shall be a minimum of 5-gallon container stock for oak and walnut species.
4. In order to reduce temporal impacts resulting from the loss of mature nest trees, the City of Sacramento will fund
mitigation planting within 14 months of permit of the
NBHCP and ITP’s, to be reimbursed by private developers at the time of approval of their development projects that impact mature nest trees.
N/A No Swainson’s hawk nesting trees exist
on site.
5. For each additional nesting tree removed by Land Use Agencies’ Covered Activities, the Land Use Agency shall fund and provide for the planting of 15 native sapling trees of suitable species with differing growth rates at suitable locations on TNBC preserves. Funding for such plantings shall be provided by the applicable Permittee within 30 days of approving a Covered Activity that will impact a
Swainson’s hawk nesting tree.
N/A No Swainson’s hawk nesting trees exist
on site.
c. Measures to Reduce Take to Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (VELB) (p. V-13): developers must comply with conservation practices for VELB set forth in the conditions of the “USFWS Compensation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle," dated 1999. This policy assumes that any elderberry bushes found within the range of the species are likely to provide beetle habitat, and any destruction or loss of such elderberry shrub habitat must be mitigated according to the Guidelines. The principle conditions of the Guidelines are summarized below.
N/A No elderberry shrubs exist on site.
1. Any direct or indirect impacts to VELB habitat will be avoided whenever possible. To the maximum extent practicable, projects will be designed to avoid stands of elderberry bushes and to avoid isolation of the plants from other nearby populations. Pre- construction surveys at the construction impact site will be conducted to assess the appropriate amount of mitigation.
N/A No elderberry shrubs exist on site.
2. If elderberry plants cannot be avoided, they shall be transplanted N/A No elderberry shrubs exist on site.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-17 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale during the dormant season (November 1 to February 15) to an area protected in perpetuity and approved by the USFWS.
3. Replacement seedling plants will be provided at a ratio between 2:1 and 5:1 depending on the extent of beetle utilization of the plants moved or lost. A 1,800-square-foot area will be provided for each transplanted elderberry shrub or every five elderberry seedling plants.
N/A No elderberry shrubs exist on site.
4. Annual monitoring of VELB habitat will be provided in the planted mitigation sites for a ten year period.
N/A No elderberry shrubs exist on site.
5. Replacement elderberry shrubs will meet a 60% survival rate by the end of the ten year period and the 60% survival rate shall be required for the term of the applicable permit.
N/A No elderberry shrubs exist on site.
d. Measures to Reduce Take on Tricolored Blackbird (V-13) Section heading
1. A pre-construction survey is required for potential nesting habitat and presence of nesting tricolored blackbirds.
Applicable Suitable tricolored blackbird nesting
habitat does not exist on site.
2. If surveys determine tricolor ed blackbirds are present, the following measures shall be implemented in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, to avoid disturbance to occupied nesting colonies during the nesting season. A boundary shall be marked by brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 500 feet from the active colony. No disturbance associated with Authorized Development shall occur within the 500 foot fenced area during the nesting season to July 1, or while birds are present. A qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS, must determine young have fledged and nest sites are no longer active before the nest site may be disturbed.
Applicable Suitable tricolored blackbird nesting
habitat does not exist on site.
e. Measures to Reduce Take on Aleutian Canada Goose (V-14)
1. A pre-construction survey for Aleutian Canada geese will be required. If geese are present, the developer must consult with USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals. Such measures shall be appropriate for the use (e.g., foraging, roosting, etc.) and activity of the species, since this species is a seasonal visitor to the Basin.
Applicable This subspecies is not expected to
occur on site.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-18 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale f. Measures to Reduce Take on White-faced Ibis (V-14)
1. Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, a pre- construction survey will be required.
N/A Suitable white-faced ibis nesting
habitat does not exist on site.
2. If surveys determine the presen ce of active nest sites of White- faced ibis, disturbance by Authorized Development within 1/4 mile of nests will be avoided within the nesting season of May 15 through August 31 or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence of Wildlife Agencies, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied.
N/A Suitable white-faced ibis nesting
habitat does not exist on site.
g. Measures to Reduce Take on Loggerhead Shrike (V-14)
1. Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, a pre- construction survey will be required.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
2. If surveys identify an active loggerhead shrike nest that will be impacted by Authorized Development, the developer shall install brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 100 feet from the active nest. No disturbance associated with Authorized 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.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
h. Measures to Reduce Take of Burrowing Owl (V-15)
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 preconstruction survey shall be submitted to the Land Use Agency with jurisdiction over the site prior to the developer’s commencement of construction activities and a mitigation program shall be developed and agreed to by the Land Use Agency and developer prior to initiation of any physical disturbance on the site.
Applicable Included A compar able and more stringent
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-19 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale
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 are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival.
Applicable Included A compar able and more stringent
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR.
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.
Applicable Included A compar able and more stringent
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR.
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 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, one-time 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 Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-20 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale 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 the CDFG’s October 17, 1995, Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (see Appendix D).
Applicable Included A compar able and more stringent
measure has been included in the
mitigation proposed in the project’s
DEIR.
i. Measures to Reduce Take on Bank Swallow (V-16)
1. Disturbance to bank swallows nesting colonies will be avoided within the nesting season of May 1 through August 31 (or until a qualified biologist, with concurrence of USFWS and CDFG, has determined that young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied) during all Authorized Development activities
conducted in the Permit Areas.
N/A Suitable bank swallow nesting habitat
does not exist on site.
2. If surveys identify an active bank swallow nesting colony that will be impacted by Authorized Development, the developer shall install brightly colored construction fencing that establishes a boundary 250 feet from the active nesting colony. No disturbance associated with Authorized Development shall occur within the 250 foot fenced area during the nesting season of May 1 through August 31. Additionally, disturbance within ½ mile upstream or downstream of the colony will be avoided if the colony is located upon a natural waterway.
N/A Suitable bank swallow nesting habitat
does not exist on site.
j. Measures to Reduce Take on Northwestern Pond Turtle (V-16)
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)).
Applicable The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
k. Measures to Reduce Take on California Tiger Salamander (V-16)
1. Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved N/A Suitable California tiger salamander Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-21 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If a future survey determines the presence of California tiger salamander, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS and CDFG to determine appropriate
measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.
habitat does not exist on site.
l. Measures to Reduce Take on Western Spadefoot Toad (V-16)
1. Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determines western spadefoot toad are present, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to consult with CDFG and USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals.
N/A Suitable western spadefoot toad habitat
does not exist on site.
m. Measures to Reduce Take of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp, and Midvalley Fairy Shrimp (V-17)
1. Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency shall require a pre-construction survey. If such survey determines vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and midvalley fairy shrimp are present, the Land Use Agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and minimize take of individuals. Procedures for reviewing projects that could affect vernal pools and vernal pool species are discussed under Section V.A.4 above.
N/A No vernal pool habitat exists on site.
n. Measures to Reduce Take of Delta Tule Pea (V-17)
1. If Delta tule pea plants are identified through a pre-construction survey, the involved Land Use Agency shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFG and the California Native Plant Society. Under such circumstances, the development proponent shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to site disturbance.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
o. Measures to Reduce Take on Sanford's Arrowhead (V-17) Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento A-22 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
Table A-1
Inclusion of NBHCP Measures to Reduce Construction-related Effects and Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Greenbriar Project or the DEIR Mitigation for the Project
Natomas Basin HCP Measure Applicability Inclusion Rationale
1. If Sanford’s arrowhead plants are identified through a pre- construction survey, the involved Land Use Agency shall provide notice to USFWS, CDFG and the California Native Plant
Society. Under such circumstances, the development proponent shall allow the transplantation of plants prior to site disturbance.
Applicable Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
p. Measures to Reduce Take on Boggs Lake Hedge-Hyssop, Sacramento Orcutt Grass, Slender Orcutt Grass, Colusa Grass, and Legenere (V- 17)
1. Prior to approval of an Urban Development Permit, the involved Land Use Agency 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 Land Use Agency shall require the developer to consult with USFWS to determine appropriate measures to avoid and
minimize loss of individuals. If Authorized Development is proposed for areas containing vernal pools, the applicant will be required to complete additional review, permitting and mitigation as described under Section V.A.4.
N/A Included The NBHCP measure has been
included in the mitigation proposed in
the project’s DEIR.
Appendix B
Change in Natomas Basin Land Cover in 2001–2004
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento B-1 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP
APPENDIX B
CHANGE IN NATOMAS BASIN LAND COVER IN 2001–2004
INTRODUCTION
EDAW analyzed 2001 and 2004 land cover of the Natomas Basin to describe changing conditions in the Natomas Basin and their bearing on analyses of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and on analyses of the Greenbriar project.
The NBHCP used 2001 land cover as a primary data source in analyses of the anticipated future condition. For example, change in habitat availability for covered species was analyzed by evaluating the change in land cover types providing suitable habitat. This was done by subtracting 2001 acreages in areas permitted for development from total 2001 acreages.
In 2004, land cover in the Natomas Basin was mapped by Jones & Stokes for TNBC (Jones & Stokes 2005). This land cover data provides useful information about more recent conditions.
A comparison of 2001 and 2004 land cover could provide useful information regarding on-going changes.
Unfortunately, the mapping of 2001 land cover by CH2M Hill (CH2M Hill 2002) and the mapping of 2004 land cover by Jones & Stokes (Jones & Stokes 2005) used different land cover classifications and different mapping methods. Consequently, changes in land use and habitat availability cannot be interpreted by directly comparing them. For example, more intensively developed land was mapped as airport, highway, other, rural residential, and other in 2001; but as developed in 2004. Also, many areas mapped as urban in 2001 were mapped as natural or urban vegetation in 2004, apparently because the 2004 mapping was done with much more conservative boundaries around structures and pavement.
Therefore, EDAW processed each data set to increase their compatibility, and then evaluated changes in land cover during 2001–2004 in: 1) areas permitted for development, 2) The Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) reserve system, and 3) in the remainder of the Natomas Basin.
METHODS
Data layers for the 2001 and 2004 land cover mapping were provided by CH2M Hill and Jones & Stokes, respectively. Analyses of these data layers were performed using ArcInfo 9.1.
Several steps were taken to make these two maps more comparable and to facilitate an informative comparison of land cover change from 2001 to 2004. First, we developed a cross-walk between the 2001 and 2004 land cover classifications and a derived classification. Table B-1 presents this crosswalk and the derived classification.
Second, land mapped in developed land cover types in 2001 was considered to still be developed. Thus, the 2001 land cover classification of these areas was retained for 2004. Third, land cover acreages were adjusted to incorporate habitat along canals and drains as a distinct type (i.e., canal in Table B-1). This was done by transferring acreage from each land cover category to a canal category based on the acreages intersecting buffers placed around canals in a GIS analysis. (Buffer widths were based on the widths used in Table 4-3 of CH2M Hill [2002].) Canals passing through developed land cover types, however, were included in the developed category.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table B-2 provides a comparison of 2001 and 2004 land cover overall, and within development areas, TNBC reserves, and the rest of the Natomas Basin. (Development areas include the Sutter County, City of Sacramento, and MAP permit areas.) This subdivision of the Natomas Basin allows changes due to management of TNBC
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento B-2 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP reserves and changing land use in areas authorized for development to be distinguished from changes in the remainder of the Natomas Basin.
Changes in land cover from 2001 to 2004 were most substantial on TNBC reserves. In areas incorporated into the TNBC reserve system, the creation of managed marshes increased the acreage of ponds, marsh, and seasonally wet areas by over 500 acres, while the acreage of rice decreased by less than 100 acres. This indicates that most managed marsh has been created from land mapped as non-rice cropland or idle in 2001. If this pattern continues more total habitat for species using marshes and wetlands will exist in the future condition than estimated because more conversion of rice to marsh was anticipated (CH2M Hill 2002). Grassland and pasture has also increased on reserve lands, while non-flooded cropland decreased by approximately 900 acres during 2001–2004 within the current TNBC reserve system. Interestingly, there has been no increase in alfalfa on reserve lands. Overall, the proportions of marsh, rice and upland land cover types are consistent with those specified by the NBHCP.
Within areas permitted for development by the NBHCP, developed land cover has increased and so has the acreage of grassland, while disturbed areas and non-flooded crops have decreased in extent. Interestingly, the acreage of rice within developed areas did not decrease during 2001–2004. This rice is primarily in the Sutter County’s permit area, and to a lesser extent in the Metro Air Park. Almost no rice was present in the City of Sacramento’s permit area in either 2001 or 2004. Thus, as of 2004, there is no evidence that rice has been fallowed in anticipation of development. Non-flooded cropland has been fallowed or abandoned, however. Non- flooded cropland decreased in acreage, and the corresponding increase in grassland acreage is likely due to the increase in idle cropland.
Outside of TNBC reserves and areas authorized for development, the primary change in land cover has been a 42% decrease in the acreage of non-flooded cropland, and a concurrent increase in the acreage of grassland and rice. Because both grassland and rice have increased, there has not been a substantial change in the acreage of habitat for either upland-associated or wetland-associated species covered by the NBHCP. This change in the proportions of the different agricultural land cover types outside of reserves and areas undergoing development does illustrate the dynamic nature of agricultural landscapes over short periods of time, in this case just three years. Recent concerns over water prices and the viability of rice cultivation in the Natomas Basin also indicate this dynamism.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento B-3 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Table B-1
Crosswalk between CH2M Hill and Jones & Stokes Land Cover Classifications and a Combined Classification
Combined Classification CH2M Hill Jones & Stokes
Alfalfa Alfalfa Alfalfa
Canal
Canal, small portions of other land cover
types that canals passed through (except
for developed land cover)
Open Water [in part], Riparian Scrub [in part],
Grassland [in part], Rice [in part], Row Crops
[in part] and small amounts of other land cover
types
Developed
Airport, Highway or Major Road, Other,
Urban
Developed [in part], and small portions of other
land cover types
Grassland Grassland Grassland [in part]
Orchard Orchard Orchard
Pasture Pasture Irrigated Grassland, Grass Hay
Ponds, Marsh and Seasonally
wet areas Ponds and Seasonally Wet Areas
Fresh Emergent Marsh, Managed Marsh, Open
Water [in part], Seasonal Wetland
Rice Rice Rice [in part]
Riparian Riparian Riparian Scr ub [in part], Riparian Woodland Non-rice Crops Non-rice Crops, idle Row Crops [in part] Ruderal Ruderal Disturbed / Bare
Rural Residential Rural Residential
Developed [in part], and small portions of other
land cover types
Tree Grove Tree Grove No n-riparian Woodland
Valley Oak Woodland Oak Grove Valley Oak Woodland
Note: CH2M Hill classification used in mapping 2001 land cover as described in CH2M Hill 2002; Jones & Stokes classification used in mapping 2004 land cover as described in Jones & Stokes 2005.
Greenbriar Development Project EDAW
City of Sacramento B-4 Analysis of Effects on the Natomas Basin HCP Table B-2
Land Cover Change in the Natomas Basin 2001–2004
Development Areas1 TNBC Reserves 2 Rest of Basin Total Land Cover Type 2001 2004 2001 2004 2001 2004 2001 2004
Alfalfa 0 0 64 67 305 529 369 596
Canal 508 436 113 111 830 833 1,451 1,380
Developed 8,353 9,766 26 42 2,931 3,173 11,311 12,980
Grassland 564 2,328 13 349 225 2,179 802 4,856
Orchard 0 0 0 0 165 145 165 145
Pasture 165 255 80 164 423 315 668 734
Ponds, Marsh and Seasonally Wet Areas 21 60 0 514 73 106 94 680 Rice 7,562 8,363 2,499 2,414 11,360 13,308 21,421 24,085 Riparian 23 24 4 12 87 86 114 122
Non-flooded Cropland 3,214 939 1,096 291 9,374 5,427 13,683 6,657 Ruderal 2,825 1,111 66 0 378 28 3,269 1,139
Tree Grove 56 8 7 1 37 48 100 56
Valley Oak Woodland 13 14 0 3 77 89 90 106
Total 23,303 23,303 3,968 3,968 26,266 26,266 53,537 53,536 Notes: All values are in acres.
1 – Areas authorized for development by the NBHCP.
2 – Areas in TNBC reserve system in 2005.
1 Public Hearing
January 22, 2008
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Title: Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069)
Location/Council District: South of Elkhorn Boulevard, north of Interstate 5, west of Highway 99, and east of Metro Airpark (County) / Adjacent to Council District 1 Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion:
1) Adopt a) a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program; b) a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2001-518; c) a Resolution approving the Reorganization; d) a Resolution approving the Tax Exchange Agreement; e) a Resolution approving the Greenbriar Finance Plan; f) a Resolution approving the Inclusionary Housing Plan; g) a Resolution amending the General Plan Map; h) an Ordinance approving the Prezone; i) a Resolution establishing the Greenbriar Planned Unit Development (PUD)
2) Continue the public hearing on the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Override to January 29, 2008.
Contact: Scot Mende, New Growth Manager, 808-4756; Arwen Wacht, Associate Planner, 808-1964
Presenters: Scot Mende and Arwen Wacht
Department: Planning
Division: New Growth
Organization No: 4913
Description/Analysis
Summary: The Greenbriar proposal is a request to allow the annexation and the future development of a 577± acre master planned community. The project site consists of farmland located within Sacramento County, located north of Interstate 5, west of Highway 70/99, south of Elkhorn Boulevard, and east of the Metro Air Park site (County). The proposal includes requests for a Reorganization (Annexation and Detachment), Tax Exchange Agreement, Finance Plan, Inclusionary Housing Plan, General Plan Map Amendment, Prezone, Planned Unit Development Establishment (including a PUD Schematic Plan and Guidelines), and Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Override.
REPORT TO COUNCIL
City of Sacramento
915 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2604
www. CityofSacramento.org
16 Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
2 These requests are being made to expand the boundaries of the City of Sacramento’s General Plan, and to establish City land use designations consistent with the applicant’s proposal, which is primarily residential, parks/open space, general public facilities, and commercial development.
Issues: On January 8, 2008, staff provided information on the following topics in their presentation at the workshop at City Council:
• Growth Issues/Relationship to Blueprint
• Greenfield and Infill Development
• Draft General Plan Policies
• Relationship to Natomas Joint Vision
• Parks and Open Space
• Circulation Systems
• Transit/Light Rail – Timing & Funding
• Airport Issues – Noise, Overflight, Density
• Inclusionary Housing Plan
• Flood Hazards / Flood Protection
• Finance Plan
• Habitat Conservation Plan
• Transportation
• Biological Issues
The purpose of the workshop was to provide the City Council with general information on the Greenbriar project, update the City Council on the current status of the project, and receive initial feedback from the City Council on the project. After staff presentations and initial public testimony, the City Council continued the workshop to January 15, 2008 to allow for additional time for public testimony. Planning staff will provide an update on the workshop outcomes at the January 22, 2008 hearing.
Policy Considerations: The proposed project is generally consistent with the City’s General Plan Update effort and the City Council’s Strategic Plan focus areas such as advancing to policies that 1) provide a mix of land uses, 2) create a range of housing opportunities and choices with a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers, and 3) promote multi-modal transportation and land use patterns that support walking, cycling, and public transit.
Committee/Commission Action: On September 19, 2007, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) voted (four ayes and three noes) to make written determinations on the Municipal Services Review (MSR), and approve the City of Sacramento Sphere of Influence Amendment, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Sphere of Influence Amendment, and County Sanitation District #1 Sphere of Influence Amendment for the Greenbriar project.
On November 8, 2007, the Planning Commission voted (five ayes, three noes, and one recusal) to recommend denial of the Greenbriar project to the City Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
3 Council. The Planning Commission also wanted to convey to the City Council that should the City Council decide to approve the Greenbriar project, the Council should:
• Reconsider the affordable housing ownership in the Inclusionary Housing Plan
• Reassess the proposed circulation system - based on the LOS D in the proposed General Plan rather than the LOS C in the current General Plan • Disperse the inclusionary housing units, rather than clustering the affordable units around the light rail station
• Amend the PUD Guidelines to require Planning Commission review & approval of all commercial projects.
On December 11, 2007, the City Council voted to adopt a resolution directing staff to file with SACOG and Caltrans (Division of Aeronautics) a proposed set of findings to override the Sacramento International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Sec. 21676.
On January 8, 2008, Planning staff presented a workshop on the Greenbriar project to the City Council. The City Council continued the workshop to January 15, 2008 to allow for additional time for public testimony.
Environmental Considerations: The City and the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) are co-lead agencies for purposes of review of the Greenbriar project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared for the project. The EIR was previously provided to the City Council and consists of the following documents:
• Draft EIR (Volumes I, II and III)
• Recirculated Draft EIR (Air Qua lity; Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality)
• Second Recirculated Draft EIR (Transportation and Circulation) • Final EIR
The EIR has been available at LAFCo and City offices and at the Public Library. It has also been available on the LAFCo and City web sites.
The Draft EIR identified significant impacts to transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, utilities, public services , parks and open space, aesthetics, public health and hazards, geology and soils, hy drology drainage and water quality, agriculture, biological resources, and cultural resources. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce most pr oject impacts to a less-than-significant level, but significant and unavoidable impacts remain for transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, utilities, public services , parks and open space, aesthetics, public health and hazards, and agriculture. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) that lists all of the mitigation measures and required implementing actions was prepared and is attached (Attachment 2 - Exhibit B).
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
4 The Draft EIR was prepared and released for a forty-five (45) day public review period beginning on July 18, 2006. On Augus t 2, 2006, during the forty-five day public review period, LAFCo held a public hearing to present the Draft EIR, at which time additional verbal comments were recorded. Based on comments received on the Draft EIR, the City and LAFCo circulated a Recirculated Draft EIR on November 14, 2006 with revisions to flooding and air quality issues. The Second Recirculated Draft EIR with revisions to the Transportation and Circulation section was circulated on April 10, 2007.
The Final EIR includes responses to comments received at the LAFCo hearing and written comments, and changes in the EIR that have been made following circulation and public comment.
LAFCo certified the EIR at its meeting on September 19, 2007, at which time LAFCo approved the City’s request for an amendment to the City’s sphere of influence. A Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Injunction (Complaint) was thereafter filed in the Superior Court for the State of California naming LAFCo as a Respondent, and the City of Sacramento, the applicant and others as Real Parties in Interest. The Complaint alleges various deficiencies in the EIR, including incorrect evaluation of traffic impacts (Paragraphs 5-7), noise (Paragraph 8), greenhouse gas emissions (Paragraph 9), potential to caus e cancer (Paragraph 10), impacts on biological resources (Paragraph 11) and av ailability of water supplies (Paragraph 12). Plaintiffs in the litigation include Environmental Council of Sacramento, Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk and several named individuals.
The City Attorney has advised that the filing of the Comp laint does not affect the City’s ability to process the application.
The Planning Commission reviewed the project and environmental document at several meetings. The Commission included no specific references to the EIR as part of its recommendation for denial of the project.
Rationale for Recommendation: Overall, the proposal is consistent with General Plan policies on annexation, development, and land use.
Financial Considerations: The proposed Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies the infrastructure set, the costs of the improvements, and proposed methodology to spread those costs over the development. The draft Resolution and finance plan for this project are included with this staff report (see Exhibit 6).
The Greenbriar Finance Plan provides for $13.5 Million for underfunded North Natomas facilities including the Library, Community Center and Transit Stations. In addition, $3.4 Million is provided for the North Natomas Regional Park (to be applied to the HCP fees and capital improvements). $150 Million is provided for on-site public infrastructure including schools and parks; 100% of the park maintenance costs will be funded by the development. In total, the Per Unit Total Average Fee Burden (including $5,000 for flood control) is $60,300 - which amounts to 15% of the sales price.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
6 7 Inclusionary Housing Plan Resolution Pg 353
Exhibit A – Inclusionary Housing Plan Pg 354
8 General Plan Map Amendment Resolution Pg 359
Exhibit A – General Plan Map Amendment Pg 360
9 Prezone Ordinance Pg 361
Exhibit A – Prezone Pg 362
10 PUD Guidelines and Schematic Plan Resolution Pg 363 Exhibit A – Greenbriar PUD Schematic Plan Pg 364
Exhibit B – Greenbriar PUD Guidelines Pg 365
11 ALUC Override Resolution Pg 448
Exhibit A – ALUC Letter of Consistency Determination Pg 452 12 V i c i n i t y M a p P g 4 6 1
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
7 ATTACHMENT 1 - INSTRUCTIONS ON LOCATING THE PREVIOUS REPORTS
To review the original Planning Commission report presented on September 27, 2007, Item 15 on the City Planning Commission agenda, please go to:
www.cityofsacramento.org
Click on Departments and Services
Under Development Services, Click on Council, Commission, and Boards Under Commissions, Click on Planning Commission
Click on Meeting Agendas and Minutes for 2007
Adjacent to September 27, 2007, Click on HTML
Go to Item 15 to view the report (under Attachments, click on Staff Report)
To review the supplemental Planning Commission report presented on October 11, 2007, Item 3 on the City Planning Commission agenda, please go to:
www.cityofsacramento.org
Click on Departments and Services
Under Development Services, Click on Council, Commission, and Boards Under Commissions, Click on Planning Commission
Click on Meeting Agendas and Minutes for 2007
Adjacent to October 11, 2007, Click on HTML
Go to Item 3 to view the report (under Attachments, click on Staff Report)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
8 To review the supplemental Planning Commission report presented on November 8, 2007, Item 3 on the City Planning Commission agenda, please go to:
www.cityofsacramento.org
Click on Departments and Services
Under Development Services, Click on Council, Commission, and Boards Under Commissions, Click on Planning Commission
Click on Meeting Agendas and Minutes for 2007
Adjacent to November 8, 2007, Click on HTML
Go to Item 3 to view the report (under Attachments, click on Staff Report)
To review the City Council report (for the ALUC Determination) presented on December 11, 2007, Item 21 on the City Council agenda, please go to:
www.cityofsacramento.org
Click on View City Council Meetings, Agendas, etc.
Click on Future & Archived Meetings
Under Archives, Go to 12/11/07 City Council Meetings, Click on View Agenda Go to Item 21 [Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) – Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Determination]
To review the City Council workshop report presented on January 8, 2008, Item 20 on the City Council agenda, please go to:
www.cityofsacramento.org
Click on View City Council Meetings, Agendas, etc.
Click on Future & Archived Meetings
Under Archives, Go to 01/08/08 City Council Meetings, Click on View Agenda Go to Item 20 [Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) – Workshop] Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
9 ATTACHMENT 2 – EIR AND MMRP RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE GREENBRIAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (M05-046 / P05-069)
BACKGROUND
A. On November 8, 2007 the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on, and forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to deny the Greenbriar Project.
B. On _________, 2008 the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant Sacrament o City Code Section 17.208.020 (C), and received and considered evidence concerning the Greenbriar Project.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, TH E CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds that the Environmental Impact Report for the Greenbriar Project (herein EIR) which consists of the Draft EIR, Reci rculated Draft EIR, Second Recirculated Draft EIR, appendices and the Final EIR (Response to Comments) (collectively the “EIR”) has been completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQ A), the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures.
Section 2. The City Council certifies that t he EIR was prepared, pub lished, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Final Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures.
Section 3. The City Council certifies that t he EIR has been presented to it, that the City Council has reviewed the EIR and has consi dered the information contained in the EIR prior to acting on the propos ed Project, and that the EIR reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.
Section 4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its approval of the Project, the City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of approval of the Project as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
10 Section 5. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval of the Proj ect, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to require all reasonably feasible mitigation measures be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements, or other measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pr ogram as set forth in Exhibit B of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Council directs that, upon approval of the Project, the City’s Environmental Planning Services shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of Sacramento County and, if the Project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Re search, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA section 21152.
Section 7. Pursuant to Guidelines sect ion 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedi ngs upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and ma y be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk at 915 I Street, Sacramento, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.
Table of Contents:
Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Greenbriar Development Project
Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Greenbriar Development Project
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
11 Exhibit A
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Greenbriar Project
Description of the Project
The Greenbriar Development Project (“Greenbriar” or “project”) is a proposed mixed-use development project that includes: (1) 3,473 low, medium, and high density residential units, (2) 48.4 acres (net) of commercial development, (3) a 10-acre (net) elementary school site, (4) 48.4 acres (net) of neighborhood parks, and (5) a 39-acre (net) lake/detention basin that encircles the central portion of the project site. The project also includes the construction of a new east-west roadway, Meister Way, through the center of the site. A new light rail station and rail a lignment is proposed to be constructed by Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) along this roadway near the center of the site. The rail alignment would connect the project site to the Metro Airpark development to the west and the North Natomas Community to the east across SR 70/99 via a new proposed overpass at SR 70/99. Higher density (t han other parts of the project), mixed-use development (residential and retail/office land uses on same parcel) is proposed along Meister Way near the proposed light rail station. The project also includes a linear open space/buffer area that extends along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to Lone Tree Canal, proposed to protect potentially sensitive biological habitat. (DEIR, p. 1-1; FEIR, p. 1-1)
The project site is located west of the City of Sacramento’s ( City) North Natomas community within the Natomas Basin. The project site consists of approximately 577 acres of fallow agricultural land bounded by Interstate 5 (I-5) to the south, State Route 70 and 99 (SR 70/99) to the east, Elkhorn Boulevard to the north, and Lone Tree Canal to the west.
The site, although fallowed at the time of the Notice of Pr eparation (NOP), has routinely been rotated from active to fallowed conditions to maintain productive cropping patterns.
Crops previously and routinely cultivated at the site include rice and wheat. The project is located adjacent to existing agricultural uses (some fallow and some active) to the north and west. A residential development project (approximately 128 acres in size) is currently under construction east of the site across SR 70/99 within the North Natomas community.
The project site is immediately adjacent and west of the City’s North Natomas Community Plan (NNCP) area and the City’s jurisdictional boundary and sphere of influence (SOI). The recently approved Metro Air Park Special Planning Area (SPA) is located adjacent and west of the project site. An industrial business park is planned for development within this area. (DEIR, FEIR, p. 1-1.)
Because the project site is located outside the City’s limits and its SOI, the project applicant would need to seek approval from the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for amendment of the City’s SOI and annex ation of the site into the City. In addition, the project includes a request for service from the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) (wastewater) and County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1) (sewer).
Currently the project site is located out side SRCSD’s SOI. Approval from LAFCo for amendment of SRCSD’s SOI to encompass the project site would be required. (DEIR, p. 1-1.) Amendment of CSD-1 is also necessary.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
12 Project Location
The project site encompasses approximately 577 acres located northwest of the intersection of State Route 70/99 (SR 70/99) and Interstate 5 (I-5) in Sacramento County.
The project site is located in the unincorporated portion of Sacramento County, adjacent to and west of the City of Sacr amento and outside the City of Sa cramento’s (City) existing Sphere of Influence (SOI). (DEIR, p. 3-1.)
Surrounding land uses include agricultural land uses to the north and south, new residential development in the North Natomas community to the east and south, and the recently approved Metro Air Park development project to the west. The Metro Air Park development consists of proposed commercial, hotel, and recreational (i.e., golf course) land uses. The North Natomas Community Plan (NNCP) area is located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site across SR 70/99. Futu re development in the North Natomas area includes residential and commercial land uses. Regional access to the project site is provided from SR 70/99 and I-5. Local access to the project site is provided by Elkhorn Boulevard. (DEIR, p. 3-1.)
The project site is located approximately 1 mile east of the Sacramento International Airport. The western two-thirds of the project site is locat ed within the airport overflight safety zone. The airport overflight safety zone defines the area in which airplanes taking off or landing have the greatest opportunity to fly directly over the project site. (DEIR, p. 3-1.)
Project Site
The project site consists of 12 parcels of land that have been in agricultural production and agricultural support uses. The site is currently fallow; however, the site has historically been rotated from fallow to active crop cultivation conditions. The majority of the site consists of former rice fields and associated water canals. Other crops that have been cultivated on- site include alfalfa and hay. A racehorse training facility was located in the northwest corner of the project site but it has since been demolished and only some remnant building foundations and the dirt racetrack remain. Other buildings that were present on the project site include agricultural outbuildings, greenhouses, and other support structures (e.g., wells). All on-site buildings have been demolished and removed from the site. (DEIR, p. 3-
1.)
Project Characteristics
The project includes the construction of a range of housing types (e.g., high, medium, low density) that would be located within close proximity to public transportation systems. The proposed land use plan is a predominantly residential development centered on a common lake/detention basin (approx imately 39 acres). A total of 3,473 housing units and approximately 27.5 net acres of retail and commercial space would be provided on-site. A 10-acre (net) elementary school would be pr ovided in the southeastern portion of the project site and would meet the school demands of the project site. A total of eight neighborhood parks (48.5 net acres) would be provided throughout the community and would be connected by the central lake/ detention and pedestrian paths and trails. The project also incorporates a 250-foot linear open space/buffer along the western edge of the site adjacent to Lone Tree Canal (measured from the center of the canal) for the protection Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
13 of giant garter snake habitat. This area is proposed to be preserved as natural habitat and would only undergo periodic maintenance activities to ensure that the primary objective of providing quality giant garter snake habitat is preserved. No facilities (e.g., trails, paths) or other activities would occur within this co rridor. Two other groundwat er wells would be constructed near the lake/det ention basin and would be periodically used (if at all) to maintain adequate water levels in the lake/detention basin. The project applicant would also grant a navigation easement over the project site to the Sacramento International Airport.
This easement would require title notification to future residents of the project site that aircraft operations occur less than 1-mile eas t of the site and those occupants could be subject to increased noise levels associated with aircraft overflights. (DEIR, p. 3-6.)
The project would also provide an age-restricted facility that provides housing for seniors and retirees to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Section 17.190 of City of Sacramento Zoning Code). The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires that 10% of housing units in new developments be affordable to very low income households and 5% of housing units affordable to low income households. Development of senior housing would create a re tirement community that would serve very low and low income households and would increase the mixt ure of housing types within the project. (DEIR, p. 3-6.)
Medium and high density housing and retail land uses would be located in the center of the project site along a new arterial (Meister Way) that connects the project site to the North Natomas Community to the east via a new overpass over SR 70/99 and Metro Air Park to the west. Easements would be provided for a new light rail station to be constructed along this new roadway arterial by Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) and RT intends to provide a new light rail stop along RT’s proposed Down town-Natomas-Airport light rail line.
Commercial development would be primarily loca ted in the northeastern portion of the project site along Elkhorn Boulevard. The pr oject includes the construction of 155,000 square feet of large-format retail uses (i ncluding a 10,000-square- foot garden center), 67,000 square feet of grocery uses, and 66,000 square feet of retail shops on the village and community commercial designated parcels for a total of 288,000 square feet of commercial services. (DEIR, p. 3-6.)
The project includes several park and open space features including, greenbelt areas along I-5, SR 70/99, and Elkhorn Boulevard, a 250-foot linear open space/buffer along Lone Tree Canal (measured from the center of the canal), for the prot ection of giant garter snake habitat, bike and pedestrian trails located throughout the proposed community, and 48.4 net acres of parks. A 10-acre neighborhood park would be located adjacent to the proposed elementary school in the southeast portion of the site. A total of six smaller park sites (i.e., park sites ranging from 2 to 6 acres) would be located in the eastern half of the project site north and south of Meister Wa y. A 23-acre community park site would be located in the northeast quadrant of the project site. (DEIR, p. 3-10.)
The project includes the construction of the Meister Way overpass over SR 70/99. This overpass would generally be located near the center of the project site and would connect the project site to the Nort h Natomas Community east of the project site. In addition, Meister Way would be extended west of the project site once the Metro Air Park project is constructed. The proposed overpass would consist of two lanes (one lane in each direction) and pedestrian sidewalks on either side of the roadway. The overpass would extend from Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
14 East Commerce Way east of the site to its fi rst intersection within the project site. The project applicant would contribute its fair share to funding this improvement, which would ultimately be constructed under the direction of the City. (DEIR, p. 3-11.)
The project site is located along the proposed Downtown-Natomas-Airport light rail line and includes dedication of a corridor that could accommodate a future transit stop and light rail alignment located near the c enter of the project site along the proposed Meister Way roadway. The light rail stati on would provide public transportation access to downtown Sacramento, Sacramento Airport, and Metro Air Park. (DEIR, p. 3-11.)
Discretionary Actions
Annexation and SOI Expansion
The project site is currently located in the County of Sacramento, adjacent to and west of the corporate limits and SOI of the City of Sa cramento, and outside the City of Sacramento’s SOI. The applicant requests appr oval by the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for amendment of the City’s SOI and annexation of the project site into the City. (DEIR, p. 3-6.) LAFCo approved the SOI amendment on September 19, 2007.
A variety of public services would be provi ded to the project site by the City and other local/regional service agencies including the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) (wastewater), City of Sacramento (water, parks and recreation, fire, and police), Reclamation District Number 1000 (RD 1000) (stormwater), Rio Linda Union School District and Grant Joint Union High School District (schools), Sacramento Police Department, and Sacramento Fire Department. (DEIR, p. 3-6.)
The project site lies within the service area of these service providers with the exception of the SRCSD and Sacramento Police Department. The project site is adjacent to and east of the SRCSD’s SOI. As such, before SRCSD can provide service to the project site, the project would require approval from LAFCo for the amendment of SRCSD’s SOI to include the project site. The City would be responsible for providing law enforcement services after annexation of the project site into the city. (DEIR, p. 3-9.)
General Plan Amendment, General Plan Update, and SACOG
The project would require the amendment of the City’s existing general plan land use designations on the project site from AG-80 (agricultural cropland uses/80 acre minimum lot size) to land use designations that would be consistent with proposed land uses. The project would also amend the boundaries of the NNCP. The project includes the adoption of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guideli nes and the Greenbriar Finance Plan, which would guide development of the project. (DEIR, p. 3-9.)
The project would generally be consistent with the City of Sacramento General Plan Update Vision and Guiding Principles document adopted in November 2005, and SACOG’s Seven Principles of Smart Growth used to develop the regional blueprint. The project’s compliance with these two sets of br oad policy directives will be described in the Planned Unit Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
15 Development Design Guidelines prepared for the project. The City will consider adoption of the Planned Unit Development Design Guidelines as one of several discretionary actions necessary to approve the project. (DEIR, p. 3-10.)
Zoning Amendment
The project would also require a zoning amendment to change the City’s existing zoning designations for the project site from the current designation of AG-80 (agricultural cropland uses / 80 acre minimum lot size) to zoning designations that are consistent with proposed land uses. (DEIR, p. 3-10.)
Co-Lead Agencies
On November 1, 2005, the City and LAFCo entered into a MOU by which the two entities agreed to have a single EIR prepared to evaluate the environmental consequences of the proposed project. Under this MOU, the City and LAFCo established themselves as co-lead agencies for the EIR and defined their respective roles and responsibilities relating to the oversight and management of t he EIR to ensure that it would adequately address the environmental issues reviewed by both the City and LAFCo. (FEIR, p. 1-1.)
The City is responsible for approving the pr oject and its associated entitlements, while LAFCo is responsible for approving SOI amendment as the lead agency including the approval of SOI amendment for SRCSD’s service area and annexation of the project site to the City as a responsible agency. (DEIR, p. 1-2.)
Findings Required Under CEQA
1. Procedural Findings
The City Council of the City of Sacramento finds as follows:
Based on the initial study conducted for the Greenbriar project, SCH # 2005062144, the City of Sacramento’s Envir onmental Planning Services determined, on substantial evidence, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and prepared an environmental impact report (“EIR”) on the Project. The EIR wa s prepared, noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and complet ed in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), and the City of Sacramento environmental guidelines, as follows:
a. A Notice of Preparati on of the Draft EIR was filed with the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency and each federal agency involved in approving or funding the Project on June 28, 2005, and was circulated for public comments from June 28, 2005 to July 29, 2005. The written comments received have been included in the EIR as Appendix A.
b. A public scoping meeting to receiv e comments regarding the issues to be covered in the EIR was held on July 13, 2005 at the Natomas Service Center Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
16 in Sacramento, California. The transcript of comments received have been included in the EIR as Appendix A.
c. A Recirculated Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was filed with the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency and each federal agency involved in approving or funding the Project on August 16, 2005, and was circulated for public co mments from August 16, 2005 to September 16, 2005. The written comments received have been included in the EIR as Appendix A.
d. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Office of Planning and Research on July 19, 2006, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law wit h respect to the Project, or which exercise authority over re sources that may be affected by the Project, or which exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agenc ies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies were sought.
e. An official 45-day public comment per iod for the Draft EIR was established by the Office of Planning and Research. The public comment period began on July 19, 2006 and ended on September 5, 2006.
f. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was mailed to all interested groups, organizations, and individuals who had previously requested notice in writing on July 19, 2006. The NOA stat ed that the City of Sacramento and Sacramento LAFCo had completed the Dr aft EIR and that copies were available at the City of Sacramento, Development Services Department, New City Hall, 915 I Street, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. The letter also indicated that the official 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR would end on September 5, 2006.
g. The NOA was advertised in the Da ily Recorder, mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Pr oject boundaries, posted in the office of the Sacramento City Clerk and Sacramento County Clerk, and posted on the Project site.
h. Based on comments received regardi ng the Draft EIR, the co-lead agencies determined that certain portions of the Draft EIR should be revised and recirculated to address new information related to the ability of local levees to protect the site from flooding during the 100-year flood event, and additional information relating to exposure of project residents to diesel emissions from Interstate 5 and State Route 70/99. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) were distributed to the Office of Planning and Research on November 14, 2006, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, or which exercise authority over resources that may be affected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies were sought.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
17 i. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the RDEIR was mailed on November 14, 2006 to all interested groups, organizations, and individuals who had previously requested notice in writing. The NOA stated that the City of Sacramento and Sacramento LAFCo had completed the RDEIR and that copies were available at the City of Sacramento, Development Services Department, New City Hall, 915 I Street, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. The letter also indica ted that the official forty-five (45) day public review period for the RDEIR would end on January 2, 2007.
j. The NOA was advertised in the Da ily Recorder, mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Pr oject boundaries, posted in the office of the Sacramento City Clerk and Sacrament o County Clerk and posted on the Project site.
k. Subsequent to publication of the RDEIR, the City and LAFCo reviewed new information regarding the potential fo r a new significant and unavoidable traffic impact to freeway ramps. The City and LAFCo therefore decided to prepare a Second RDEIR to address this issue.
l. The NOA for the Second RDEIR was mailed on April 10, 2007 to all interested groups, organizations, and individuals who had previously requested notice in writing. The NOA stated that the City of Sacramento and Sacramento LAFCo had completed the Second RDEIR and that copies were available at the City of Sacramento, Development Services Department, New City Hall, 915 I Street, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. The letter also indicated that the official forty-five (45) day public review period for the Second RDEIR would end on May 25, 2007.
m. The NOA for the Second RDEIR was adv ertised in the Daily Recorder, mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Project boundaries, posted in the office of the Sacramento City Clerk and Sacramento County Clerk and posted on the Project site.
n. A Water Supply Assessment was pr epared pursuant to SB 610. The Water Supply Assessment was reviewed and approved by the Sacramento City Council on October 31, 2006.
o. Following closure of the public comm ent periods, all comments received on the Draft EIR, RDEIR, and Second RDEIR during the comment periods, the City’s written responses to the significant environmental points raised in those comments, and additional information added by the City were added to the Draft EIR, RDEIR and Second RDEIR to produce the Final EIR.
LAFCo will prepare its own procedural findings of fact for its consideration of the SOI amendment and annexation.
2. Record of Proceedings
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
18 For the purposes of CEQA, and the findings herein set forth, the administrative record for the Project consists of thos e items listed in Public Re sources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e). The record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of the following documents, at a minimum, which are incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings:
• The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
• The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Greenbriar Development Project and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Greenbriar Development Project and all document s relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The Second Recirculated Draft Environm ental Impact Report for the Greenbriar Development Project and all document s relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, the 45-day comment period for the RDEIR, and the 45-day comment period for the Second RDEIR;
• All comments and correspondence submitt ed to the City with respect to the Project, in addition to timely comment s on the Draft EIR, RDEIR and Second RDEIR;
• The Final Environmental Impact Report fo r the Greenbriar Development Project, including the Planning Commission staff report, minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing; Resolution of the Planning Commission relating to the EIR; City Council staff report; minutes of the City Council public hearing; comments received on the Draft EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR and Second Recirculated Draft EIR; the City’s res ponses to those comments; technical appendices; and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference;
• The mitigation monitoring and r eporting program for the Project;
• All findings and resolutions adopted by t he City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
• All reports, studies, memoranda, maps , staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with res pect to the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City's action on the Project;
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
19 • All documents submitted to the City by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the Project, up through the close of the public hearings on ______________, and _______________;
• Any minutes and/or verbatim transcrip ts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project;
• Any documentary or other evidence submi tted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
• All resolutions adopted by the City regar ding the Project, and a ll staff reports, analyses, and summaries related to the adoption of those resolutions;
• The City of Sacramento General Plan, City of Sacramento, January, 1988 and all updates;
• Environmental Impact Repor t City of Sacramento General Plan Update, City of Sacramento, March, 1987 and all updates;
• Matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and regulations;
• Findings of Fact and Statement of Overri ding Considerations for the Adoption of the Sacramento General Plan Update, City of Sacramento, 1988 and all updates;
• Zoning Code of the City of Sacramento;
• Blueprint Preferred Scenario for 2050, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, December, 2004;
• Any documents expressly ci ted in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
• Any other materials required for the reco rd of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
Pursuant to Guidelines section 15091(e), the administrative record of these proceedings is located, and may be obtained fr om, the City of Sacramento Development Services Department, Environmental Planning Serv ices, 2101 Arena Boulevard, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95834. The custodian of these documents and other materials is the Development Services Department, Environmental Planning Services.
3. Findings
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt miti gation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environment impacts that would Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
20 otherwise occur. Mitigation measures or al ternatives are not r equired, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, sub. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which signific ant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, sub. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, sub. (b).)
In seeking to effectuate the substantive policy of CEQA to substant ially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the ext ent feasible, an agency, in adopting findings, need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an “acceptable” level solely by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of any envir onmentally superior alternative that could also substantially less en or avoid that same impact — even if the alternative would render the impact less se vere than would the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Associati on v. Regents of the University of California (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)
In these Findings, the City first addresses the extent to which each significant environmental effect can be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Only after determining that, even wit h the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, an effect is significant and unavoidable does the City address the extent to which alternatives described in the EIR are (i) environmentally superior with respect to that effect and (ii) “feasible” within the meaning of CEQA.
In cases in which a project’s significant effects cannot be mitigated or avoided, an agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the “benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.” (Public Resources Code, Section 21081, sub. (b); see also, CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, sub.(b).) In the Statement of Overriding Considerations found at the end of these Findings, the City identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that, in its judgment, outweigh the significant environmental effects that the Project will cause.
The California Supreme Cour t has stated that “[t]he wis dom of approving ... any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interp ret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 at 576.)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
21 In support of its approval of the Project, the City Council makes the following findings for each of the significant environmental effects and alternatives of the Project identified in the EIR pursuant to Section 21080 of CEQA and section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines:
A. Significant or Potentially Signifi cant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level.
The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, including cumulative impacts, are being mitigated to a less than significant level and are set out below. Pursuant to section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA and section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, as to each such impact, the City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, finds that changes or alterations incorporated into the Project by means of conditions or otherwise, mitigate, avoid or substantially lessen to a level of insignificance these significant or potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. The basis for the finding for each identified impact is set forth below.
1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 6.1
1 Impacts to Study Intersections. Traffic volumes associated with the project would cause several study ar ea intersections (i.e., Elverta Road and SR 70/99, Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road, SR 70/99 NB Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard, Elk horn Boulevard and East Commerce Way, Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1, Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1, and Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1) to operate unacceptably and exceed City and County th resholds of significance for intersection operations. Because study area intersections would operate unacceptably as a result of the project, this would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. (DEIR, p. 6.1-50)
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level:
6.1-1a: Develop a Finance Plan ( City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
The applicant shall be required to develop the Greenbriar Finance Plan for review and approval by the City prior to annexation. The plan shall identify the financing mechanisms for all feasible transportati on improvements defined as mitigation measures, including but not limited to, new roadways, roadways widening, traffic signals, and public transit. The project applicant shall coordinate the preparation of the finance plan with the City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and the Metro Air Park Public Facilities Financing Plan. All mitigation measures with “fair share” contributions would be implemented through the proposed financing mechanism(s) indicated in the finance plan or by some other mechanism as determined by the City of Sacramento in consultation with the Sacramento County. The Greenbriar Finance Plan shall be adopted by the City at the time the project is considered for approval.
A copy of the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan is included in Appendix C of the DEIR.
6.1-1b: Meister Way Overpass (City of Sacramento)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
22 The project applicant in coordination with the City shall ensure that the Meister Way overpass is constructed and in operation on or before 65% buildout of the project based on total project trips. With implem entation of this improvement, operating conditions at study area intersections would substantially improve as shown in Table
6.1-30 of the DEIR. Exhibi t 6.1-16 of the DEIR shows the Baseline plus Project peak-hour turning movement volumes with the Meister Way overpass and Exhibit
6.1-17 of the DEIR shows the Baseline plus Project lane configurations with Meister Way overpass.
Table 6.1-30 of the DEIR compares the peak-hour intersection operating conditions for Baseline No Project conditions with that of Baseline plus Project conditions with the Meister Way – SR 70/99 overpass. (DEIR, p. 6.1-56.)
Construction of this improvement would primarily occur on the project site; therefore, site specific environmental impacts have been evaluated throughout the DEIR.
However, this improvement would also extend east of SR 70/99 to East Commerce Way. Areas east of the project site are developed or are currently developing with urban land uses. The City has recently purchased the right-of-way for this improvement. Impacts associated with cons truction of this improvement would generally consist of construction-rela ted air, noise, and traffic impacts and operational traffic impacts (e.g., re-distribut ion of local traffic trips). Construction- related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure.
Operational impacts associated with this improvement have been evaluated and are described in Table 6.1-30 of the DEIR and throughout the DEIR (i.e., air, noise, and biological resources). Because land for this improvement has been secured by the City, a financing mechanism would be est ablished to ensure the funding (see Mitigation Measure 6.1-1a), and construc tion of this improvement, and no new significant environmental impacts not alr eady identified or ev aluated in the DEIR would occur, this improvement would be considered feasible.
Although this improvement would substantially reduce the project’s impacts to study area intersections, some intersections would continue to operate unacceptably and additional mitigation would be required to improve these intersections to an acceptable operation level. Further, other traffic improvements are necessary to ensure the safe operation of the local roadway network. As described in Table 6.1- 30 of the DEIR, with implementation of this recommended measure, the intersection of SR 70/99 southbound ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard would improve to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour and the intersec tion of Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 2 would improve to LOS D during the a.m. peak hour. The following mitigation measures would further reduce impacts to remaining study area intersections.
6.1-1c: Elverta Road and SR 70/99 (City of Sacramento, Caltrans, County)
Before issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall restripe the westbound Elverta Road approach to provi de two left turn lanes, and a shared through-right turn lane (currently, a left turn lane, a shared left turn-through lane, and Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
23 a right turn lane). Available right-of way cu rrently exists at this intersection to implement this mitigation measure. Construction outside existing right-of-way would not be required. Based on “windshield surv eys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site.
Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, operation of this intersection would improve to LOS D, which is acceptable based on Caltrans and County standards. Therefore, impacts to th is intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-1d: Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road (City of Sacramento and County)
On or before 50% buildout of the project based on total project trip generation, the project applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road intersection. Existing right-of- way is available to accommodate this improvement. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the operation of this intersection would improve to LOS B under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable based on City and County standards. Ther efore, impacts to this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-1e: SR 70/99 Northbound Ramp s and Elkhorn Boulevard (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Prior to project approval, the project applicant in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City) toward the installation of a traffic signal at the SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard intersection and s hall install the traffic signal before recordation of the first map. The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement including funds collected through the Metro Air Park Finance Plan and the No rth Natomas Public Facilities Finance Plan. Existing right-of-way is available to accommodate this improvement. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the proj ect would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the operation of this intersection would improve to LOS D under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable based on City and Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
24 County standards. Therefore, impacts to th is intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-1f: Elkhorn Boulevard and E. Commerce Way (City of Sacramento)
Before project approval, the project applic ant shall in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fund necessary traffic mitigation.
This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City) toward the installation of a traffic signal at the Elkhorn Boulevard/East Commerce Way intersection. The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to implement this improvement. Existing right-of-way is available to accommodate this improvement. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction- related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the operation of this intersection would improve to LOS C under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acc eptable based on City standards. Therefore, impacts to this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-1g: Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1 (City of Sacramento)
On or before the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal at the Elkhorn Boul evard/Project Street 1 intersection. With implementation of this mitigation measure the operation of this intersection would improve to LOS A under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable based on City standards. Therefore, impacts to th is intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-1h: Elkhorn Boulevard and Projec t Street 2 (City of Sacramento)
On or before the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall install a traffic signal at the Elkhorn Boul evard/Project Street 2 intersection. With implementation of this mitigation measure the operation of this intersection would improve to LOS A under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable based on City standards. Therefore, impacts to th is intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-57.)
Mitigation Measure 6.1-i: Elkhorn B oulevard and Project Street 3 (City of Sacramento)
On or before issuance of the first occupancy permit, the project applicant shall make revisions to the project plans so that th is intersection will be restricted to right in/ right out access only. With implementation of this mitigation measure the operation of this intersection would improve to LOS B under Baseline plus Project conditions, Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
25 which is acceptable based on City standards. Therefore, impacts to this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-58.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Because the project would either cause an intersection that currently operates unacceptably to exceed the City or County’ s applicable thresholds or would cause intersections that currently operate acceptably to degrade to an unacceptable condition, the project would result in significant impacts to study area intersections. With implementation of the above mitigation measures however, the intersection of SR 70/99 southbound ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard would improve to LOS D during the p.m. peak hour and the intersection of Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1 would improve to LOS D during the a.m. peak hour which is acceptable based on Caltrans and County standards The operation of the intersection of Elverta Road and SR 70/99 would improve to LOS D and the operation of the intersection of Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road would improve to LOS B under Baseline plus Project conditi ons which is acceptable based on Caltrans and Sacramento County standards. The operation of the intersection of Elkhorn Boulevard and E. Commerce Way would improve to LOS D under Baseline plus Project conditions.
Additionally, with the installation of two tra ffic signals at the Elkhorn Boulevard/Project Street 1 and Elkhorn Boulevard/ Project Street 2 intersections and restricting the traffic operation at the intersection of Elkhorn Blvd and Project Street 3 to right in/right out access only, the operation of these in tersections would improve to LOS A under Baseline plus Project conditions. Therefore, all of the pr oject’s study intersections would operate at acceptable levels and these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
Impact
6.1-2
Impacts to Study Area Roadway Segments. The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on study ar ea roadway segments (i.e., Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Inte rchange and Meister Way west of SR 70/99) and would cause these segment s to degrade from an acceptable operating condition (i.e., LOS A) to an unacceptable operating condition (i.e., LOS F). Because study ar ea roadway segments would operate unacceptably as a result of the project, this would be a significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-2a: Meister Way Overpass (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.1-1b above (i.e., construct Meister Way overpass). Tabl e 6.1-32 of the DEIR summarizes the roadway segment operation conditions for Baseline No Project conditions and Baseline plus Project conditions with the Meister way overpass. As shown in the table, even with implementation of the Meister Way overpass, two of the project’s study roadway segments (i.e., Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Interchange and Meister Way west of SR 70/99) would continue to operate unacceptably under Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
26 Baseline plus Project conditions. Therefor e, additional measures are required for these intersections.
6.1-2b: Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Interchange (City of Sacramento and County)
On or before 60% total buildout of the project based on trip generation, the project applicant shall widen Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 interchange to Lone Tree road to provide two travel lanes in each direction. Right-of-way for the recommended widening is currently available and has been secured by the City. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the proj ect would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, this roadway segment would improve to LOS A under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable bas ed on City standards.
Therefore, impacts to this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-2c: Meister Way west of SR 70/99 (City of Sacramento)
On or before 66% total buildout of the project based on trip generation, the project applicant shall widen Meister Way west of SR 70/99 to provide two travel lanes in each direction from the fi rst street intersection of SR70/99 (Meister Way and 28 Street/36 Street [identified on the tentative map]) west to Lone Tree Road. Right-of- way for the recommended widening is currently available on-site. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the proj ect would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this roadway segment would improve to LOS D under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable bas ed on City standards.
Therefore, impacts to this intersection would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the projec t would result in the proj ect’s study roadway segments degrading from LOS A to LOS F, which is unacceptable based on City operating standards.
With implementation of t he above mitigation measures Elkhorn Boulevard and Meister Way west of SR 70/99 would operate at an acceptable LOS A. Therefore, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-59.)
Impact
6.1-5
Cumulative Traffic Impacts to Study Area Intersections. Traffic volumes associated with the project in combination with other reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would cause several study area intersections to operate unacceptably and exceed City County, and Caltrans thresholds of Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
27 significance for intersection operati ons. This would be a significant cumulative impact and the project’s contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable and (for impacts to SR 70/99 Southbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard, SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard, Metro Air Parkway and I-5 Northbound Ramps, and Meister Way and E. Commerce Way intersections) would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-5a Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road (City of Sacramento and County)
The project applicant shall provide an expanded intersection with a right turn pocket length of 200 feet for vehicles turning right onto northbound Lone Tree Road from the westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approach. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the project would increase the average delay at this intersection by only
2.8 seconds, which is below City standar ds (i.e., 5 seconds). Construction associated with this mitigation measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site and therefore no new environmental impacts would occur. The applicant in consultation with the City shall coordinate with County to secure additional right-of-way for this improvement.
However, because this intersection is located within the County and is not subject to the City’s jurisdiction, implementation of this measure can not be guaranteed.
Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
6.1-5b SR 70/99 Southbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project applic ant shall in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism s hall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City and Caltrans) toward the restriping of the SR 70/99 southbound off-ramp approach to provide a left-turn lane, a shared left turn-right turn lane, and two right-turn lanes (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement. Sufficient right- of-way would be available with the future intersection configuration to accommodate these improvements without resulting in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS D and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
28 6.1-5c: SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhor n Boulevard (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project app licant shall coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism s hall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City) toward the restriping of the SR 70/99 northbound off-ramp approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a shared left turn-right turn lane, and a right-turn lane (cumulat ive base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement. Sufficient right-of-way would be available with the future intersection lane configuration to accommodate these improvements without resulting in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-5d: Metro Air Parkway and I-5 Northbound Ramps (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City) toward the restriping of the I-5 northbound off-ramp approach to provide a left- turn lane, a shared left turn-right turn lane and two right-turn lanes (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement.
This improvement would not require any additional right-of-way and would not in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS F in the a.m. and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-5e Meister Way and Metro Air Parkway (City of Sacramento)
Adding a left-turn lane and restriping the westbound Meister Way approach to provide two left-turn lanes and a shared, through right-turn lane (cumulative base lane geometry assumes a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane) would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, construction of this mitigation measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way which is Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
29 not controlled by the applicant. Although im plementation of this measure would reduce the project’s cumulative impacts to this intersection to a less-than-significant level, it is unknown whether additional right-of-way could be secured and whether this measure would be implemented. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
6.1-5f: Meister Way and Lone Tree Road (City of Sacramento)
Adding a left-turn lane for the eastbound and westbound Meister Way approaches, and southbound Lone Tree Road approach would im prove the operations of this intersection to LOS C and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Sufficient right-of-way could be secur ed by the applicant for the westbound approach; however, right-of-way along eastbound and southbound approach is controlled by the County and not within the City’s jurisdiction. Although implementation of this measure would reduc e the project’s cumulative impacts to this intersection to a less-than-significant level, it is unknown whether additional right-of-way could be secured and whether this measure would be implemented.
Therefore, for purposes of CE QA, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
6.1-5g: Meister Way and E. Commerce Way (City of Sacramento)
On or before 65% buildout of the project based on the project’s total trips, the project applicant shall revise the improvement pl an to provide a left-turn lane for the northbound East Commerce Way approach, an additional lane for the eastbound Meister Way approach, and restripe t he eastbound Meister Way approach to provide a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane (base cumulative lane geometry assumed to have a shared left turn-right turn lane for the eastbound approach).
Sufficient right-of-way is currently available to accommodate these improvements without resulting in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the proj ect would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS C and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
6.1-5h: Elkhorn Boulevard and Projec t Street 1 (City of Sacramento)
Construction of an additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approaches (cumulative base lane geometry assumes three through lanes in each direction on Elkhorn Boulevard) would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way beyond the maxi mum right-of-way proposed by the City/County for this roadway. No other feas ible measures are available to reduce this impact because of limited right-of-way. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
30 6.1-5i: Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 2 (City of Sacramento)
Construction of an additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approaches (cumulative base lane geometry assumes three through lanes in each direction on Elkhorn Boulevard) would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this m easure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way beyond the maximum right-of-way proposed by the City/ County for this roadway. No ot her feasible measures are available to reduce this impact because of limited right-of-way. T herefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
6.1-5j: Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 3 (City of Sacramento)
Construction of an additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approaches (cumulative base lane geometry assumes three through lanes in each direction on Elkhorn Boulevard) would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way beyond the ultimate right-of-way proposed by the City for this roadway. To improve the operations of this intersection under cumulative conditions, before buildout of the project, the project applicant shall restrict the left turn in/out movement at this intersection so that it will be right in/ right out movement only with a stop sign control on the side street. Alt hough the operation of this intersection would improve, it would not cause this intersection to operate at an acceptable level (e.g., LOS D or better). No other mitigation is available to reduce this impact. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect for the SR 70/99 Southbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard, SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard, Metro Air Parkway and I-5 Northbound Ramps, and Meister Way and E. Commerce Way intersections, as identified in the Final EIR. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the SR 70/ 99 Southbound and SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D and E respectively based on Caltrans and County standards. Metro Air Parkway and I-5 Northbound Ramps would operate at LOS E in the p.m. which is acceptable based on Sacramento County Thresholds of Significance, and Meister Way and E. Commerce Way would operate at an acceptable LOS C. Therefore, the project's cumulative impacts would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-72)
The impacts to Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road, Meister Way and Metro Air Parkway, Meister Road and Lone Tree Road, El khorn Boulevard and Project Street 1, Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 2, and Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 3, each of which remains significant and unavoidable , are discussed in Section C of these findings. For these impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
31 Impact
6.1-6
Cumulative Impacts to Study Area Roadway Segments. The proposed project in combination with cumulati ve projects would increase traffic volumes on study area roadway segments and would cause these segments (i.e., Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Interchange, Metro Air Parkway north of I-5 Interchange, and Me ister Way west of SR 70/99) to degrade from an acceptable operating c ondition (i.e., LOS A) to an unacceptable operating condition (i.e., LOS F). Because study area roadway segments would operate unacceptably as a result of the project, this would be a significant impact that (for impacts to Meister Way west of SR 70/99) would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-6a Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Interchange (City of Sacramento)
Widening Elkhorn Boulevard to eight lanes (4 in each direction) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City includes widening of Elkhorn Boulevard to six lanes within its General Plan; widening to eight lanes is not feasible nor planned by the City. Ther efore, before project appr oval, the project applicant shall, in coordination with the City, establish a funding mechanism to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan present ed in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs towards widening Elkhorn Boulevard to six lanes west of the SR 70/99 Interchange (the number of lanes planned by the City of Sacramento). The City and developers of the MAP project have identif ied 100% of the funding necessary to widen the Elkhorn Boulevard/ SR 70/99 overpass to six lanes. No other feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. Therefore, while reduced, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.1-6b Meister Way west of SR 70/99 (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation measure 6.1-2c. With implementation of this mitigation measur e, this segment would operate at LOS B and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environm ental effect for Meis ter Way west of SR 70/99. With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the Meister Way west of SR 70/99 segment would operate at acceptable LOS B under cumulative conditions and the project’s cumulative impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p.
6.1-74)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
32 However, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s cumulative impacts to the Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 interchange segment. Therefore, as is discussed in Section C of these findings, while changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect, no mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact
6.1-9
Pedestrian and Bicycl e Circulation Impacts. The project would add pedestrian demands within the project site and to and from proposed commercial, retail, and light-rail l and uses. Specific information on improvements to on and off-site bi cycle and pedestrian facilities is not available at this time. Becaus e the project would add demand for pedestrians and bicycle facilities for which facilities may not be available.
This would be a potentially significant bicycle and pedestrian circulation impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Fac ilities (City of Sacramento)
a. Prior to recordation of the first map, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City of Sacramento Development Engineering and Finance Division to identify the necessary on- and off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities to serve the proposed development. These facilities shall be incorporated into the project and could include: sidewal ks, stop signs, in-pavement lighted crosswalks, standard pedestrian and school crossing warning signs, lane striping to provide a bicycle lane, bicycle parking, signs to identify pedestrian and bicycle paths, marked and raised cr osswalks, and pedestrian signal heads.
b. Circulation and access to all proposed parks and public spaces shall include sidewalks that meet Americans with Disability Act Standards.
c. The project applicant shall dedicate a buffer along the edges of the project site (south, east, and west) to the City of Sacramento. This buffer shall be landscaped by the project applicant and shall provide space for future 10-foot off-street bikeways that would connect residents and employees to the NNCP area and other Class I bike facilities. The buffer on the western edge of the project site shall not encroach on the 250-foot linear open space/buffer proposed for giant garter snake habitat.
d. The project applicant shall provide on- street bicycle lanes 5-6-feet wide within the community. Details on the design and siting of these bike lanes shall be done in consultation with the City of Sacramento Development Engineering and Finance Division.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
33 e. Bicycle parking shall conform to City standards and shall be located in high visibility areas to encourage bicycle travel. Class I (i.e., bicycle lockers) and Class II (i.e., racks) bicycle facilitie s shall be provided throughout the commercial areas of the project, at a ratio of 1 bicycle storage space for every 20 off-street vehicle parking spac es required. Fifty percent of the storage spaces shall be Class I facilitie s and the remaining 50% shall be Class II facilities.
f. The project applicant shall provide re sidents, tenants, and employees of the project site with information regar ding the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) Rideshare bicycle commuting program.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
The project would construct sidewalks and pedestrian paths throughout the development.
These sidewalks would provide pedestrian connections within the site and to the proposed commercial, retail, and light rail land uses . Further, a pedestrian sidewalk would be provided along the Meister Way overpass and would allow pedestrians to access areas east of SR 70/99. With implementation of this mitigation measure, adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be provided at the project site in accordance with City standards.
This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-84)
Impact 6.1-10Demand for Public Transportation. Public transit is not currently provided to the project site. At the time the project application was submitted to the City, no plans for the provision of public transit services were proposed. The project would increase demands for public transit facilities, none of which are proposed to be provided to the project site. Therefore, the project would result in a significant public transportation impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-10 (City of Sacramento)
a. Prior to the construction and operation of RT’s proposed LRT station along Meister Way, the project applicant shall fund and operate an interim shuttle/bus transportation service for residents and patrons of the project site.
The project applicant shall develop this interim transit service in consultation with the City of Sacrament o and the RT. The interim transit service shall provide transit services for peak commu te periods. To promote the use of public transit services, the projec t applicant at the sale of proposed residences shall promote the availability of transit services. Once demand for public transit services reaches 50 service requests, the project applicant shall begin to provide transit services and shall increase those services in proportion to the development levels and increased rider ship levels occurring on the project site.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
34 b. The transit service shall take resident s to the Central Business District (CBD) (i.e., downtown Sacramento) where they can transfer to light rail, bus, or train and connect to anywhere in greater Sacramento region and to the Bay Area.
The transit service shall connect residents to the following transit services:
Sacramento Regional Transit, El Dorado Transit, Yuba-Sutter Transit, Yolo Bus, Placer County Transit, San Joaqui n Transit, Fairfield/Suisun Transit, Amador Transit, Roseville Transit, ET RAN (Elk Grove), and the Capitol Corridor/Amtrak. Midday service shall also be considered as development and rider ship demands increase. (DEIR, p. 6.1-85)
c. Final design and operati on of the transit service will be subject to the approval of the City and other proposed operating agencies (e.g., RT). (DEIR, p. 6.1-85)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of interim public transportation services, the project would ensure that public transportation demands would be adequately met until public transportation services are provided to the project site by RT. See also Response to Comment 29-59 regarding funding, administration, and termination of the interim service. (FEIR, p. 4-496.) This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-84)
Impact 6.1-
11 Construction-Related Impacts . Construction activi ties for the project would result in the generation of 50 one-way truck trips per day associated with construction activities and 500 one-way vehicle trips (250 construction workers on-site on a worst-case basis) associated with construction personnel. All construction personnel and vehicles would access the project site from Elkhorn Boulevard and would park in designated areas on the project site. No on-street parking would occur. Although the construction trips would be temporary, because of the size of this project and the large number of personnel required on a daily basis, the project’s construction trips could substantially increase local roadway volumes and interfere with the safe and efficient operation of these roadways. This would be a potentially significant impact, that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-11: (City of Sacramento)
a. Prior to issuance of grading permits fo r the project site, the project applicant shall prepare a detailed Traffic M anagement Plan that will be subject to review and approval by the City Depar tment of Transportation, Caltrans, Sacramento County, and local emergency services providers including the City of Sacramento fire and police departments. The plan shall ensure that acceptable operating conditions on local roadways and freeway facilities are maintained. At a minimum, the plan shall include:
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
35 the number of truck trips, time an day of street closures, time of day of arrival and departure of trucks,
limitations on the size and type of trucks, provision of a truck staging area with a limitation on the number of trucks that can be waiting, provision of a truck circulation pattern,
provision of driveway access plan along Elkhorn Boulevard so that safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bi cycle movements are maintained (e.g., steel plates, minimum distances of open trenches, and private vehicle pick up and drop off areas),
maintain safe and efficient access routes for emergency vehicles, manual traffic control when necessary,
proper advance warning and post ed signage concerning street closures, and
provisions for pedestrian safety.
b. A copy of the construction traffic management plan shall be submitted to local emergency response agencies and these agencies shall be notified at least 14 days before the commencement of construction that would partially or fully obstruct local roadways.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the construction traffi c management plan would ensure the safe and efficient operation of the local roadway system and would reduce the project’s construction- related transportation impacts to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-86)
Impact 6.1-
12 Conformity with City Parking Requirements . A detailed parking plan has not been submitted by the project applicant. As a result, it is unknown whether adequate parking would be prov ided on the project site for residential, commercial, and retail land uses. Therefore, this would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-12: (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall submit a det ailed parking plan for each proposed land use at the time development entitlements (e.g., building permits or special permits) are sought. The parking plan shall ensure that parking provided on the project site would meet the City’s most current parking standards for the proposed land use and it shall identify the number and location of proposed parking spaces including proposed handicap parking spaces. If a light rail station is constructed within project site, then a park and ride lot or park and ride spaces shall be allocated in the retail zoned area in the vicinity of the proposed LRT station. The parking plan shall be Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
36 subject to the review and approval by the City Development Engineering and Finance Division.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
The proposed project intends to provide par king facilities for on-site residences, the proposed school, public park facilities, the proposed light rail station, and proposed commercial and retail land uses. Proposed single-family residences would consist of 2- and 3-car garages in addition to on- street parking spaces. The light rail station, school, commercial, and retail land uses would also provide parking areas for employees and patrons to these land uses. Ho wever, the project applicant has not submitted a detailed parking plan to the City for review. Therefore, it is unknown whether adequate parking in conformance with the City’s parking standards would be provided on-site. Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant parking impact. (DEIR, p. 6.1-87)
With implementation of this mitigation measure, the applic ant is required to provide adequate parking on-site in acco rdance with the City’s standards. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-87)
Impact 6.1-
13 Project Site Access Impacts. The project would construct 5 new access points to the project site along Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road and 3 access points along Meister Way. With implementation of the project and recommended traffic impr ovements, access from Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road woul d be adequate. However, access points along Meister Way would be uncontrolled and with project build out could result in unsafe site access conditions (e.g., long queues of vehicles, left-turns across free flow traffic). Therefore, this would be a potentially significant site access impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-13: (City of Sacramento)
a. Prior to 40% buildout of the projec t site based on total project trips, an exclusive left turn lane and a shared th rough-right turn lane for the project side streets with stop cont rol shall be provided at the three four legged project intersections along Meister Way.
b. An exclusive left turn lane for vehicles turning left from the eastbound and westbound Meister Way approaches shall be provided at these intersections.
Exhibit 6.1-18 of the DEIR shows the proposed traffic controls throughout the project site.
c. Final design and siting of these impr ovements shall be subject to the approval of the City Development Engineering and Finance Division, Development Services Department.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
37 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of the mitigation measure, site a ccess impacts along Meister Way would be improved to provide adequate turni ng opportunities along Meister Way. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-88)
Impact 6.1-
14 Impacts to Internal Circulation. Some elements of the internal roadway network (e.g., long, straight street s) could encourage vehicle speeding, which could lead to vehicle sa fety impact. This would be a potentially significant internal circulation impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-14: Traffic Calming Measures (City of Sacramento)
During review of the projec t’s tentative map and project entitlements, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City to identify roadways where traffic calming measures including but not limited to narrow travel lanes, speed bumps, round-a- bouts, raised intersections, and stop contro ls are needed to ensure the orderly, efficient, and safe flow of traffic. Design and siting of these facilities would be subject to approval by the City Developm ent Engineering and Finance Division, Development Services Department.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of the above mitigation m easure, safe driving conditions within the project site would be ensured and would be consistent with the City’s standards for internal circulation. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1- 90)
Impact 6.1-
15 Impacts to Emergency Vehicle Access . The project would provide adequate emergency access to the projec t site. However, construction vehicles could temporarily obstruct local roadways, which could impair the ability of local agencies to respond to an emergency in the project area.
This would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.1-15: Emergency Access (City of Sacramento)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
38 a. During review of the project’s tent ative map and project entitlements, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City Development Engineering and Finance Division, Development Services Department, Fire Department, and Police Department staff to ensure t hat the roadways provide adequate access for emergency vehicles (i.e., turning radii, lane width).
b. The project applicant shall impl ement mitigation measure 6.1-12 (Construction Traffic Management Plan).
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, adequate emergency access would be provided to the project site during cons truction and operation of the project. This mitigation would reduce the project’s emergency access impacts to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-90)
2. AIR QUALITY
Impact 6.2-5 Exposure to Odor Emissions. Operation of the proposed project could result in the frequent exposure of on-site receptors to substantial objectionable odor emissions. As a result, this impact would be considered significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:
6.2-5: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. To the extent feasible, proposed commercial/convenience land uses that have the potential to emit objectionable odor emissions shall be located as far away as possible from existing and proposed receptors.
b. When permitting the facility that would occupy the proposed commercial/convenience space, the City shall take into consideration its odor-producing potential.
c. If an odor-emitting facility is to occupy space in the commercial/convenience area, the City shall require odor c ontrol devices (e.g., wet chemical scrubbers, activated carbon scrubbers, biologically-active filters, enclosures) to be installed to reduce the exposur e of receptors to objectionable odor emissions.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the above-mentioned mitigation measures would prevent high numbers of odor complaints by ensuring that odor sources are located near sensitive receptors and reduce the affects of any odor-generating fa cilities by addressing odors at the source.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
39 Thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.2-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.2-30)
No major sources of odors have been identified in the project area that would result in the exposure of on-site receptors to existing odorous emissions. Minor sources of odors associated with the proposed project would be primarily associated with the construction of the proposed land uses. The predominant source of power for construction equipment is diesel engines. Exhaust odors from diesel engines, as well as emissions associated with asphalt paving and the application of architectural coatings, may be considered offensive to some individuals. However, because odors would be temporary and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, constructi on-generated odors would not result in the frequent exposure of on-site receptors to obj ectionable odorous emissions. As a result, short-term construction-related odors would be considered less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6.2-29)
3. NOISE
Impact 6.3-1 Short-term Construction Noise . Short-term construction-generated noise levels could exceed City of Sacramento Noise Code standards (Table 6.3-9) or result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels at existing nearby off-site sensitive land uses as well as on-site residences that are constructed and inhabited before other portions of the project are complete. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:
6.3-1. (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
Construction operations shall be limited to the hours between 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Monday through Saturday, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday. (DEIR, p. 6.3-22)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Noise from construction activities between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday are ex empt from the provisions of the City of Sacramento Noise Code. The mitigation m easure discussed above would ensure that construction operations are consistent wit h the exemption prov ided by the City of Sacramento Noise Control Code and that constr uction would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise le vels at noise-sensitive receptors during the more noise- sensitive hours of the day, thereby reducing potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.3-22)
Impact 6.3-4 Land Use Compatibility of Proposed Residential and School Uses with On-site Daily and Hourly Average (Ldn/CNEL and Leq) Noise Levels. With implementation of the proposed project, residential land uses Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
40 (sensitive receptors) proposed on the project site would be exposed to future noise levels generated by area traffic that exceed applicable noise standards. Traffic noise along the border ing segments of I-5, SR 70/99, Elkhorn Boulevard, Lone Tree Road, and on-site Meister Way is estimated to exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn/CNE L exterior noise standard in backyards of single-family homes proposed by the project. Also, the interiors of residential land uses located along these transportation routes would be exposed to interior noise levels that exceed applicable maximum interior noise level standards est ablished by the Cit y of Sacramento General Plan. Therefore, exposure of proposed re sidential land uses to noise generated by traffic would be a significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Noise levels within the project area are influenced by traffic noise associated with vehicle traffic on area roadways, light rail operations , aircraft operations associated with nearby Sacramento International Airport, and agricultural operations on adjacent properties. The levels of noise typically associated with these sources and their compatibility with the proposed sensitive land uses are discussed in detail in the EIR, starting at page 6.3-27.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:
6.3-4: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
The project shall implement the followi ng measures before the occupancy of any proposed uses in the related impact areas , to reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to significant noise associated with surface transportation:
a. For noise impact/mitigation area A (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), a solid (e.g., earth, concrete, masonry, wood, and other materials) noise barrier shall be constructed of 10 feet in height re lative to backyard elevation at the residences located nearest to the southern boundary, stepping down linearly to 6 feet at its northwestern terminus. The wrapped portion of the barrier along the southeast corner shall also st ep down to 6 feet in height at its terminus.
b. For noise impact/mitigation area B (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), the drainage opening shall be shifted to the north by two lots to close the acoustic opening.
c. For noise impact/mitigation area C (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), the spaces between the residences shall be bridged with solid noise barriers (e.g., earth, concrete, masonry, wood, and other materials) of 6 feet in height, rather than conventional wood privacy fences. Gates constructed for access into the rear yard spaces shall be constructed so as not to create appreciable acoustic leaks (e.g., constructed of solid wood, sealed to prevent sound and be continuous in length and height with minimal gap at the ground).
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
41 d. For noise impact/mitigation area D (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), all identified side-on residences shall be r eoriented so that they face the roadways and the backyard spaces w ould be shielded by the residences.
Following the reorienting of the side-on residences, the side space adjacent to the residences shall be bridged in same manner as specified above under c. Furthermore, the side yard privacy fences at end lots shall be replaced with solid noise barriers (e.g., earth, c oncrete, masonry, wood, and other materials) 7 feet in height to adequately shield backyard spaces.
e. For noise impact/mitigation area E (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), it would not be feasible to utilize the types of noise mitigation described above (e.g., walls between individual units), to achieve satisfaction with City noise standards due to the orientation and shape of the residences. As a result, a solid barrier (e.g., earth, concrete, ma sonry, wood, and other materials) consisting of a berm, a wall, or combination thereof, shall be constructed at the approximate location shown in Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR. The barrier shall be 10 feet in height relative to pad el evations of the residences behind the barrier.
f. For noise impact/mitigation area F (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), a solid noise barrier of 8 feet in height shall be constructed to adequately shield Meister Way traffic noise. In addition, because no discrete outdoor activity areas are identified with the higher density residential developments on the north and south sides of Meister Way near the eastern portion of the site, a solid barrier shall be constructed along both sides of Meister Way at these locations (see exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR). Where Meister Way becomes elevated at the portion heading east over Highway 99, the barrier shall extend along the top of the cut (at the roadway elevation), to provide efficient shielding to the residences below.
g. For noise impact/mitigation area H (s ee Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), a solid noise barrier or berm/wall combinati on of 12 feet in height shall be constructed along Elkhorn Boulevard to adequately shield residences which back up to this roadway. In addition, because no discrete outdoor activity areas are identified with the higher density residential developments on the south side of Elkhorn at the northeast corner of the project site, a solid noise barrier or berm/wall combination of 12 feet in height shall be constructed along Elkhorn Boulevard at these locations (see Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR).
The barriers shall be extended inward along the project site access roads.
h. For noise impact/mitigation area I (s ee Exhibit 6.3-6 of the DEIR), a solid noise barrier of 6 feet in height shall be constructed along Lone Tree Road to adequately shield residences which back up to the canal east of and adjacent to this roadway.
i. Prior to issuance of any building permits, site-specific acoustical analyses shall be conducted once construction pl ans are available for residential developments located with the 60 dBA Ldn contours (see Exhibit 6.3-5 of the DEIR) to ensure satisfaction with the City of Sacramento interior noise level Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
42 standards. The acoustical analyses shall evaluate exposure of proposed noise-sensitive receptors to noise generated by surface transportation sources, in accordance with adopted Cit y of Sacramento interior noise standards (Table 6.3-8 of the DEIR). These site-specific acoustical analyses shall also include site-specific design requirements to reduce noise exposure of proposed on-site receptors and all feasible design requirements shall be implemented into the final site design. Noise reduction measures and design features may include, but are not limited to the use of increased noise- attenuation measures in building construction (e.g., dual-pane, sound-rated windows; mechanical air systems; and ex terior wall insulation). Given the predicted future traffic noise environmen t at the exterior facades of the residences nearest to Highway 99 and Interstate 5, upgrades to windows will likely be required at many residences, as well as the use of stucco siding or the acoustic equivalent. Implementati on of these design measures would ensure interior noise levels meet the City’s noise standards.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Noise barriers, as well as any of the other above measures, would achieve an approximate 5 dB noise level reduction w here the line-of-sight from the nearby roadways to the proposed residences would be broken and 1.5 dB of additional noise level reduction for each meter of barrier height beyond the line-of-sight. In addition, as shown in Exhibit 6.3-7 of the DEIR, the partial shielding of ba ckyards would result in an approximate 5 dB reduction; walls between residences an additional 3 dB, and the reorientation of side-on lots to front-on lots an 8 dB reduction. (DEIR, p. 6.3-39)
Implementation of the above mitigation measures of items (a) through (i) would be effective in reducing interior and exterior noise levels of new development to less-than-significant levels. (DEIR, p. 6.3-39)
Impact 6.3-5 Land Use Compatibility of Proposed Residences and School with On- site Aircraft SENL Noise Levels. Exposure of the project site to SENLs generated by aircraft overflights could result in substantial annoyance to on-site sensitive receptors in the forms of speech interference and sleep disruption. Sleep disruption woul d be infrequent, and an overflight easement disclosing that the project would be subject to sleep and speech disruption would be required. This is a less-than-significant impact.
However, students could be exposed to noise generated by aircraft overflights that would result in speech and classroom disruption; this would be a significant impact and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures has been adopted to address this impact:
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
43 6.3-5: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. Prior to issuance of any building permits, site-specific acoustical analyses shall be conducted once construction plans are available for the proposed school to ensure satisfaction with the City of Sacramento interior noise level standards. This site-specific acoustical analyses shall include site-specific design requirements to reduce noise exposure of proposed on-site receptors and all feasible design requirements shall be implemented into the final site design. Noise reduction measures and design features may include, but are not limited to the use of increased noise-attenuation measures in building construction (e.g., dual-pane, sound-rated windows; mechanical air systems; and exterior wall insulation). Implementation of these design measures would ensure interior noise levels meet the City’s noise standards and ANSI standard, including the ANSI standard that the interior of schools shall not exceed 40 dBA Leq and measured during the peak hour of noise during school operations.
This mitigation would reduce the impact to a less than significant level because the interior of school classrooms would be in sulated from noise to the degree that speech disruption would not occur. (DEIR, p. 6.3-42; FEIR, p. 7-12)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate an overflight easement over the entire project site.
The exact wording of the easement is pr oposed to be agreed to by the applicant and SCAS. At a minimum, the overflight eas ement will grant a right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the ai rspace over the property at any altitude above an imaginary surface specif ied in the easement (usually set in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 criteria). The overflight easement will also grant a right to subject the property to noise and vibration associated with normal airport activity. (DEIR, p. 6.3-41)
In addition, recorded deed notices are proposed to be required to ensure that initial and subsequent prospective buyers, lessees, and renters of property on the project site, particularly residential property, are informed that the project site is subject to routine overflights and associated noise by aircraft from Sacramento International Airport, that the frequency of aircraft overflights is routine and expected to increase through the year 2020 and beyond in accordance with the Sacramento International Airport Master Plan, and that such overflights could cause occasional speech interference, sleep disruption that could affect more than 10 percent of all residents at any one time, and other annoyances associated with exposure to aircraft noise. The wording of the easement will also be agreed upon by the applicant and the SCAS. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to require the posting of signs on all on-site real estate sales office and/or at key locations on the project site that alert the initial purchases about the overflight easement and the required deed notices. (DEIR, p. 6.3-41, 42)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
44 The overflight easement and recorded deed notices would not change the noise environment; however, they would notify people with above-average sensitivity to aircraft overflights (as well as all other prospective residents)—people who are highly annoyed by overflights—that they are choos ing to live in a location wher e frequent overflights occur.
This strategy involves making people more aware of an airport’s proximity and its current and future potential aircraft noise exposure before prospective buyers, lessees, and tenants move to the project site. The recorded deed not ices (item b) also comply with California state real estate law, which requires that sellers of real property disclose “any fact materially affecting the value and desirability of the property” (California Civil Code, Section 1102.1(a)). (DEIR, p. 6.3-42)
Thus, although residents on the project site will be exposed to annoyance from aircraft overflights, due to occasional speech interr uption and sleep disturbance the relative low magnitude of these occurrences coupled with the proposed disclosure to future residents that they are subject to overflights would render this a less-than-significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.3-42)
Exposure of students to occasi onal overflights could result in speech disruption and classroom disturbance. Speech disturbanc e begins when the SENL exceeds 60 dBA.
Given the typical exterior-interior noise reduction 25 dBA, any noise events above 85 SENL could result in speech disturbance at the site. As shown in Table 6.3-14 of the DEIR, the site would be subject to several types of military aircraft that operate on occasion from the airport, and produce overflights during daytime hours where the noise would exceed 85 dBA SENL. Some overflights would be expec ted to generate noise as loud as 110 dBA SENL. This could adversely affect the learning environment. This is a significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.3-42) See also Responses to Comments 20-5 through 20-11. (FEIR, pp. 4- 234 to 4-4-237.)
Although outdoor areas at proposed residential land uses and the proposed school would be exposed to occasional annoying noise events, the disclosure ensures that residents of the site are knowingly choosing to accept this annoyance. Further, noise standards would not be exceeded, including at schools. As a result, this impact would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.3-42)
Impact 6.3-6 Exposure of sensitive receptors or generation of excessive vibration levels. Short-term construction-generated vibration levels would exceed Caltrans recommended standard of 0.2 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) with respect to the prevention of st ructural damage for normal buildings and could exceed the federal transit administration’s (FTA) maximum acceptable vibration standard of 80 velocity decibels (VdB) with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) at on-site residential dwellings that are dev eloped and inhabited before nearby construction is completed. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.3-6: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
45 Operation of heavy construction equipment (i.e., with engines greater than 50 horsepower) shall not be operated within 60 feet of inhabited residences or within 15 feet of uninhabited structures. (DEIR, p. 6.3-44)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
The above mitigation measure is considered feasible because the order in which facilities are constructed and/or inhabited on the project site could be arranged such that operation of heavy construction equipment does not occur within the setbacks prescribed above. For instance, activities that require heavy construction equipment such as grubbing, grading, dozing, and excavation, could be performed bef ore any nearby struct ures are erected and/or inhabited. Thus, this measure would ensure that c onstruction operations are consistent with the both the structural-damage standards established by Caltrans and the human-response standards of the FTA, thereby reducing potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.3-44)
4. UTILITIES
Impact 6.4-5 Increased Demand for Storm Drainage. The project would increase the volume of stormwater generated at the project site. However, RD 1000’s plant #3 does not have sufficient pum ping capacity to pump stormwater generated from the project site. Theref ore, development of the project would result in a significant impact related to storm drainage, and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures has been adopted to address this impact:
6.4-5: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
The project applicant shall fully fund the installation of a new pump that would increase pumping capacity at the RD 1000’s plant #3 by 75 cubic feet per second. (DEIR, p. 6.4-15)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.4-5, pumping capacity at RD 1000 plant #3 would be increased to sufficiently pump sto rmwater generated on the project site.
Therefore, this storm drainage impact would be reduced to less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6.4-15)
5. PUBLIC SERVICES
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
46 Impact 6.5-1 Increased Demand for Fire and Emergency Medical Services .
Although SFD is planning to construct a new fire station near the project site and with this facility SFD would pr ovide services to the project site within acceptable standards, the timing of the construction of this facility is currently unknown. Because it is unknown whether adequate fire protection facilities would be in place at the time the first occupancy permit is issued, the project could result in residents living in an area where inadequate fire and emergency response services are provided. This would be a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.5-5)
Mitigation Measures:
6.5-1: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall coordi nate with the City of Sacramento to determine the timing of construction of a new fire station that would serve the proposed project. The project applicant shall enter into an agreement with SFD to ensure that adequate fire protection services would be in place before the issuance of the project’s first o ccupancy permit. Potential options for adequate services could include construction of a new fire station or an agreement for temporary dedicated services to serve the project site. b. The project’s Finance Plan shall identify necessary public facility improvements needed to serve the project, 100% of the costs required, and all the project’s fair-share costs associated with provision of these facilities and services. The project applicant s hall pay into a fee program, as established by the Greenbriar Finance Pl an, that identif ies the funding necessary to construct needed public facilities (e.g., police, fire, water, wastewater, library, and schools). T he Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan is provided in Appendix C of the DEIR. The Finance Plan would be structured to ensure that adequate public fa cilities are in place as development occurs. (DEIR, p. 6.5-5, 6)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect to fire services as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of the above mitigation, the project’s impact to fire services would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, the mitigation proposed (i.e., construction of a new fire station) could result in construction-related environmental effects including increased air emissions, traffic trips, conversion of agricultural lands and open space areas, and impacts to special-status species and wildlife. Further, operation of the station could result in potential land use conflicts including increased noise associated with engine operations, increased roadway traffic volumes, and increased safety hazards. The proposed station would be located within the North Natomas area. Resources within the North Natomas area are generally similar to resources found within the project site.
Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce impacts associated with construction and operation of this facility. However, it is unknown whether mitigation would reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Theref ore, construction of the proposed new fire station, wh ich would be required to prov ide adequate fire protection Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
47 services at the project site, could result in significant and unavoidable environmental effects. Therefore, as discussed in Section C of these findings, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. 6.5-6) Please see also Response to Comment 9-1 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, p. 4-209.)
7. AESTHETICS
Impact
6.7-4
Impacts from Lighting and Reflective Surfaces . The project would require lighting of new development and could construct facilities with reflective surfaces that could inadv ertently cause light and glare for motorists on I-5 and SR 70/99 under da y and nighttime conditions. In addition, the degree of darkness in the City of Sacramento and on the project site would diminish as a result of development. This impact would be significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.7-4: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall install light fixtures that have light sources aimed downwards and install shielded lighting outside to prevent glare or reflection or any nuisance, inconvenience, and hazardous interference of any kind on adjoining streets or property.
b. The project applicant shall adhere to all requirements of the City of Sacramento design guidelines regardi ng appropriate building materials, lighting, and signage in the office/commercial areas to prevent light and glare from adversely affecting motorists and adjacent land uses. All proposed development plans shall be approved by the City. (DEIR, p. 6.7-11)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
By directing light sources away from adjacent properties and directing light downward and adhering to the City’s design guidelines for building materials (e.g., re flective surfaces), implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.7-4 would substantially reduce impacts related to light and glare to a less-than-significant level because proposed lighting sources would not substantially obscure views of the night sky. (DEIR, p. 6.7-11)
8. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDS
Impact 6.8-2 Potential for Health Hazards from Soils Contaminated by Previously Unknown USTs or by Other Sources at Former Two Jakes Park Site.
According to the Phase 1 ESA performed for the project site, there are no registered USTs, ASTs, or records of hazardous materials on-site, and no evidence of soil contamination was found at the horse training facility, Two Jakes Park. However, unknown USTs could be discovered during Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
48 construction, potentially resulting in exposure to contaminated soils. While no soil contamination was immediatel y evident during a June 2005 site visit, the scope of the examinati on was limited. Se arch of an EPA database by EDAW revealed no contami nation, but it is possible that some residual soil contamination coul d be present on the former site of Two Jakes Park, resulting in the pot ential for exposure of construction workers to associated health hazards . For these reasons, this impact would be potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.8-2: (City of Sacramento)
In the event of discovery of an undoc umented or unknown UST or residual soil contamination (e.g., stained or odiferous soil) on the project site, construction activities adjacent to the UST or in the area of the soil contamination shall cease and the County EMD shall be c ontacted immediately. Any USTs discovered during construction shall be removed and any contaminated soils shall be excavated and treated according to County EMD procedures before the resumption of construction. (DEIR, p. 6.8-17, 18)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would remove any unknown UST’s and contaminated soil from the site in accordance with County standards and would reduce the potential hazards associated with unknown USTs and potential residual contamination at the former Two Jakes Park to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.8-18)
Impact 6.8-4 Potential for Airspace Safety Hazards Associated with Project Water Feature. The proposed project would in clude an on-site lake/detention basin, which could attract large number s of birds, thereby potentially creating a flyway between the si te and the Sacramento River and interfering with existing aircraft flight routes. Birds are recognized by the Sacramento International Airport CLUP as a potential hazard to aircraft because of the remote potential for high-speed collisions with birds, as well as the ingestion of birds into aircraft engines. This impact would be significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.8-4: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. To ensure that the final location and design of the lake/detention basin is consistent with the recommendations of the ALUC regarding wildlife hazards to aviation, the project applicant shall prepare a design and management Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
49 plan for this proposed water 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 for the lake/detention basin and incorporate specific design measures deemed sufficient by 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 biologi st. The project applicant shall submit a detailed design drawing of the proposed lake/detention basin to SCAS for review.
b. To reduce bird attractants associ ated with the lake/d etention basin, the Wildlife Hazards Management Plan fo r the lake/detention basin and surrounding landscape shall include the following:
i. To minimize growth of aquatic veget ation that attracts waterfowl, the lake shall be sufficiently deep to prevent growth of cattails and other aquatic plants. Lake edges shall be lined and maintained to prevent vegetation growth;
ii. Concrete bulkheads approximately 1 to 2 feet high shall be constructed along the lake’s perimeter. A detailed description of the design of the bank edge shall be submitted to SCAS for review; iii. Any vegetation planted in the vicinity of the lake shall consist of plant species that do not provide birds with opportunities for cover, nesting, perching, or feeding. A deta iled design plan for landscaping surrounding the lake/detention basin shall be submitted to SCAS for review;
iv. Barriers (e.g., walls, fences) sha ll be constructed a minimum of 48 inches high and be located between the lake and nearby grassy areas to dissuade geese or other waterfowl from walking to the lake. v. Signs shall be placed at regular in tervals around the perimeter of the lake prohibiting the public from feeding birds. The project proponent shall maintain such signs in good order and replace such signs as necessary. This responsibility shall transfer to the Homeowner’s Association (HOA) and shall be ar ticulated in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs).
vi. Trash receptacles with covers s hall be placed at regular intervals around the lake and be designed to prevent access to refuse by birds.
The CC&Rs shall specify that the project proponent and HOA shall be responsible for ensuring trash rece ptacles with covers are provided and properly emptied on a regular basis and replaced as necessary. vii. Installation of structures near the lake that could serve as perches for gulls and other birds shall be minimized. The CC&Rs shall prohibit the future installation of such structures.
viii. The project applicant shall prohibi t all activities and uses that could conflict with implementation of the wildlife hazard management program.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
50 c. An Adaptive Management Plan shall be prepared and incorporated into the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. T he Adaptive Management Plan shall provide for the long-term management of nuisance birds around the lake. The management plan shall involve perpetual monitoring and employment of various techniques for controlling birds using adaptive information and bird control products. The Homeowner’s A ssociation shall be responsible for ensuring the implementat ion and continued enforcement of the Adaptive Management Plan and provision of adequate funding. This requirement shall be specified in the CC&Rs. The Adaptive Management Plan shall include the following components:
i. Bird control program that involv es use of the most efficient and effective bird control techniques av ailable that are practicable and compatible with surrounding land uses and recreational uses of the lake,
ii. Monitoring program that invo lves patrolling of the lake 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,
iii. Funding mechanism such as use of an endowment fund or assessment district to fund the long-term monitoring and adaptive management program.
iv. Any use of the lake that conflicts with the wildlife control program shall be prohibited.
d. 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 projec t proponent. The cost of subsequent training shall be borne by the HOA. The Manager shall have the discretion to use new technologies or information regarding bird control provided they are practicable and within the management budget, and do not conflict with surrounding land uses or the recreational and flood control functions of the lake.
e. The monitoring and maintenance porti on of the Adaptive Management Plan shall include the following:
i. patrol to ensure the lake area is kept clean and free of refuse and other such material that may attract birds;
ii. patrol to ensure the public is abi ding by rules prohibiting feeding of birds;
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
51 iii. control of vegetative growth around the lake to minimize any vegetation that would attract bird s for purpose of cover, nesting, perching, or food;
iv. remove all nesting material prior to completion of nest if any birds attempt to nest in areas surrounding the lake. 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;
v. inspect the lake area to deter mine whether additional measures are needed to reduce bird use of the lake; and
vi. aggressively haze wildlife to discourage use of the lake.
f. If monitoring efforts reveal that additi onal 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 comme rcial 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:
i. Allowing grass to grow over 20 cent imeters in height (currently being employed at some airports).
g. In addition to these control techni ques, the Adaptive Management Plan shall outline an education program for the Homeowner’s 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 lake 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 various bird control measures being implemented by the Bird Control Program Manager.
h. Prohibited Uses of Lake: all activiti es and uses of the lake/detention basin that may conflict with the wildlife c ontrol program shall be expressly prohibited.
i. Post signs prohibiting swimming in the lake/detention basin.
j. Review by Sacramento County Airport System: If the SCAS determines that conditions in the Greenbriar/ Arbor Landing Development are not consistent with the above listed Management Program, SCAS may take the following actions:
i. notify the property owner that the wildlife contro l measures are out of compliance;
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
52 ii. that the County Airport System may, at its option, initiate control measures at the site, with the cost s of such measures billed to the owner; and
iii. in the event of an immediate thr eat to aircraft safety, County Airport System personnel can take immediate action to remedy the air hazard emergency.
k. To reduce attractants for Canada geese, American coots, or gulls associated with the lake/detention basin and surrounding landscape the Management Plan shall include the following:
i. Signs shall be posted and identify that feeding birds is prohibited. ii. A 30-foot barrier strip of tall grass (6 inches or more) adjacent to the lakeshore; or a fence or other barrier (e.g., dense hedges) shall be constructed between the lakeshore and surrounding grasslands. iii. Any nest building activity associated with birds shall be removed including all nesting materials.
l. To prevent the establishment of re sident populations of Canada geese on the project site, the Bird Control Program Manager shall take the following, but not limited to, actions:
i. Chase birds from site,
ii. Use of noise generators (e.g., pyro technic devices, blank cartridges), iii. Use of visual devices (e.g., flags, scarecrows, water sprays) iv. Use of chase dogs,
v. Live trapping or netting, and/or
vi. Use of chemical repellants.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
The project would convert former rice fields (sometimes, but not always, in rice production) to urban development. Thus, the project would not introduce a new hazard to aircraft, and would reduce the density of expected waterfowl compared with historic use of the site. The project would, nonetheless, result in the construction of a lake/detention basin at a location less than the minimum FAA-recommended siting distance for such facilities and could result in potential airspace hazards to aircraft. (DEIR, pp. 6.8-20, 21) See also Response to Comment 19-6. (FEIR, pp, 4-224 to 4-225.)
With implementation of this mitigation measure, potential hazards associated with the lake/detention basin and its potential to attract hazardous wildlife would be reduced to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with FAA guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.8-24)
Impact 6.8-6 Potential for Public Health Hazards from Mosquitoes Associated with Project Water Feature. The proposed project would include an on-site lake/detention basin, which could attract mosquitoes and other water- borne vectors, thereby pot entially creating a public health hazard. This Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
53 impact would be potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.8-6: (City of Sacramento)
a. To ensure that operation and design of the lake/detention basin is consistent with the recommendations of the MVCD regarding mosquito control, the project applicant shall prepar e a Vector Control Plan. This plan shall be prepared in coordination with the MVCD and shall be submitted to the MVCD for approval before issuanc e of the grading permit for the lake/detention basin. The plan shall incorporate spec ific measures deemed sufficient by MVCD to minimize public health risks from mosquitoes. The plan shall include the following:
1. Description of the project
2. Description of lake/det ention basin and all facilities that would control on-site water levels
3. Goals of the plan
4. Description of the water managem ent elements and features that would be implemented:
a. Best management practices t hat would implemented on-site b. Public education and awareness
c. Sanitary methods used (e.g., disposal of garbage)
d. Mosquito control methods used (e.g., fluctuating water levels, biological agents, pesticides, larvacides, circulating water) e. Stormwater management (c onsistent with Stormwater
Management Plan)
5. Long-term maintenance of the la ke/detention basin and all related facilities (e.g., specific ongoing enforceable conditions or maintenance by a homeowner’s association)
b. To reduce the potential for mosquitoes to reproduce in the lake/detention basin, the project applicant shall coor dinate with the MVCD to identify and implement BMPs based on their potential effectiveness for project site conditions. Potential BMPs that the applicant could implement include, but not limited to, the following:
• Stock the lake/detention basin with mosquito fish, guppies, backswimmers, flatworms, and/or other invertebrate predators. • Maintain a stable water level the lake/detention basin to reduce water level fluctuation resulting from evaporation, transpiration, outflow, and seepage.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
54 Hazards to public health could result from project features that could perpetuate mosquito populations. The project is designed to develop urban uses around a 39-acre lake/detention basin that could provide suitable habitat fo r breeding of mosquitoes . The lake/detention basin would be designed to provide continuous circulation and positive flow in all portions of the lake/detention basin. Design features of the lake/detention basin would include:
• Maintaining a depth of between 8 and 12 feet which would keep water temperatures low and discourage growth of algae.
• Long and narrow shape of the lake/det ention basin would encourage water circulation and flow.
• Change in depth of the lake/detention basin from the north end (highest elevation, lowest depth) to the southern outfall (lowes t elevation, highest depth) to induce water circulation.
• Construction and operation of two groundwater wells adjacent to the lake/detention basin to maintain adequate water levels (minimum 8-foot depth) throughout the year.
To reduce the threat from mosquito-borne threats to human health, the MVCD requests projects designed with permanent wetlands to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) or other preventive biological measures to reduce mosquito populations, production rates, or the timing of mosquito hatching. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, potential health hazards associated with the lake/detention basin serving as an attractant to mosquitoes would be reduc ed to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with MVCD guidelines. Therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.8-26)
9. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact 6.9-1 Risks to People and Structures Ca used by Seismic Hazards, Including Strong Ground Shaking and Liquefaction. The project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone. Surface rupture from faulting is therefore not expected to occur on the project site. However, the project site is located in an area considered by the California Geological Survey to be a relatively moderate ground shaking zone. Ground shaking, as a result of seismic activity from nearby or distant earthquake faults, could cause seismic-related ground failure. The water-saturated alluvial soils occurring on the project site are considered to possess low strength and could potentially liquefy during a seismic event. Thus, development of the project site with homes and other structures has the potential to expose people to substantial adverse effects from seismic hazards, including ground shaking and liquefaction. This impact would be potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.9-1. (City of Sacramento)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
55 a. Before issuance of a grading permit, a geotechnical report shall be prepared by a qualified geotechnical engineer. Th is report shall be completed to assess the extent to which the re commendations are appropriate and sufficient for construction of the buildings described in the final project design plans. The geotechnical engineer shall prepare a comprehensive site-specific geotechnical report with specific design recommendations sufficient to ensure the safety of soil conditions (e.g ., percent subsidence/expansive soils impacts), project structures, and site occupants.
b. All water supply and wastewater pipelines shall be designed per City standards to minimize the potential for damage in the event of strong ground shaking and potential liquefaction.
c. During project design and construc tion, all measures outlined in the preliminary geotechnical report for the pr oject as well as specific design measures included in the geotechnical report shall be implemented, at the direction of the City engineer, to prevent significant impacts associated with seismic activity. A geotechnical engineer shall be present on-site during earthmoving activities to ensure that requirements outlined in the geotechnical reports are adhered to for proper fill and compaction of soils.
d. Should the construction schedule r equire continued work during the wet weather months (e.g., October through April), the project applicant shall consult with a qualified civil engi neer and implement any additional recommendations provided, as conditions warrant. These recommendations would include but not be limited to (1) allowing a prolonged drying period before attempting grading operations at any time after the onset of winter rains; and (2) implementing aeration or lime treatment, to allow any low- permeability surface clay soils intended for use as engineered fill to reach a moisture content that would permit the specified degree of compaction to be achieved. (DEIR, pp. 6.9-12, 13)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Review of construction plans and onsite supervision by a geotechnical engineer and consultation with a civil engi neer, if needed, would reduce significant impacts under the proposed project associated with seismic hazards to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.9-12) Implementation of this mitigat ion measure would ensure that the appropriate design-specific geotechnical measures are incorporated into project plans to design project features in compliance with relevant building standards and codes and ensure that potential seismic hazards at the project site are minimized to levels allowable under current building standards.
Impact 6.9-2 Construction-Related Erosion Hazards. Excavation and grading of soil could result in localized erosion dur ing project construction. Further, dewatering may be required during some excavation activities as a result of high groundwater levels, which could increase the potential for construction-related erosion. This would be a potentially significant Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
56 impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.9-2: (City of Sacramento)
a. A grading and erosion control pl an shall be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer and submi tted to the City of Sacramento Department of Public Works for approval prior to issuance of the first building permits. The plan shall be consistent with the California Building Standards Code grading requirements and shall identify the site-specific grading to be used for new development. All grading shall be balanced on-site, where feasible.
b. To ensure soils do not directly or i ndirectly discharge sediments into surface waters as a result of construction activities, the project applicant shall develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as discussed in Section 6.10, “Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality.” The SWPPP shall identify Best Management Practices that would be used to protect stormwater runoff and minimize erosion during construction. The project applicant shall prepare plans to control erosion and sediment, shall prepare preliminary and final grading plans, and shall prepare plans to control urban runoff from the project site during construction, in compliance with the City of Sacramento Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance. (DEIR, p. 6.9-13)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Preparation and approval of a grading and eros ion control plan that would require measures to prevent on- and off-site erosion and SWPPP would reduce significant impacts related to construction erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.9-13)
Impact 6.9-3 Potential for Subsidence or Compression of Unstable Soils. Although the project site is not located in a known subsidence area as denoted by the County General Plan, it is located on soils that exhibit the potential to subside because of their high shrink-swell potential and low strength. This impact would be potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.9-3: (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.9-1, described above, to reduce the risks to people and structures from subsidence or compression of unstable soils at the project site. (DEIR, p. 6.9-14)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
57 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Review of construction plans and onsite s upervision by a geotechnical engineer would reduce significant impacts under the proposed project associated with subsidence or compression of unstable soils to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.9-14)
Impact 6.9-4 Potential for Damage Associ ated with Expansive Soils . Soils on portions of the project site are moderately susceptible to expansive soil behavior. Expansive soils may cause differential and cyclical foundation movements that can cause damage and/or distress to overlying structures.
In addition, the groundwater table is shallow, which enhances the potential for shrink and swell. This impact would be potentially significant that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.9-4: (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.9-1, described above, to reduce the potential for damage associated with expansive soils. (DEIR, p. 6.9-15)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would ensure properly designed on-site features and would reduce significant impacts under the proposed project associated with expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.9-15)
10. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 6.10-1 Construction-related and Operational Water Quality and Erosion Impacts. Operation of the project would not result in any water quality or erosion impacts because the project would implement design features that would be consistent wit h the City of Sacrament o Stormwater Quality Standards for Development Projects. However, project construction activities (grading, excavation, etc.) could generate sediment, erosion, and other nonpoint source pollutants in on-site stormwater, which could drain to off-site areas degrading local water quality. Further, on-site earthmoving and soil stockpiling activities could re sult in sheet erosion during rain events. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.10-1: (City of Sacramento)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
58 a. The project applicant shall demonstrat e compliance through its grading plans with all requirements of the City’s Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance (Title 15, Chapt er 15.88 of the City Code) including preparing erosion, sediment, and pollution cont rol plans for each construction phase and postconstruction, if necessary. The project’s grading plans shall be approved by the City of Sacramento, Department of Utilities.
b. The project applicant shall demonstrat e compliance through its grading plans with all requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management and Control Code, which regulates stormwater and prohibits nonstormwater discharges except where regulated by an NPDES permit. The project applicant shall implement measures including the use of soil stabilizers, fiber rolls, inlet filters, and gravel bags to prevent po llutants from being carried off-site in stormwater generated on the project site. These measures shall be designed to accommodate stormwater discharges associated with proposed measures that would be implemented to contro l on-site dust generation (e.g., wheel washing, active watering).
c. The project applicant s hall consult with the Central Valley RWQCB to acquire the appropriate regulatory approvals that may be necessary to obtain Section 401 water quality certification, SWRCB statewide NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activity, Central Valley RWQCB NPDES permit for construction dewatering activity, and any other necessary site-specific waste discharge requirements.
d. As required under the NPDES stormw ater permit for general construction activity, the project applicant shall prepare and submit the appropriate Notice of Intent and prepare the SWPPP and other necessary engineering plans and specifications for pollution prevent ion and control. The SWPPP and other appropriate plans shall identify and spec ify the use of erosion sediment control BMPs, means of waste dispos al, implementation of approved local plans, nonstormwater management controls, permanent post-construction BMPs, and inspection and maintenance responsibilities. The SWPPP would also specify the pollutants that are likely to be used during construction and that could be present in stormwater drainage and nonstormwater discharges.
A sampling and monitoring program s hall be included in the SWPPP that meets the requirements of SWRCB Order 99-08-DWQ to ensure the BMPs are effective.
e. Construction techniques shall be identif ied that would reduce the potential runoff, and the plan shall identify the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be implemented. The SWPPP shall also specify spill prevention and contingency measures, identify the types of materials used for equipment operation, and identify measures to prevent or clean up spills of hazardous materials used for equipment operation and hazardous waste. Emergency procedures for responding to spills shall also be identified. BMPs identified in the SWPPP shall be used in subsequent site development activities. The SWPPP shall identify personnel training requirements and procedures that Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
59 would be used to ensure that workers are aware of permit requirements and proper installation and performance inspection methods for BMPs specified in SWPPP. The SWPPP shall also ident ify the appropriate personnel responsible for supervisory duties related to implementation of the SWPPP.
All construction contractors shall retain a copy of the approved SWPPP on the construction site.
f. The project applicant shall prepare and subm it a Notice of Intent and acquire authorization for a Central Valley RW QCB NPDES permit for construction dewatering activities that may be necessary for foundation and utility installations within the project site. (DEIR, p. 6.10-19)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Water quality would not deteriorate post-constr uction or during operation of site-specific land uses as a result of implementation of required City of Sacramento Stormwater Quality Standards for Development Projects (May 18, 2006). Specifically, stormwater quality source controls, such as storm drai n signage at outdoor storage areas and within loading/unloading areas, would be implemented on-site by individual development projects to prevent the degradation of the water qualit y runoff. With implement ation of required source controls, water quality impacts during operation of the project would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 6.10-18)
With implementation of the above measures, the project’s construction-related water quality and erosion impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because sufficient measures would be in place to prevent the release of pollutants in stormwater off-site and would minimize to the maximum extent practicable erosion of on-site soils. (DEIR, p. 6.10- 19)
Impact
6.10-4
Result in an On-site Flooding Hazard . Project implementation would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site and would increase surface runoff and the need for dischar ge to the West Drainage Canal.
However, the proposed project includes a stormwater runoff collection system sufficient to protect the proj ect site during a 24-hour and 10-day 100-year flood event and avoid increases in off-site flooding. Therefore, development of the project site would not result in an on-site flooding hazard. This impact would be potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.10-4: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall submit grading plans to the City Department of Utilities that demonstrate that Elkhorn Boulevard has been sufficiently raised Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
60 to provide 1 foot of freeboard abov e Lone Tree Canal during a 100-year storm event. Approximately 1,800 linear feet of Elkhorn Boulevard would need to be raised to provide sufficient localized flood protection.
b. The project applicant shall submit dr ainage and infrastructure plans to the City Department of Utilities that provide for the installation of a 48-inch culvert in Lone Tree Canal at Elkhorn Boulevard. Construction of this improvement could result in impacts to ripari an and other native habitat; impacts to biological resources including giant garter snake habitat, and construction- related air quality (NOX, PM10), noise, transportation, and stormwater quality impacts. These impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation recommended for the project and presented in this Draft EIR. As a result, no new significant environmental impacts would occur with implementation of this improvement. (DEIR, p. 6.10-22)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, the project’s on-site flooding impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because the project site would be graded to ensure that all sto rmwater flows would be conveyed to appropriate drainage facilities and these drainage fa cilities would be sized to accommodate on- and off-site stormwater flows. (DEIR, p. 6.10-22)
12. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact
6.12-1
Effects to Giant Garter Snake. Implementation of the proposed project would result in impacts to 58.75 ac res of potential giant garter snake habitat. This impact would include the permanent loss of 55.56 acres of potential giant garter snake habitat and temporary impacts to 3.31 acres of potential giant garter snake habitat. Direct and indirect impacts could include loss of individuals, effects on connectivity, displacement of snakes currently occupying the site, effect s related to increased contaminants, predation by domestic and feral animals, effects related to human encroachment, and road mortality. T hese impacts would result in significant adverse effects to giant garter snake, which impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
61 6.12-1: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. To mitigate impacts to giant garter snake, the project applicant shall prepare an HCP, pursuant to Section 10(a) of ESA, and shall obtain appropriate authorization for incidental take of giant garter snake from USFWS and DFG. (DFG would issue permits through Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code.) The HCP shall include a comprehensive giant garter snake conservation strategy, developed th rough consultation with USFWS and DFG. This strategy shall be consistent with the goals of the regional basin- wide conservation program described in the NBHCP, and shall advance the NBHCP’s regional conservation strategy. This conservation strategy shall be designed to include avoidance, minimization and compensation measures that are adequate to assure that the proposed project shall not compromise the effectiveness of the NBHCP.
b. The conservation strategy shall incl ude habitat preservation and restoration consistent with the NBHCP’s strategy of establishing an interconnected reserve system composed of marshlands , uplands, and rice fields in the Natomas Basin. Key elements of the giant garter snake conservation shall include on-site/off-site habitat preservation, restoration, and creation, and on- site avoidance and minimization measures. The conservation strategy that would ultimately be implemented as mitigation would by developed through consultation with DFG and USFWS as part of the permitting process.
Refinements may occur through the USFWS/DFG consultation process, to the extent that the NBHCP regional conservation strategy is advanced.
1. Habitat Creation, Preservation, and Management in the Lone Tree Canal Linear Open Space/Buffer Area
a. To ensure that the pr oject does not diminish habitat connectivity for giant garter snake between the southwest and northwest zones identified in the NBHCP, approximately 30.6 acres along Lone Tree Canal shall be protected and managed as giant garter snake habitat. This on-site habitat preservation shall protect an approximately 250-foot wide corridor of giant garter snake habitat that includes the canal and approximately 200 feet of adjacent uplands. Up lands within the linear open space/buffer area shall be managed as perennial grassland as described below. Additional aquat ic habitat for giant garter snake shall be created along the east bank of Lone Tree Canal by construction and maintenance of a 2.7 acre tule bench. The habitat shall be managed in perpetuity as high-quality habitat for giant garter snake. Compliance and biological effectiveness monitoring shall be performed and annual monitoring reports prepared within six months of completion of monitoring for any given year. This monitoring, reporting, and adaptive
management shall be performed as described in Section IV of the NBHCP.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
62 b. To ensure that the project does not diminish giant garter snake movement along Lone Tree Canal, all new road crossings of Lone Tree Canal shall be designed to minimize obstacles to giant garter snake movement. The use of culverts under new road crossings on Lone Tree Canal shall be prohibited unless it can be demonstrated that the cu lverts will not diminish the potential for giant garter snake movement through the section of Lone Tree Canal protected by the setback fence and
conservation easement.
c. Upland giant garter snake ha bitat within the Lone Tree Canal linear open space/buffer area shall be created and managed to provide cover, basking areas, and refugia during the winter dormant period. Hibernaculae would be constructed at regular intervals by embedding concrete or coarse rock in the bank or in a berm along the Lone Tree Canal corridor to provide additional winter refugia. Upland habitat with the linear open space/buffer areas shall be conv erted to native perennial grassland and managed, in perpetuity, as perennial grassland habitat.
d. Aquatic habitat shall be maintained throughout the giant garter snake active season in Lone Tree Canal, in perpetuity. This is the legal responsibility and obli gation of Metro Air Park property owners (MAP). The MAP HCP includes provisions for maintaining water in the canal such that the basic habitat requirements of the giant garter snake are met. The MAP HCP also provides a road map, through “Changed Circumstances”, to address procedures to follow if water is not being maintained in the canal to meet these r equirements. As described in the MAP HCP, the MAP is legally obligated to assure these
requirements are met, and fi nancial and procedural
mechanisms are included in the MAP HCP to enforce this. It is, therefore, assumed that MAP will provide water to Lone Tree Canal, as required by the MAP HCP and ITP, in perpetuity. It is also assumed that USFWS will use all reasonable means
available to it, to enforce this MAP HCP requirement. If water is not provided to Lone Tree Canal by the MAP to meet the
habitat requirements of giant garter snake, as required by the MAP HCP, and USFWS exhausts its enforcement
responsibilities, the project applicant shall assume the responsibility of providing suitable giant garter snake aquatic habitat throughout the section of Lone Tree Canal protected by the fence and conservation easem ent. However, as stated herein, the project applicant shall only assume this
responsibility if it has been sufficiently demonstrated to the City that USFWS has exhausted all reasonable means to compel MAP to comply with the relevant conditions of the MAP ITP.
Specific requirements related to ensuring suitable aquatic habitat in Lone Tree Canal is present, in perpetuity, throughout the giant garter snake active season shall be developed Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
63 through consultation with DFG and USFWS, and included in the new or amended HCP for Greenbriar, and may include
mechanisms, such as installation of a well, to assure water is provided in the canal to meet habitat requirements.
e. A barrier shall be install ed between the giant garter snake habitat linear open space/buffer area and the adjacent
Greenbriar development to ensure that giant garter snakes do not enter the development area, and to prohibit humans and pets from entering the giant garter snake habitat. The design of this barrier shall be subject to USFWS and CDFG review and approval. The entire length of the barrier, which shall be bordered by yards rather than roadways, shall be maintained on the preserve side by a nonprof it land trust to ensure that vegetation or debris does not accumulate near the barrier and provide opportunities for wildlif e and pets to climb over the barrier. On the development si de, Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CCRs) shall prohibit accumulation of vegetation or debris adjacent to the barrier . Chain link fencing shall be placed at both ends of the corridor, with locked gates
permitting entry only by RD 1000 and NMWD for channel
maintenance, and by the preserve manager for habitat
monitoring and maintenance purposes.
f. Specific requirements associ ated with the barrier shall be developed through consultation with USFWS and DFG, and
may include the following and/or other specifications that DFG and USFWS consider to be equally or more effective: (DEIR, p. 6.12-27)
o Adequate height and below-gr ound depth to prevent
snakes or burrowing mammals from providing a
through-route for snakes by establishing burrows from
one side to the other crossing;
o Constructed using extruded concrete or block
construction extending a minimum of 36-inches above
ground level;
o Maintenance to repair the ba rrier and to prevent the establishment of vegetation or collection of debris that could provide snakes with a climbing surface allowing
them to breech the barrier;
o A cap or lip extending at least two-inches beyond the barrier’s vertical edge to prevent snakes from gaining
access along the barrier’s top edge; and
o Signage to discourage humans and their pets from
entering the area.
g. The Lone Tree Canal linear op en space/buffer area shall be protected in perpetuity under a conservation easement and managed to sustain the value of this area for giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Compliance and biological effectiveness monitoring shall be performed and annual monitoring reports Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
64 prepared. This monitoring, reporting, and adaptive
management shall be performed as described in Section IV of the NBHCP or following procedures developed in formal
consultation with USFWS and DFG and contained in an ESA Incidental Take Permit for the Greenbriar project.
2. Off-site Habitat Preser vation, Restoration, and Creation
a. The project applicant shall pr eserve, restore, and manage giant garter snake habitat at two off- site locations identified as having high regional conservation value, and contributing to an interconnected regional reserve system as envisioned in the NBHCP. Off-site habitat preservation, restoration, and creation shall be implemented on the Sacramento County portion of the Spangler property (“Spangler Site”) and the Natomas 130 parcel (“Natomas 130 Site”) to ensure that implementation of the proposed project would result in no net loss of overall giant garter snake habitat value. The habitat shall be managed in perpetuity as high-quality habita t for giant garter snake.
Compliance and biological effectiveness monitoring shall be performed and annual monitoring reports prepared. This
monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management shall be performed as described in Section IV of the NBHCP.
The Spangler Site is located in northern Sacramento County along the Sutter County line, nor theast of the Sacramento Airport and west of SR 70/99 (Exhibit 6.12-4 of the DEIR). This site is currently in irrigated rice. It is surrounded by agriculture (primarily rice) on all sides. Ex isting water channels provide potential habitat connectivity for giant garter snake between the Spangler Site and Lone Tree Canal. A minimum of 190 acres of managed marsh, including 55.2 acres of upland habitat, shall be created and preserved for giant garter snake on the
Spangler Site. The 55.2 acres of upland habitat shall also serve as mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawk described under Impact 6.12-2. To further reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk, a minimum 45.4 acres of high-quality Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat (e.g., alfalfa) shall be created and managed on the Spangler Site, as further discussed below.
The North Natomas 130 Site is adjacent to the Natomas Basin Conservancy’s Cummings preserve to the south, Fisherman’s Lake to the east, rice land to the north, and the Sacramento River to the west. Because it is surrounded by compatible land uses and habitat expected to persist in the future, this site has long-term conservation value. The Natomas 130 Site provides potential habitat connectivity for giant garter snake to existing preserves and Lone Tree Canal via a series of water drainage and delivery channels. A minimum of 14.2 acres of managed Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
65 marsh, including 4.3 acres of upland habitat, shall be created and preserved for giant garter snake on the North Natomas 130 Site. The 4.3 acres of upland habitat shall also serve as mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawk described under Impact 6.12-2. To further reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk,
14.2 acres of high-quality foraging habitat shall be managed to provide Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat on the North
Natomas 130 Site. Habitat created and preserved on the North Natomas 130 Site shall also include 1.9 acres of riparian, which could provide potential nesting sites for Swainson’s hawk.
b. The off-site conservation l ands shall be restored with giant garter snake habitat consisting of a mosaic of habitat types with variations in topogr aphy and an abundance of edges within and between habitat types. The managed marsh shall consist of seasonal marsh with shallow and deep water
configurations, permanent marsh, and upland habitats in the form of buffers, islands, and other high-ground habitats scattered throughout the marsh’s wetland component. A
significant portion of the upl and component shall be above winter flood levels to protect giant garter snakes in their winter retreats. Vegetation shall be natural marsh vegetation such as cattails, spike rush, tule clumps, and thimbleberry, placed to maximize protected resti ng and basking sites and escape cover for the snakes.
3. On-Site Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The measures described below shall be incorporated into the giant garter snake conservation strategy to avoid and minimize take of giant garter snakes during construction activities, including construction of managed marsh habitat:
a. All grading activity within gi ant garter snake habitat (aquatic habitat and uplands within 200 feet of aquatic habitat) shall be restricted to a period between May 1 and October 1. Because this is during the snakes’ active stage, it would allow snakes to actively move away from danger and thereby reduce chances of snake mortality. Additionally, this restriction is timed to avoid grading during the snakes’ breeding, dispersal, fall foraging and over-wintering periods, when they are most vulnerable to disturbance. If grading cannot be scheduled between May 1 and October 1, the Applicant shall contact the USFWS to determine whether additional measures are necessary to avoid and/or minimize take of giant garter snake. Grading shall only occur during the period between October 2 and April 30 upon written USFWS approval.
b. A qualified biologist with ex perience identifying giant garter snakes shall survey the cons truction area for giant garter Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
66 snakes no more than 24 hours prior to the start of construction activities. 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 more than 24 hours prior to the re-start of construction activities.
c. Between April 15 and September 30, all irrigation ditches, canals, or other aquatic habitat within the construction area shall be completely dew atered, with no ponded water
remaining, for at least 15 c onsecutive days prior to the excavation or filling in of the dewatered habitat. The purpose of dewatering the aquatic habitat prior to filling is to compel giant garter snakes to leave the ar ea on their own. A qualified biological monitor shall ensure that dewatered habitat does not continue to support giant garter snake prey, which could attract snakes into the area. Netti ng and salvage of prey may be necessary if a site cannot be completely dewatered.
d. Construction activity shall be avoided within the approximately 250-foot Lone Tree Canal linear open space/buffer area, except for the purpose of habitat restoration activities carried out under the directi on of a qualified biological monitor with experience identifying giant garter snakes. To minimize habitat disturbance during construction of the urban development, the approximate 250-foot wide corri dor shall be bordered on the outer edge with exclusionary fencin g that shall prevent giant garter snakes from entering the construction area, but shall allow any giant garter snakes within the construction area, that may have otherwise been trapped, to cross into the canal corridor. Movement of heavy equipment associated with
construction of the urban development shall be restricted to the construction area outside the co rridor, except for approved restoration activity within the corridor.
e. Clearing and grading shall be confined to the minimum area necessary to facilitate construction activities as determined by a qualified biologist. Habitat that will be avoided shall be cordoned off, clearly flagged, and designated as an
“Environmentally Sensitive Area” by a qualified biologist. An exclusion fence shall be er ected between the development area and the Lone Tree Canal linear open space/buffer area prior to and during construction to prevent giant garter snake entry into the construction z one. The fence shall be erected prior to the onset of the dormant season preceding
construction when giant garter snakes are less likely to occupy upland retreats on the project site. The interior or project side of the exclusion fence shall be routinely monitored for giant garter snakes stranded by the fence. Snakes encountered Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
67 should be relocated to the nearest suitable habitat off-site by a qualified biologist.
f. All construction personnel shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a USFWS-approved biologist prior to commencing any construction-related activities on the project site. This training shall instruct workers on how to identify the giant garter snake and its habita t, and what to do if a giant garter snake is encountered during construction activities.
g. A USFWS-approved biological m onitor shall be present during grading activities within 200 feet of aquatic giant garter snake habitat to ensure that constructi on activities do not encroach into unauthorized areas. If a live giant garter snake is found during construction activities, the biological monitor shall immediately notify USFWS. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop construction in the vicinity of the snake.
The snake shall be monitored and given a chance to leave the area on its own. If the snake does not show signs of leaving, then the biological monitor shall slowly move toward the snake to flush it toward adjacent habitat away from the construction area. Potential escape routes for giant garter snakes shall be determined in advance of construction. If the garter snake does not leave on its own within 1 wo rking day, the biological monitor shall consult with the USFWS to determine necessary additional measures. Any giant garter snake mortality shall also be reported by the biological monitor within 1 working day to USFWS. Any project-related activity that results in giant garter snake mortality shall cease so that this activity can be modified to the extent practicable to avoid future mortality.
h. Upon completion of construction activities, construction debris shall be completely removed from the site. If this material is situated near existing giant garter snake aquatic habitat, it shall be inspected by a qualified biologist prior to removal to assure that giant garter snakes are not using it for hibernaculae or temporary refuge.
i. No plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar erosion control matting that could entangle snakes shall 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 DFG and USFWS. (DEIR, p. 6.12-30)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
68 The potential effects to giant garter snakes and their habitat from project implementation are considered significant. (DEIR, p. 6.12-26) Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.12- 1 would reduce impacts to giant garter snake and its habitat to a less-than-significant level. With mitigation incorporated, the project would not adversely affect the giant garter snake. The proposed mitigation would include preservation and creation of 234.8 acres of giant garter snake habitat. On-site mitigation would include creatio n, protection, and management of 27.9 acres of suitable uplands and 2.7 acres of suitable aquatic habitat, within a 250-foot wide linear open space/ buffer along Lone Tree Canal. In addition, permanent and temporary impacts to 58.75 acre s of giant garter snake habitat on-site would be offset by the increased habitat quality resulting from the creation and preservation of 144.7 acres of managed marsh and 59.5 acres of suitable upland habitat off-site. Habitat connectivity would not be diminished and could be enhanced along Lone Tree Canal through assuring adequate surface water is present in the canal and creation of a 2.7-acre tule bench along the west bank of the canal . In addition, the on-site avoidance and minimization measures would minimize the potential for direct harm of individuals. Any take of giant garter snake would require prior approval by DFG and USFWS in compliance with CESA and ESA. (DEIR, p. 6.12-30) Please see also Responses to Comments 1-9, 32-5, 32-12 through 32-25 and R9-31 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-14, 4-530 to 4-533, 5-70.)
Impact
6.12-2
Effects to Swainson’s Hawk. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the permanent removal of approximately 546 acres of potential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat on-site and could disturb nesting in the vicinity of the project site. This impact would be significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
No Swainson’s hawks have been observed or detected on-site, and no suitable nesting sites are present. However, in 2004, a total of 5 nests were located within one mile of the Greenbriar site, two of which were active. The project site includes an estimated 546 acres of potential Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat that could be affected. In 2005, 115 acres of idle agricultural land on the project site was considered moderate-quality foraging habitat.
The balance of the site, approximately 431 acres, was wheat fields, disturbed uplands, and seasonal wetlands, which are considered low-quality foraging habitat. (DEIR, p. 6.12-31)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.12-2: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.12-1. The project shall include a conservation strategy which shall be designed to include avoidance, minimization and compensation measures that are adequate to assure that the proposed project shall not compromise the effectiveness of the NBHCP. Implementation of this mitigation measure would require preservation of 27.9 acres of on- site managed grassland within the Lone Tree Canal linear open space/buffer area, which would provide low-quality Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, and would require off-site habitat at several locations Off-site mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat on the Spangler Site would include creation and management of 55.2 acres of upland habitat that would provide m
oderate-quality foraging habitat,
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
69 and creation and management of 45.4 acres of high-quality foraging habitat.
Off-site mitigation on the North Natomas 130 Site would include creation and preservation of 4.3 acres of moderate-quality foraging habitat and 14.2 acres of high-quality foraging habitat. Off-site mitigation at the North Natomas 130 site also includes creation and preserva tion of 1.9 acres of riparian habitat that could provide potential nesting sites for Swainson’s hawks.
In addition to creation and management of foraging habitat provided by Mitigation Measure 6.12-1, the project applicant shall acquire a minimum of 49 acres of land enhanced and managed to provide high-quality foraging habitat so that the cumulative value of on-site and off-site habitat is of equal or greater value to Swainson’s haw k than that lost through project development. Swainson’s hawk habitat ac quired off-site shall either be located within 1 mile of the Swainson’s hawk zone or an existing TNBC reserve, or, with USFWS and DFG concu rrence, within two miles of more than one active Swainson’s hawk nests.)
Thus, in total, 27.9 acres of low-quality, 59.5 acres of moderate-quality, 108.6 acres (including the additional 49 acres referenced above) of high-quality, and 1.9 acres of potential nesting habitat would be provided as mitigation for the loss of approximately 546 acres of low- and moderate-quality foraging habitat.
The totals described above represent the acreage, of the quality described, likely to mitigate the loss of habitat value associated with the proposed project. This represents potential acreage within a range that could be used to mitigate loss of habitat value. Acquired and preserved acreage could range up to a replacement of 1:1 (or higher) ratio, if needed to replace lost habitat value. Alternatively, a lesser acreage that is enhanced and managed as high- quality foraging habitat (e.g., alfalfa) fo r Swainson’s hawk in perpetuity, as proposed herein, would be acceptabl e provided that USFWS and DFG concur that, with the replacement habitat, the project would provide equal or greater value to the species than woul d the foraging habitat present at the project site. Compliance and biologica l effectiveness monitoring shall be performed and annual monitoring reports shall be prepared. This monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management shall be performed as described in Section IV of the NBHCP.
b. In addition, the following avoidanc e and minimization measures shall be implemented:
1. Pre-construction surveys s hall be conducted for Swainson’s hawk and other raptors no more than 14 days and no less than 7 days prior to the beginning of any construction activity between March 15 and August 15. The survey area shall
include all potential nesting sites located within ½ mile of the project and mitigation-sites.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
70 2. Should nesting be discovered within the survey area, a qualified biologist shall notif y DFG and no new disturbance shall occur within ½ mile of the nest until the nest is no longer active or appropriate avoidanc e measures are approved by DFG to ensure that the nest is adequately protected. Potential mitigation measures may include visual screening and timing restrictions for construction activity. Monitoring (funded by the project applicant) of active nests by a DFG-approved raptor biologist shall be required to determine if project construction is disturbing Swainson’s hawks at the nest site. Exact
implementation of this measur e shall be based on specific information at the project site. (DEIR, p. 6.12-32)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.12-2 would reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk and its habitat to a less-than-significant level, because the combination of on-site habitat creation and preservation, and off-site habitat acquisition and preservation would provide greater or equal habitat value to the specie s. As proposed, an es timated 115 acres of moderate-quality and 431 acres of low-quality foraging habitat would be removed by the project. With mitigation incorporated, the project would provide 27.9 acres of on-site low- quality foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Off-site mitigation would include creation and preservation of a minimum of 59.5 acres of moderate-quality, and 108.6 acres of high- quality, foraging habitat. This replacement of overall higher quality acreage would be expected to provide as rich a food source and other attributes such that overall habitat value is replaced. In addition, the effect of construction-related activities on Swainson’s hawks that could nest in the project vicinity would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of avoidance and minimization measures. With the implementation of these measures, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level because adequate replacement habitat would be provided for Swainson’s hawk that could forage on the project site. (DEIR, p. 6.12-32) Please see also Response to Comment 1-9 and Response to Comment Letter 30 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, p. 4-14, 4-515 to 4-519.)
Impact
6.12-3
Loss and Degradation of Wetlands and Waters of the United States.
Implementation of the proposed project would result in fill of jurisdictional waters of the United States, in cluding wetlands subject to USACE jurisdiction under the federal Clean Water Act, and the potential loss and degradation of isolated wetland habitats protected under state regulations.
Placement of fill in these waters would require a Section 404 permit from USACE and compliance with Porter-Cologne and Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. This impact would be significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
71 Foothill Associates identified 25.95 acres of wetlands on the project site (Foothill Associates 2006) and determined that 14.15 acres met the USACE jurisdictional definition of waters of the United jurisdictional. An additional 8.56 acres of features were reviewed at the request of the USACE. These areas were determined by Foothill to be uplands based on an absence of wetland hydrology and ther efore would not be subject to USACE jurisdiction. The delineation prepared by F oothill has not been verified by USACE; therefore, these figures are subject to change. If the USACE reaches different conclusions regarding the 11.80 acres of isolated we tlands and 8.56 upland acres presumed non- jurisdictional then it could exercise jurisdiction over up to 34.51 acres on the project site. (DEIR, pp. 6.12-23, 33)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.12-3: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.12-1 to avoid impacts to waters of the United Stat es and wetlands associated with Lone Tree Canal.
b. Prior to project approval, the projec t applicant shall obtain a verified wetland delineation from USACE. Based on the results of the verified delineation, the project applicant shall commit to repl ace, restore, or enhance on a “no net loss” basis, in accordance with USACE and the Central Valley RWQCB, as appropriate for each agency’s jurisdiction, the acreage of all waters of the United States and wetland habitats, including isolated wetlands that would be removed with implementation of t he project. Wetland restoration, enhancement, and/or replacement shall be at a location and by methods acceptable to the USACE, DFG, and Central Valley RWQCB, as determined during the Section 404, Section 1600, and Section 401 permitting processes.
c. In conjunction with preparation and impl ementation of the giant garter snake mitigation described under Mitigation Measure 6.12-1, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan to USACE for the creation of jurisdictional waters at a mitigation ratio no less than 1:1 acres of created water of the United States, including wetlands, to each acre filled. The mitigation plans shall dem onstrate how the USACE criteria for jurisdictional waters will be met through implementation. Wetland mitigation achieved through implementation of Mi tigation Measure 6.12-1 can satisfy this mitigation measure if conducted in such a way that it meets both habitat function and the USACE criteria for creation of waters of the United States.
The wetland creation section of the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan shall include the following:
target areas for creation,
a complete biological assessment of the existing resources on the target areas,
specific creation and restoration plans for each target area, Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
72 performance standards for success that will illustrate that the compensation ratios are met, and
a monitoring plan including schedule and annual report format.
d. The project applicant shall secure the following permits and regulatory approvals, as necessary, and implem ent all permit conditions before implementation of any construction activities associated with the proposed project:
1. Authorization for the f ill of jurisdictional waters of the United States shall be secured prior to placing any fill in jurisdictional wetlands from the USACE through the CWA Section 404 permitting process. Timing for compliance with the specific conditions of the 404 permit shall be per conditions specified by the USACE as part of permit issuance. It is expected that the project would require an individual permit because wetland impacts would total more than 0.5 acre. In its final stage and once approved by the USACE, this mitigation plan is expected to detail proposed wetland restorat ion, enhancement, and/or replacement activities that would ensure no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands function and values in the project vicinity. As required by Section 404, approval and implementation of the wetland mitigation and monitoring plan shall ensure no net loss of jurisdictional waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. Mitigation for impacts to isolated wetlands shall be included in the same mitigation plan. All mitigation requirements identified through this process shall be implemented before construction begi ns in any areas containing wetland features.
2. Prior to construction in any ar eas containing wetland features, the project applicant shall obtain water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the project. Any measures required as part of the issuance of water quality certification shall be implemented.
3. The project applicant shall obtai n a Streambed Alteration Agreement under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish & Game Code for impacts to Waters of the State as defined under Section 1602 of the California Fish & Game Code.
4. The project applicant shall file a report of waste discharge with the Central Valley RWQCB for activities affecting waters of the state. For other mitigation measures aimed at maintaining water quality, including obtaining National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, see Mitigation Measure 6.10-1 in “Hydrology, Drainage and Water Quality.” (DEIR, p. 6.12-34)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
While a loss of wetlands would occur, wetlands associated with Lone Tree Canal would be protected as part of the gi ant garter snake habitat conservation area described under Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
73 Mitigation Measure 6.12-1. The managed marsh habitat provided for the giant garter snake will compensate for this loss and contribute to improved water quality. (DEIR, p. 6.12-33)
With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts on waters of the United States, including wetlands, would be less than significant because no net loss of jurisdictional wetlands would occur, and compliance with state and federal statutes protecting wetland would be achieved. (DEIR, p. 6.12-34)
Impact
6.12-4
Disturbance or Removal of Special-status Plant Species .
Implementation of the proposed project could result in the disturbance or loss of Delta tule pea and Sanford’ s arrowhead. Delta tule-pea and Sanford’s arrowhead could be present in the freshwater marsh habitat within the wetland habitats on the proj ect site. The potential loss of a special-status plant populat ion would be considered a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
No special-status plant occurrences have been reported on the project site; however, the potential for their occurrence on the project site cannot be dismissed because protocol-level surveys have not been conducted and suitable habi tat is present. Implementation of the project could result in the loss or disturbance of freshwater marsh habitat that could support special-status plant species. Disturbance or removal of Delta tule pea or Sanford’s arrowhead plants would be considered a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.12-35)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) has been adopted to address this impact:
6.12-4: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. Before the initiation of any ground-disturbing or vegetation-clearing activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct focused surveys in the project area for Delta tule pea and Sanford’s arrowhead. The botanist shall conduct surveys for these special-status plant species at the appropriate time of year when the tar get species would be in flower, and therefore, clearly ident ifiable Surveys shall be conducted following the approved DFG protocol for surveying for special-status plant species.
b. If no special-status pl ants are found during focused surveys, the botanist shall document the findings in a letter report to USFWS, DFG, and CNPS and no further mitigation shall be required.
c. If special-status plant populations are found, the proj ect applicant shall consult with the DFG to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for any population that may be affected by the project. Mitigation measures may include creation of off-site populations on project mitigation sites, through seed collection or transplanting, preserving and enhancing existing populations, or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities to compensate for the impact. (DEIR, p. 6.12-35)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
74 Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would require focused surveys for special-status plants, and implementing measures to avoid and minimize any special-status plant populations identified on the project site, and would reduce impacts to special-status plant to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.12-35)
Impact
6.12-5
Modifications to Burrowing Owl Habitat . Implementation of the proposed project could result in the loss of burrowing owl habitat or active burrows. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.12-5: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. No more than 30 days and no less than 14 day prior to project site grading, a qualified biologist shall conduct focused surveys for burrowing owls in areas of suitable habitat on and within 300 feet of the project site. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with DFG protocol (DFG 1995).
b. If no occupied burrows are found in the survey area, a letter report documenting survey methods and findings shall be submitted to DFG, and no further mitigation is necessary.
c. If occupied burrows are found in the su rvey area, impacts shall be avoided by establishing a buffer of 165 feet during the non-breeding season (September 1 through January 31) or 300 feet during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31). The size of the buffer area may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and DFG determine it would not be likely to have adverse effects.
No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the burrow is no longer occupied. If the burrow is occupied by a nesting pair, a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat contiguous to the burrow shall be pr eserved until the breeding season is over.
d. If impacts to occupied burrows are unavoidable, on-site passive relocation techniques may be used if approved by DFG to encourage owls to move to alternative burrows outside of the impact area. However, no occupied burrows shall be disturbed during t he nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that the burrow is no longer occupied. Foraging habitat for relocated pairs shall be provided in accordance with guidelines provi ded by DFG (1995). DFG guidelines recommend a minimum of 6.5 acres of foraging habitat per pair or unpaired resident bird, be acquired and permanently protected.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
75 e. If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by DFG, 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 be retained to supervise the relocation; (e) the proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new si te; (f) a description of the site preparations at the relocation-site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time 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 dist urbance through one way doors on burrow openings, or construction of artificial burrows in accordance DFG guidelines.
f. The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.12-2 to mitigate for the loss of burrowing owl foraging habitat.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures would avoid impacts to nesting burrowing owls and compensate for the loss of foraging habitat. Therefore, impacts on burrowing owl would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact
6.12-6
Effects to Northwestern Pond Turtle . Uplands and aquatic habitat on the project site suitable for giant garter snake is also considered potential habitat for northwestern pond turtle. T herefore, 55.56 acres of potential upland and aquatic habitat for western pond turtle would be permanently lost, 3.31 acres of upland and aquatic northwestern pond turtle habitat would be temporarily affected. The va lue of all northwestern pond turtle habitat on the project site is considered low because of insufficient water and the lack of emergent marsh vegetation in the excavated channels on the project site. However, Lone Tree canal and other areas that have the potential to support surface water of sufficient depths provide suitable habitat for this species. This impact would be potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.12-6: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.12-1.
b. Construction personnel shall parti cipate in a worker environmental awareness program. Under this program , workers shall be informed about the potential presence of western pond turtles in the construction area, and Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
76 shall be provided guidance on appropriate steps to take if a pond turtle is encountered during project construction.
c. Within 24 hours prior to commencement of construction activities, the site shall be inspected for turtles by a qua lified biologist. The construction area shall be re-inspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of two weeks or greater has occurred.
d. If a turtle is encountered on the projec t site, any construction activity that could result in harm of the turtle shall immediately cease and shall not resume until the monitoring biologist has determined that the turtle has moved away from the construction-site on their own volition or a qualified biologist has moved the turtle to a safe location. (DEIR, p. 6.12-37)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.12-6 would fully compensate for the loss of northwestern pond turtle habitat by provide on-site and off-site habitat that is of equal or greater value to the species, and by minimize the potential for harm that could result from construction activities, therefore, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.12-37)
Impact 6.12-
8 Potential Loss of Loggerhead Shrike Nests . Shrubs and weedy vegetation on the project site provi de potential nesting habitat for the loggerhead shrike. This species has been observed on the project site.
The loss of an active logger head shrike nest would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Loggerhead shrike, a California Species of Spec ial Concern, is a relatively common species in the Natomas Basin. This species typically nests in dense shrubs and trees. The preferred nesting habitat for this species is not present on the project site, but small trees and shrubs, and tall weedy areas are considered marginal potential nesting habitat.
Loggerhead shrikes have been observed on the project site, but no nests have been found.
The potential loss of an active loggerhead shri ke nest would be considered a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.12-37)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.12-8: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
If initiation of site grading is proposed during the loggerhead shrike nesting season (March 1 to July 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a focused surveys for loggerhead shrikes in areas of suitable habitat on and within 300 feet of the project site. The survey shall be conducted no more than 30 days and no less than 14 days prior to the start of grading. If surveys identify an active loggerhead shrike nest in the survey area, the applicant shall install brightly colored construction fencing that Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
77 establishes a boundary 100 feet from the active nest. No disturbance associated with the proposed project shall occur wit hin the 100-foot f enced area during the nesting season of March 1 through July 31 or until a qualified biologist has determine that the young have fledged or that the nest is no longer occupied prior to disturbance of the nest site. (DEIR, p. 6.12-38)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of Mitigati on Measure 6.12-8 would ensur e that any active loggerhead shrike nests on the project site would be adequately protected; therefore this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.12-38)
13. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact
6.13-2
Potential Impacts to Undocumented Cultural Resources. There is the possibility that previously undiscovered and undocumented resources could be adversely affected or other wise altered by ground disturbing activities during construction of the project. Disturbance of undocumented resources would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.13-2: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
If an inadvertent discovery of cultural materials (e.g., unusual amounts of shell, charcoal, animal bone, bottle glass, cera mics, burned soil, structure/building remains) is made during project-related construction activities, ground disturbances in the area of the find shall be halted and a qualified professional archaeologist shall be notified regarding the discovery. The archaeologist shall determine whether the resource is potentially significant as per CEQA and develop specific measures to ensure preservation of the resource. Specific measures for significant or potentially significant resources could include, but not necessarily be limited to in-field documentation, archival research, subsurface testing, and excavation. The specific type of measure necessary would be determined according to evidence indicating degrees of resource integrity, spatial and temporal extent, and cultural associations and would be conducted in a manner cons istent with CEQA and the City’s guidelines for preserving archaeological and cultural artifacts. (DEIR, pp. 6.13-8, 9)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would ensure that any resources that are inadvertently discovered during project cons truction activities are properly handled and preserved. Therefore, Miti gation Measure 6.13-2 would r educe potentially significant impacts resulting from inadvertent damage or destruction of unknown cultural resources during construction to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.13-9) Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
78 Impact
6.13-3
Potential to Uncover Human Remains . Subsurface disturbances associated with construction activities at the project site could potentially uncover unmarked historic-era and prehi storic Native American burials, resulting in their alteration or damage. This would be a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.13-3: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
In accordance with the Calif ornia Health and Safety Code, if human remains are uncovered during ground disturbing activities all such activities in the vicinity of the find shall be halted immediately and the City or the City’s designated representative shall be notified. The City shall immediately notify the county coroner and a qualified professional archaeologist. 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 (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours of making that determination (Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). The responsibilities of the Agency for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in detail in the California Public Resources Code Section 5097.9. The City or their appointed r epresentative and the professional archaeologist shall consult with a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) determined by the NAHC regarding the removal or preservation and avoidance of the remains and determine if additional burials could be present in the vicinity. (DEIR, p. 6.13-9)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
Because an agreement will be reached betw een the MLD and the City or their representative with the assistance of the archaeologist, implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.13-3 would ensure that any human remains that are inadvertently discovered during construction activities are properly preserved or avoided. Therefore, implementation of this mitigation would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.13- 10)
B. Significant or Potentially Signifi cant Impacts for which Mitigation is Outside the City’s Responsibility and/or Jurisdiction.
Mitigation measures to mitigate, avoi d, or substantially lessen the following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another pub lic agency and not the Cit y. Pursuant to section 21081(a)(2) of the Public Resources Code and section 15091(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, specifically finds that implementation of these mitigation measures can and should be undertaken by the Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
79 other public agency. The City will request, but cannot compel impl ementation of the identified mitigation measures described. The impact and mitigation measures and the facts supporting the determination that mitigation is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City, ar e set forth below. Notwithstanding the disclosure of these impacts, the City Council elects to appr ove the Project due to the overriding considerations set forth below in Section G, the statement of overriding considerations.
1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 6.1-3 Impacts to the Freeway Ramps. The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on the freeway system and would cause three study freeway ramps (i.e., SR 70/99 NB/Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp, SR 70/99 SB/I-5 SB off-ramp, and I-5 NB/SR 70/99 NB off-ramp) to operate unacceptably under Baseline plus Proj ect conditions. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-3a: Meister Way Overpass (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.1-1b above (i.e., construct the Meister Way overpass). T able 6.1-34 of the DEIR summarizes the peak-hour operating conditions for the st udy ramps under Baseline No Project conditions and Baseline plus Project conditions with the Meister Way overpass. As shown in the table, even with implementation of the Meister Way overpass, all three study freeway ramps (i.e., SR 70/99 NB/Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp, SR 70/99 SB/I- 5 SB off-ramp, and I-5 NB/SR 70/99 NB off-ramp) would continue to operate unacceptably under Baseline plus Projec t conditions. Therefore, additional measures are required for these ramps. (DEIR, p. 6.1-60.)
6.1-3b: SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall implement mitigation measure 6.1-1e, which would require the installation of a traffic signal at the SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard intersection.
b. Before project approval, the project applicant shall in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the proj ect applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation wit h the City and Caltrans) toward the widening the off-ramp from one lane to two lanes. The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of f unding needed to construct this improvement. This improvement is included in the Metro Air Park Financing Plan (MAPFP) and the North Natomas Public Facilities Finance Plan.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
80 Existing right-of-way is available to accommodate this improvement. Based on “windshield surveys” of the proj ect area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associ ated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the operation of this freeway ramp would improve to LOS C under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable based on Caltrans standards. (DEIR, p. 6.1-60.) However, this ramp is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Sacramento (i.e., subject to Caltrans jurisdiction). While the proj ect would contribute funds that would implement measures that would fully mitigate impacts to this ramp to a less- than-significant level, it is unknow n whether these measures would be implemented because they are not subject to the control of the City. As a result, for purposes of CEQA impacts to the SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (Impact 6.1- 3b) would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.1-3c: I-5 Northbound to SR 70/99 Northbound off -ramp: Fair-Share Contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion relief Fund (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the City will establish a Traffic Congestion Relief Fund to fund over all congestion relief projects.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. Monies collected within the City’s fund will be used by the City in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit, to fund improvements that would relieve freeway congestion. As determined in consultation with Caltrans and RT, the project’s fair-share contribution for all feasible (project and cumulative) mainline freeway improvements would be $1,135,904.
(FEIR, p. 7-2.)
Finding: With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp would operate at acceptable levels and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. While the project would contribute funds that would implement measures that would fully mitigate impacts to this ramp to a less-than-significant level, it is unknown whether these measures would be implemented prior to buildout of the project because they are not subj ect to the exclusive control of the City. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, the City det ermines that those changes or alterations required to mitigate or avoid the project’s significant effects on the envir onment are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agen cy. The impacts to the SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (Impact 6.1-3b) would t herefore remain significant and unavoidable. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-63; FEIR, p. 7-2.)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
81 For the I-5 Northbound to the SR 70/99 Northbound off-ramp, the project applicant would contribute to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. While mitigation is recommended that would require the project applicant to contribute to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, this mitigation (the Fund) does not pr ovide quantifiable actual reduction in the number of project-related trips on the I-5 Northbound to the SR 70/99 Northbound off-ramp.
Therefore, impacts to the I-5 Northbound to SR 70/00 Northbound off-ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-63; FEIR, p. 7-2, 7-3.) Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
Impact 6.1-4 Freeway Mainline Segment Impacts . The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on the fr eeway system and would cause four study freeway mainline segments (i.e., I-5 north of Del Paso Road, I-5 north of I-5/I-80 interchanges between I-80 and Arena Boulevard, SR 70- 99 between Elverta Road and Elkhorn Boulevard, and SR 70/99 between Elkhorn Boulevard and I-5/SR 70/99 interchange) to operate unacceptably under Baseline plus Project Conditions. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-4a Meister Way Overpass (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.1-1b above (i.e., construct the Meister Way overpass). T able 6.1-36 of the DEIR summarizes the peak-hour operating conditions for the study mainline segments under Baseline No Project conditions and Baseline plus Project conditions with the Meister way overpass. As shown in t he table of the DEIR, even with implementation of the Meister Way overpass. As shown in t he table, even with im plementation of the Meister Way overpass, three of four study mainline segments (i.e., I-5 north of Del Paso Road, I-5 north of I-5/I-80 interchange between I-80 and Arena Boulevard, and SR 70/99 between Elkhorn Boulevard and I-5/SR 70/99 interchange) would continue to operate unacceptably under Baseline plus Project conditions. Therefore, additional measures are required for these mainline segments. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-65)
6.1-4b I-5 North of Del Paso Road (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c. Monies collected within the City’s fund will be used by the City in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Region al Transit. The City’s Traffic Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
82 Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvements, costs, and funding for such improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would re main significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-3.)
6.1-4c: I-5 north of I-5/I-80 Interchange betw een I-80 and Arena Boulevard Exit (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigati on Measure 6.1-3c. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit. The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for such improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-3.)
6.1-4d: SR 70/99 Southbound bet ween Elverta Road and Elkhorn Boulevard (City of Sacramento)
Because this mainline segment of SR 70/99 currently operates unacceptably, widening this segment of SR 70/99 mainline to 3 lanes (currently 2 lanes) between Elkhorn Boulevard and Elverta Road would improve the operating conditions of this segment during peak conditions to an acceptable LOS. Widening of the segment is not included in Caltrans’ DSMP. While widening of SR 70/99 would improve the operating conditions of this mainline segm ent to acceptable conditions, Caltrans currently has no plans to expand this s egment of SR 70/99 beyond its current capacity nor are any funding mechanisms established to fund improvements such as this. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s impacts to this mainline segment, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-65)
6.1-4e: SR 70/99 between Elk horn Boulevard and I-5/SR 70/99 Interchange (City of Sacramento)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
83 Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigati on Measure 6.1-3c. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit. The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for such improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-3.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with impacts to three study freeway ramps. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant.
While mitigation may become available in the future to reduce the project’s impacts to freeway mainline segments, this project would not have sole responsibility for implementing these improvements. The proj ect applicant shall contribute it s fair share amount in the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair-share funds calculated for Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for su ch improvements has not been identified. Therefore, im pacts to the freeway mainline segments (i-5 north of Del Paso Road, I-5 north of I-5/I-80 Interchange between I-80 and Arena Boulevard Exit and SR 70/99 between Elkhorn Boulevard and I- 5/SR 70/99 Interchange) would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-4.) Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
Impact 6.1-5 Cumulative Traffic Impacts to Study Area Intersections . Traffic volumes associated with the project in combination with other reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would cause several study area intersections to operate unaccept ably and exceed City County, and Caltrans thresholds of significance for intersection operations. This would be a significant cumulative impact and the proj ect’s contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-5a Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road (City of Sacramento and County)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
84 The project applicant shall provide an expanded intersection with a right turn pocket length of 200 feet for vehicles turning right onto northbound Lone Tree Road from the westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approach. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the project would increase the average delay at this intersection by only
2.8 seconds, which is below City standar ds (i.e., 5 seconds). Construction associated with this mitigation measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site and therefore no new environmental impacts would occur. The applicant in consultation with the City shall coordinate with County to secure additional right-of-way for this improvement.
However, because this intersection is located within the County and is not subject to the City’s jurisdiction, implementation of this measure can not be guaranteed.
Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 6.1-69, 70)
6.1-5b SR 70/99 Southbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project applic ant shall in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism s hall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City and Caltrans) toward the restriping of the SR 70/99 southbound off-ramp approach to provide a left-turn lane, a shared left turn-right turn lane, and two right-turn lanes (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement. Sufficient right- of-way would be available with the future intersection configuration to accommodate these improvements without resulting in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS D and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1- 70)
6.1-5c SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhor n Boulevard (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project app licant shall coordina tion with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism s hall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City) toward the restriping of the SR 70/99 northbound off-ramp approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a shared left turn-right Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
85 turn lane, and a right-turn lane (cumulat ive base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement. Sufficient right-of-way would be available with the future intersection lane configuration to accommodate these improvements without resulting in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS E in the a.m. peak hour and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-70)
6.1-5d: Metro Air Parkway and I-5 Northbound Ramps (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City) toward the restriping of the I-5 northbound off-ramp approach to provide a left- turn lane, a shared left turn-right turn lane and two right-turn lanes (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the funding needed to construct this improvement.
This improvement would not require any additional right-of-way and would not in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS F in the a.m. and LOS E in the p.m. peak hour and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, pp. 6.1-70, 71)
6.1-5e Meister Way and Metro Air Parkway (City of Sacramento)
Adding a left-turn lane and restriping the westbound Meister Way approach to provide two left-turn lanes and a shared, through right-turn lane (cumulative base lane geometry assumes a left turn lane, a through lane, and a right turn lane) would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, construction of this mitigation measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way which is not controlled by the applicant. Although im plementation of this measure would reduce the project’s cumulative impacts to this intersection to a less-than-significant level, it is unknown whether additional right-of-way could be secured and whether this measure would be implemented. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-71)
6.1-5f Meister Way and Lone Tree Road (City of Sacramento)
Adding a left-turn lane for the eastbound and westbound Meister Way approaches, and southbound Lone Tree Road approach would im prove the operations of this intersection to LOS C and would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
86 Sufficient right-of-way could be secur ed by the applicant for the westbound approach; however, right-of-way along eastbound and southbound approach is controlled by the County and not within the City’s jurisdiction. Although implementation of this measure would reduc e the project’s cumulative impacts to this intersection to a less-than-significant level, it is unknown whether additional right-of-way could be secured and whether this measure would be implemented.
Therefore, for purposes of CE QA, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-71)
6.1-5g Meister Way and E. Commerce Way (City of Sacramento)
On or before 65% buildout of the project based on the project’s total trips, the project applicant shall revise the improvement pl an to provide a left-turn lane for the northbound East Commerce Way approach, an additional lane for the eastbound Meister Way approach, and restripe t he eastbound Meister Way approach to provide a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane (base cumulative lane geometry assumed to have a shared left turn-right turn lane for the eastbound approach).
Sufficient right-of-way is currently available to accommodate these improvements without resulting in substantial alteration or expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the proj ect would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this intersection would operate at LOS C and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-71)
6.1-5h Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1 (City of Sacramento)
Construction of an additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approaches (cumulative base lane geometry assumes three through lanes in each direction on Elkhorn Boulevard) would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way beyond the maxi mum right-of-way proposed by the City/County for this roadway. No other feas ible measures are available to reduce this impact because of limited right-of-way. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-71)
6.1-5i Elkhorn Boulevard and Projec t Street 2 (City of Sacramento)
Construction of an additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approaches (cumulative base lane geometry assumes three through lanes in each direction on Elkhorn Boulevard) would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way beyond the maximum right-of-way proposed by the City/ County for this roadway. No ot her feasible measures are available to reduce this impact because of limited right-of-way. T herefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, pp. 6.1-71, 72)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
87 6.1-5j Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 3 (City of Sacramento)
Construction of an additional through lane for the eastbound and westbound Elkhorn Boulevard approaches (cumulative base lane geometry assumes three through lanes in each direction on Elkhorn Boulevard) would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. However, this measure would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way beyond the ultimate right-of-way proposed by the City for this roadway. To improve the operations of this intersection under cumulative conditions, before buildout of the project, the project applicant shall restrict the left turn in/out movement at this intersection so that it will be right in/ right out movement only with a stop sign control on the side street. Alt hough the operation of this intersection would improve, it would not cause this intersection to operate at an acceptable level (e.g., LOS D or better). No other mitigation is available to reduce this impact. As a result, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-72)
Finding: Those changes or alterations required to mitigate or avoid the project’s significant effects to intersections of Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road, Meister Way and Metro Air Parkway, Meister Way and Lone Tree Road, Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 1, Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 2, and Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 3, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
No feasible mitigation is available or impl ementation of feasible mitigation can not be guaranteed because it is not subject to the cont rol of the City for the intersections of Elkhorn Boulevard and Lone Tree Road, Meister Way and Metro Air Parkway, Meister Way and Lone Tree Road, Elkhorn Boul evard and Project Street 1, Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 2, and Elkhorn Boulevard and Project Street 3. Therefore, the project’s cumulative impacts to these intersections are considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-72)
Impact 6.1-7 Cumulative Impacts to Study Area Freeway Ramps . The proposed project in combination with cumulati ve projects would increase traffic volumes on the freeway system and w ould cause four study freeway ramps (i.e., SR 70/99 Northbound to El khorn Boulevard off ramp, I-5 Northbound to SR 70/99 Northbound off ramp, I-5 Northbound to Metro Air Parkway off-ramp, and Metro Air Parkway to I-5 Southbound loop on ramp) to operate unacceptably under Cumulative plus Project conditions and exceed Caltrans thresholds of significance for freeway ramp operations. This would be a significant cumulative impact and the project’s contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-74)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-7a: SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
88 The project applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans to pay its fair share contribution to implement mitigation measure 6.1-5c , which requires re-striping the SR 99 northbound off-ramp approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a shared left turn-right turn lane and a right-turn lane (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). With implem entation of this mitigation measure and widening this ramp from one lane to two lanes, this ramp would operate at LOS C and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, these ramps are not under the jurisdiction of t he City of Sacramento (i.e., subject to Caltrans jurisdiction). While the project would contribute funds that would implement measures that would fully mitigate impac ts to this intersection to a less-than- significant level, it is unknown whether these measures would be implemented because they are not subject to the control of the City. As a result, for purposes of CEQA, cumulative impacts to this ramp would be considered significant and unavoidable.
6.1-7b:I-5 Northbound to SR 70/99 Northbound off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigati on Measure 6.1-3c. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit. The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for such improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-5.)
6.1-70c: I-5 Northbound to Metro Air Parkway off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
The project applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Metro Air Park Finance Plan to pay its fair share toward widening the off-ramp to provide two additional lanes. Caltrans’ DSMP includes the rec onstruction of the I-5/Metro Air Park Interchange, but does not identify specific improvements or a project construction date. Widening of the interchange to provide the two additional lanes could be accommodated within the right-of-way proposed as part of the interchange improvement.
The project applicant shall also implem ent mitigation measures 6.1-5d, which requires the establishment of a funding mechanism for restriping the I-5 northbound off-ramp approach to provide a left turn lane, a shared left turn-right turn lane and two right turn lanes (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes).
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
89 Even with implementation of the above miti gation, the ramp is anticipated to continue operating at LOS F. No other feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.1-7d: Metro Air Parkway to I-5 Sout hbound loop on-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project applicant shall, in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism s hall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City and Caltrans) toward the widening of the on-ramp to provide two additional lanes . The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the fundi ng needed to construct this improvement. Sufficient right-of-way is currently available to accommodate these improvements without resulting in expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this impr ovement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. The project would contribute approximately 1% of the total p.m. peak-hour trips at this off-ramp and as a result shall contribute 1% to construction of this improvement.
Caltrans would be the agency responsible for implementation of this measure and as a result the project applicant would be required to coordinate with Caltrans on the funding of this improvement. Caltrans’ District 3 DSMP includes the I-5/Metro Air Parkway Interchange, but does not identif y specific improvements or project construction date. Additionally, the construction of Metro Air Parkway to I-5 southbound loop on-ramp is included in the Metro Air Park Finance Plan, so the applicant would be required to pay its fair share cont ribution in conjunction with Metro Air Park finance plan toward the construction of this improvement.
However, even with implementation of the above mitigation, this ramp is anticipated to continue operating at LOS F. No other feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding: While mitigation recommended would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share amount toward the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund for improvements, it can not be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvements, costs, and full funding for such improvements have not been identified. As a result, for purposes of CEQA, cumulative impacts to these ramps would be considered significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-5.)
While mitigation may be feasible for the I-5 Northbound to Metro Air Parkway off-ramp and the Metro Air Parkway to I-5 Southbound loop on-ramp, this mitigation would not be able to reduce the impact of the project to a less-than-significant level. These ramps would Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
90 continue to operate at LOS F and no other feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, cumulative impacts to this ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-
5.) Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
C. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
The following significant and potentially si gnificant environmental impacts of the Project, including cumulative impacts, ar e unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the significant impact. Notwithstanding disclosure of these impacts, the City Council elects to approve the Project due to overriding considerations as set forth below in Section G, the statement of overriding considerations.
1. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 6.1-3 Impacts to the Freeway Ramps. The proposed project would increase traffic volumes on the freeway system and would cause three study freeway ramps (i.e., SR 70/99 NB/Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp, SR 70/99 SB/I-5 SB off-ramp, and I-5 NB/SR 70/99 NB off-ramp) to operate unacceptably under Baseline plus Proj ect conditions. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-3a: Meister Way Overpass (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.1-1b above (i.e., construct the Meister Way overpass). T able 6.1-34 of the DEIR summarizes the peak-hour operating conditions for the st udy ramps under Baseline No Project conditions and Baseline plus Project conditions with the Meister Way overpass. As shown in the table, even with implementation of the Meister Way overpass, all three study freeway ramps (i.e., SR 70/99 NB/Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp, SR 70/99 SB/I- 5 SB off-ramp, and I-5 NB/SR 70/99 NB off-ramp) would continue to operate unacceptably under Baseline plus Projec t conditions. Therefore, additional measures are required for these ramps. (DEIR, p. 6.1-60.)
6.1-3b: SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall implement mitigation measure 6.1-1e, which would require the installation of a traffic signal at the SR 70/99 Northbound Ramps and Elkhorn Boulevard intersection.
b. Before project approval, the project applicant shall in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the proj ect applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation wit h the City and Caltrans) toward the Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
91 widening the off-ramp from one lane to two lanes. The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of f unding needed to construct this improvement. This improvement is included in the Metro Air Park Financing Plan (MAPFP) and the North Natomas Public Facilities Finance Plan.
Existing right-of-way is available to accommodate this improvement. Based on “windshield surveys” of the proj ect area, the site proposed for this improvement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur.
Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associ ated with this measure. With implementation of this mitigation measure, the operation of this freeway ramp would improve to LOS C under Baseline plus Project conditions, which is acceptable based on Caltrans standards. (DEIR, p. 6.1-60.) However, this ramp is not under the jurisdiction of the City of Sacramento (i.e., subject to Caltrans jurisdiction). While the proj ect would contribute funds that would implement measures that would fully mitigate impacts to this ramp to a less- than-significant level, it is unknow n whether these measures would be implemented because they are not subject to the control of the City. As a result, for purposes of CEQA impacts to the SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (Impact 6.1- 3b) would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.1-3c: I-5 Northbound to SR 70/99 Northbound off -ramp: Fair-Share Contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion relief Fund (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the City will establish a Traffic Congestion Relief Fund to fund over all congestion relief projects.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. Monies collected within the City’s fund will be used by the City in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit, to fund improvements that would relieve freeway congestion. As determined in consultation with Caltrans and RT, the project’s fair-share contribution for all feasible (project and cumulative) mainline freeway improvements would be $1,135,904.
(FEIR, p. 7-2.)
Finding: With implementation of the above mitigation measures, the SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp would operate at acceptable levels and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. While the project would contribute funds that would implement measures that would fully mitigate impacts to this ramp to a less-than-significant level, it is unknown whether these measures would be implemented prior to buildout of the project because they are not subj ect to the exclusive control of the City. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, the City det ermines that those changes or alterations required to mitigate or avoid the project’s significant effects on the envir onment are within the Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
92 responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agen cy. The impacts to the SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (Impact 6.1-3b) would t herefore remain significant and unavoidable. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-63; FEIR, p. 7-2.)
For the I-5 Northbound to the SR 70/99 Northbound off-ramp, the project applicant would contribute to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. While mitigation is recommended that would require the project applicant to contribute to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, this mitigation (the Fund) does not pr ovide quantifiable actual reduction in the number of project-related trips on the I-5 Northbound to the SR 70/99 Northbound off-ramp.
Therefore, impacts to the I-5 Northbound to SR 70/00 Northbound off-ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-63; FEIR, p. 7-2, 7-3.) Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
Impact 6.1-6 Cumulative Impacts to Study Area Roadway Segments . The proposed project in combination with cumulative projects would increase traffic volumes on study area roadway segments and would cause these segments (i.e., Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Interchange, Metro Air Parkway north of I-5 Interc hange, and Meister Way west of SR 70/99) to degrade from an acceptable operating condition (i.e., LOS A) to an unacceptable operating condition (i.e., LOS F). Because study area roadway segments would operate unacceptably as a result of the project, this would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-6a Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 Interchange (City of Sacramento)
Widening Elkhorn Boulevard to eight lanes (4 in each direction) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City includes widening of Elkhorn Boulevard to six lanes within its General Plan; widening to eight lanes is not feasible nor planned by the City. Ther efore, before project appr oval, the project applicant shall, in coordination with the City, establish a funding mechanism to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan present ed in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs towards widening Elkhorn Boulevard to six lanes west of the SR 70/99 Interchange (the number of lanes planned by the City of Sacramento). The City and developers of the MAP project have identif ied 100% of the funding necessary to widen the Elkhorn Boulevard/ SR 70/99 overpass to six lanes. No other feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact. Therefore, while reduced, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-73)
6.1-6b Meister Way west of SR 70/99 (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall implement Mitigation measure 6.1-2c. With implementation of this mitigation measur e, this segment would operate at LOS B Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
93 and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1- 73)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 interchange. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than signific ant. The effects (or so me of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
As discussed in Section A of these findings, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, the Meister Way west of SR 70/99 segment would operate at acceptable levels under cumulative conditions and the project’s cumulative impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (DEIR, p. 6.1-74)
However, no feasible mitigation is available to reduce the project’s cumulative impacts to the Elkhorn Boulevard west of SR 70/99 in terchange segment. Theref ore, the project’s cumulative impact to this intersection is considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-74)
Impact 6.1-7 Cumulative Impacts to Study Area Freeway Ramps . The proposed project in combination with cumulati ve projects would increase traffic volumes on the freeway system and w ould cause four study freeway ramps (i.e., SR 70/99 Northbound to El khorn Boulevard off ramp, I-5 Northbound to SR 70/99 Northbound off ramp, I-5 Northbound to Metro Air Parkway off-ramp, and Metro Air Parkway to I-5 Southbound loop on ramp) to operate unacceptably under Cumulative plus Project conditions and exceed Caltrans thresholds of significance for freeway ramp operations. This would be a significant cumulative impact and the project’s contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable. (2RDEIR, p. 6.1-74)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact to the extent feasible:
6.1-7a: SR 70/99 Northbound to Elkhorn Boulevard off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
The project applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans to pay its fair share contribution to implement mitigation measure 6.1-5c , which requires re-striping the SR 99 northbound off-ramp approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a shared left turn-right turn lane and a right-turn lane (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes). With implem entation of this mitigation measure and widening this ramp from one lane to two lanes, this ramp would operate at LOS C and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, these ramps are not under the jurisdiction of t he City of Sacramento (i.e., subject to Caltrans jurisdiction). While the project would contribute funds that would implement measures that would fully mitigate impacts to this intersection to a less-than- Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
94 significant level, it is unknown whether these measures would be implemented because they are not subject to the control of the City. As a result, for purposes of CEQA, cumulative impacts to this ramp would be considered significant and unavoidable.
6.1-7b:I-5 Northbound to SR 70/99 Northbound off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigati on Measure 6.1-3c. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit. The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for such improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-5.)
6.1-70c: I-5 Northbound to Metro Air Parkway off-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
The project applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans and the Metro Air Park Finance Plan to pay its fair share toward widening the off-ramp to provide two additional lanes. Caltrans’ DSMP includes the rec onstruction of the I-5/Metro Air Park Interchange, but does not identify specific improvements or a project construction date. Widening of the interchange to pr ovide the two additional lanes could be accommodated within the right-of-way proposed as part of the interchange improvement.
The project applicant shall also implem ent mitigation measures 6.1-5d, which requires the establishment of a funding mechanism for restriping the I-5 northbound off-ramp approach to provide a left turn lane, a shared left turn-right turn lane and two right turn lanes (cumulative base lane geometry assumes two left turn and two right turn lanes).
Even with implementation of the above miti gation, the ramp is anticipated to continue operating at LOS F. No other feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
6.1-7d: Metro Air Parkway to I-5 Southbound loop on-ramp (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
Before project approval, the project applicant shall, in coordination with the City, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan to fully fund necessary traffic mitigation. This funding mechanism s hall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
95 Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the project applicant will pay their fair-share costs (determined in consultation with the City and Caltrans) toward the widening of the on-ramp to provide two additional lanes . The Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan identifies 100% of the fundi ng needed to construct this improvement. Sufficient right-of-way is currently available to accommodate these improvements without resulting in expansion of this intersection. Based on “windshield surveys” of the project area, the site proposed for this impr ovement is substantially similar to the project site. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the project’s construction-related impacts and no new significant impacts would occur. Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce construction-related impacts associated with this measure. The project would contribute approximately 1% of the total p.m. peak-hour trips at this off-ramp and as a result shall contribute 1% to construction of this improvement.
Caltrans would be the agency responsible for implementation of this measure and as a result the project applicant would be required to coordinate with Caltrans on the funding of this improvement. Caltrans’ District 3 DSMP includes the I-5/Metro Air Parkway Interchange, but does not identif y specific improvements or project construction date. Additionally, the construction of Metro Air Parkway to I-5 southbound loop on-ramp is included in the Me tro Air Park Finance Plan, so the applicant would be required to pay its fair share cont ribution in conjunction with Metro Air Park finance plan toward the construction of this improvement.
However, even with implementation of the above mitigation, this ramp is anticipated to continue operating at LOS F. No other feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding: While mitigation recommended would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share amount toward the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund for improvements, it can not be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvements, costs, and full funding for such improvements have not been identified. As a result, for purposes of CEQA, cumulative impacts to these ramps would be considered significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-5.)
While mitigation may be feasible for the I-5 Northbound to Metro Air Parkway off-ramp and the Metro Air Parkway to I-5 Southbound loop on-ramp, this mitigation would not be able to reduce the impact of the project to a less-than-significant level. These ramps would continue to operate at LOS F and no other feasible mitigation is available. Therefore, cumulative impacts to this ramp would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-
5.) Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
Impact 6.1-8 Cumulative Freeway Mainline Segment Impacts. The proposed project in combination with cumulative projects would increase traffic volumes on the freeway system and would caus e three study freeway mainline segments (i.e., I-5 east of Powerline Road, I-5 north of Del Paso Road, I-5 north of I-5/I-80 interchanges betw een I-80 and Arena Boulevard) to operate unacceptably under Cumulative plus Project Conditions. These Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
96 intersections would operate unaccept ably under Cumulative no Project conditions; however, the project would contribute additional trips to these intersections, which is unacceptable based on Caltrans standards. This would be a cumulatively significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant level:
6.1-8a: I-5 east of Power line Road to the MAP Interchange (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall contribute its fair share toward widening this segment to six lanes (currently four lanes). This mitigation would improve the operating conditions of this segment during peak conditions to an acceptable LOS. The Caltrans’ District 3 DSMP includes adding an HOV lane to I 5 by the year 2020 and according to Metro Air Park Finance Plan, this segment of I-5 would be upgraded to six lanes with buildout of the Metro Air Park project.
Therefore, prior to recordation of the first map, the project applicant shall, in coordination with the Cit y, prepare a City Council-approved Finance Plan.
This funding mechanism shall be in conformance with the Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan presented in Appendix C of the DEIR. This funding mechanism shall ensure that the pr oject applicant will pay their fair-share costs, determined in consultation with the City and in coordination with the Metro Air Park Finance Plan, toward the widening of I-5 to six lanes. While expansion of this freeway segment would reduce the project’s cumulative traffic impacts to this freeway segment, it would not reduce the project’s cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level because 100% funding has not been identified.
Therefore, while reduced, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.1-82)
6.1-8b: I-5 north of Del Paso R oad (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigati on Measure 6.1-3c. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit. The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for such Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
97 improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-6.)
6.1-8c: I-5 north of I-5/I-80 Interchange betw een I-80 and Arena Boulevard Exit (City of Sacramento and Caltrans)
a. The project applicant shall impl ement Mitigation Measure 6.1-3c.
b. Upon the City’s issuance of any building permit for the project, the project applicant shall pay its fair-share contribution to the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. This contribution has been previously identified within the fair- share funds calculated for Mitigati on Measure 6.1-3c. Monies will be deposited within the City’s fund in the time and manner as required by the City of Sacramento, in accordance with Caltrans and other transportation agencies including Regional Transit. The City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund will be used to implement projects that would reduce mainline freeway congestion. However, it cannot be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and funding for such improvements has not been identified. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-7.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effects to the freeway mainline segments. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant.
While mitigation recommended would require the project applicant to contribute its fair share amount in the City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, it can not be guaranteed that the congestion relief projects would be constructed or would be constructed prior to buildout of the project because the types of improvem ents, costs, and full funding for such improvements have not been identif ied. Therefore, cumulati ve impacts to the freeway mainline segments (i-5 east of Power Line Road to the MAP Interchange, I-5 north of Del Paso Road, I-5 north of I-5/I-80 Interchange between I-80 and Arena Boulevard Exit) would remain significant and unavoidable. (FEIR, p. 7-7) Please see also Response to Comment 3-3 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 4-20 to 4-22.)
2. AIR QUALITY
Impact 6.2-1 Short Term Construction-Generated Emissions . Construction- generated emissions of NOX would exceed SMAQMD’s significance threshold of 85 lb/day, and because of the project’s size, PM10 emissions would result in or substantially contribute to emission concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. In addition, because Sacramento County is currently designated as a nonattainment area for both ozone and PM10, construction-generated emissions could further contribute to pollutant concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. This impact would be significant.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
98 Modeled emissions of NOX, during all phases of construction, would exceed the SMAQMD’s significance threshold of 85 lb/day and, because of the project’s size, short- term construction-generated PM10 emissions would result in or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. In addition, because Sacramento County is currently designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and PM10, construction- generated emissions could further contribute to pollutant concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. As a result, this impact would be significant. (DEIR, p. 6.2-18)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.2-1: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
In accordance with the recommendations of the SMAQMD, the project applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce temporary construction emissions:
a. The project applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce NOX and visible emissions from heavy-duty diesel equipment. i. Before issuance of a grading permit, the project applic ant shall provide a plan for approval by the lead agency, in consultation with SMAQMD, demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower), off-road vehicles to be used in the construction pr oject, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project-wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average at the ti me of construction. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, particulate matter traps, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or such other options as become available.
ii. Before issuance of a grading permi t, the project applicant shall submit to the lead agency and SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 hp, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of project construction. The inv entory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the dur ation of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required fo r any 30-day period in which no construction operations occur. At least 48 hours before heavy-duty off- road equipment is used, the proj ect applicant shall provide the SMAQMD with the anticipated cons truction timeline including start date, and the name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
99 iii. Before issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall ensure that emissions from off-road, diesel-powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40% opacity for more than 3 minutes in any 1 hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40% opacity (for white smoke) or Ringlemann 2.0 (for black smoke) shall be repaired immediately, and the SMAQMD shall be notified of non-compliant equipment within 48 hours of identification. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly by the construction contractor, and the contractor shall submit a monthly summary of visual survey results throughout the duration of the constr uction project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction operations occur. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surv eyed, as well as the dates of each survey. The SMAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance.
b. As recommended by the SMAQMD, the pr oject applicant shall reduce fugitive dust emissions by implementing t he measures listed below during construction.
i. All disturbed areas, in cluding storage piles that are not being actively used for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, a chemical stabilizer or suppressant, or vegetative ground cover. Soil shall be kept moist at all times. ii. All on-site unpaved roads and off- site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissi ons using water or a chemical stabilizer or suppressant.
iii. When materials are transported off- site (e.g., trees, plantings), all material shall be covered, effect ively wetted to limit visible dust emissions, or maintained with at least 2 feet of freeboard space from the top of the container.
iv. All operations shall limit or expedi tiously remove the accumulation of project-generated mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring.
v. After materials are added to or remo ved from the surfaces of outdoor storage piles, the storage piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions using sufficient wate r or a chemical stabilizer or suppressant.
vi. On-site vehicle speeds on unpaved r oads shall be limited to 15 mph. vii. Wheel washers shall be install ed for all trucks and equipment exiting unpaved areas, or wheels shall be washed to remove accumulated dirt before such vehicles leave the site.
viii. Sandbags or straw waddles shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from adjacent project areas with a slope greater than 1 %.
ix. Excavation and grading activities shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 mph.
x. The extent of areas simultaneously subject to excavation and grading shall be limited, wherever possible, to the minimum area feasible.
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
100
xi. Emulsified diesel, diesel catalyst s, or SMAQMD-approved equal, shall be used on applicable heavy-duty construction equipment that can be operated effectively and safely with the alternative fuel type.
c. The applicant shall pay $2,587,955 into SMAQMD’s off-site construction mitigation fund to further mitigate construction-generated emissions of NOX that exceed SMAQMD’s daily emi ssion threshold of 85 lb/day. The calculation of the fee listed here is based on the current cost of $14,300 to reduce a ton of NOX. However, the then current cost of reducing NOx should be used at the time of the payment of the fee. The fee shall be paid to the SMAQMD prior to the issuance of any grading permit for any portion of the project. The fee can be paid on an acre bases ($4,485.19/acre) as development occurs and grading permits are sought. (See Appendix D of the DEIR for calculation worksheet.)
d. In addition to the measures identif ied above, construction operations are required to comply with all applicable SMAQMD rules and regulations.
(RDEIR, p. 6.2-20; FEIR, p. 7-9.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with short term construction-generated emissions. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant.
Implementation of the above measures under part a above would result in a 20% reduction in NOX emissions and a 45% reduction in vi sible emissions from heavy-duty diesel equipment according to SMAQMD. Implementation of the measures under part (b) would reduce fugitive dust emissions by up to 75%, according to estimates provided by SMAQMD. Daily construction emissions woul d still exceed the SMAQ MD’s significance threshold (Table 6.2-3 of the DEIR) despite implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and thus would potentia lly result in or substantially contribute to pollutant concentrations that exceed the CAAQS. As a result, this would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. 6.2-19)
Impact 6.2-2 Generation of Long-Term Operationa l (Regional) Emissions ROG, NOX, and PM10. Long-term operation of the proposed project would result in emissions of ozone-prec ursor pollutants that would exceed SMAQMD’s threshold. Furthermore, the project’s operational emissions would potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. As a result, this impact would be considered significant.
Long-term operation of the proposed project would result in emissions of ROG and NOX in excess of SMAQMD’s corresponding thresholds of 65 lb/day. Furthermore, operation of the project would result in increased vehicle trips and VMT compared to existing conditions that are not already accounted fo r in an approved plan. An increase in VMT and associated mobile source emissions, may conflict with the SMAQMD’s air quality planning efforts.
Consequently, an increase in VMT beyond projections in local plans would potentially result Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
101
in a significant adverse incremental effect on the region’s ability to attain and/or maintain the CAAQS. This would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.2-21)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.2-2: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
When a proposed project’s operational emissions are estimated to exceed SMAQMD’s threshold of significance of 65 lb/day for ROG or NOX, an Air Quality Mitigation Plan (AQAP) to reduce operational emissions by a minimum of 15% shall be submitted to the SMAQMD for approval. The following mitigation is included in the SMAQMD-approved AQAP for this project (Appendix E) and shall be incorporated to achieve a 15% reduction.
a. The entire project shall be located within ½ mile of a Class I or Class II bike lane.
b. The project shall provide for pedestrian improvements. c. Residential uses shall be within 1/4 mile of planned transit. d. Neighborhoods shall serve as focal points.
e. Separate, safe, and convenient bi cycle and pedestrian paths shall connect residential, commercial, and office uses.
f. The project shall provide a development pattern that eliminates physical barriers that impede bicycle or pedestrian circulation. g. The lowest emitting commercially available furnaces shall be installed. h. Average residential density shall be sev en dwelling units per acre or greater (residential).
i. The project shall be mixed-use.
j. A display case/kiosk displaying trans portation information shall be provided. k. Minimum amount of parking shall be provided.
l. Parking lot shade shall be increased by 10%.
m. The project shall become a perm anent member of a Transportation Management Association (TMA).
n. The project shall provi de a transportation coordinator. o. The project shall contract with landscapers complying with ARB standards.
(FEIR, pp. 5-32, 7-9, 7-10.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with long term regional long term emissions. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of the effect s) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Although the above mitigation measures woul d substantially reduce the project’s operational emissions, they would not reduce the project’s operational emissions below Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
102
SMAQMD’s significance thresholds (refer to Table 6.2-4 of the DEIR). See also Response to Comment R7-7 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 5-32 to 5-34.) As a result, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.2-22)
Impact 6.2-4 Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions. Implementation of the proposed project could result in the exposure of existing sensitive receptors to minor increases in short-term construction emissions and future residents to TAC emissions from :
airport operations; vehicle emissions to I-5 and SR 70/99; mobile-source TAC emissions on the site; and TACs from on-site commercial and other activities. Exposure to short te rm construction emissions would be temporary and would not result in substantial health hazards; the impact would be less than significant.
Exposure to TACs from airport operations is an issue that is being studied on a national level, but no conclusions have been reached as to whether such exposure would be a health hazar d, therefore t he EIR could not reach a conclusion of significance.
An analysis using both screening criteria and calculations of incremental risk to residents from exposure to TACs for residents along the margins closest to the freeways shows that the project would not result in substantial health risk. Further, in view of the on-going state and federal regulatory programs which have demonstr ated significant reductions in health risks from toxic air contaminants in the Sacramento area (as well as throughout the state), and forecasted future improvements as a result of continued implementation of these existing regul atory programs, this impact would be less than significant.
Given that proposed on-site comme rcial land uses have not yet been identified, and given the potential proximity of nearby sensitive receptors, exposure of nearby on-site receptors to mobile-source TACs associated with commercial and other activities on the site would be considered potentially significant. (RDEIR, pp. 6.2-24 to 6.2-30.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.2-4: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
On-site Mobile Sources. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
a. Proposed facilities that would require the long-term use of diesel equipment and heavy-duty trucks shall develop and implement a plan to reduce emissions, which may include such measures as scheduling such activities when the residential uses are the l east occupied, and requiring such equipment to be shut off when not in use and prohibiting heavy-trucks from idling. The plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City before loading Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
103
dock activities begin. Copies of the pl an shall be provided to all residential dwellings located within 1,000 feet of loading dock areas.
b. Proposed commercial/convenience land us es (e.g., loading docks) that have the potential to emit toxic air emissi ons shall be located as far away as feasibly possible from existing and proposed sensitive receptors.
Finding: Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce health-related risks associated with on-site mobile-source TACs, but not necessarily to a less-than- significant level. Exposure to mobile-source TAC emissions from on-site mobile sources are, therefore, considered significant and unavoidable. This conclusion is because of the uncertainty associated with on-site commercia l land use activities and the proximity of sensitive receptors to such uses. This conclusion may, therefore, change as more detailed information regarding proposed on-site commercial uses becomes available. (RDEIR, p.
6.2-31)
Regarding exposure to TACs from freeways adjacent to the site, the analysis in the EIR shows that under all consi derations (current and improved future background TAC exposure), the project does not expose residences to an incremental (i.e., additional over background) cancer risk of 10 in 1 million and does not result in exposure to an acute and chronic hazard index of 1.0 or greater. See also Response to Comments R7-12 and R7-13 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, pp. 5-35 to 5-37.) Consequently, this impact is concluded to be less than significant. (RDEIR, p. 6.2-29)
3. NOISE
Impact 6.3-2 Long-Term Operational Traffic Noise. Implementation of the proposed project would result in increases in traffic noise levels greater than 4 dBA and cause traffic noise levels to exceed the County’s 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL exterior noise standard at sensit ive receptors in unincorporated Sacramento County. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The project applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce the exposure of existing sensitive receptors to project-generated traffic noise levels.
6.3-2: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. As individual facilities and elements of the proposed project are permitted by the City, the City shall evaluate eac h for compliance with the County’s exterior noise standard and the substantial increase threshold [i.e., relative to existing levels attributed to existing year 2005 traffic volumes (Section 6.1, “Transportation and Circulation”)] for transportation noise sources at the existing residences in unincorporat ed Sacramento County located along Lone Tree Road south of Elkhorn Boulev ard (house is 50 feet west of centerline of Lone Tree Road), Power Line Road between Elkhorn Boulevard and Del Paso Road (house is located 80 feet east of centerline of Power Line Road), and Elkhorn Boulevard bet ween Power Line Road and Lone Tree Road (houses are located 575 feet south of centerline of Elkhorn Boulevard Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
104
and 175 feet south of centerline of Elkhorn Road). Where traffic noise levels generated by individual projects do not clearly comply with the County’s exterior noise standards or result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at these locations, the City s hall offer the owners of the affected residences the installation of solid barriers (e.g., berms, wall, and/or fences) along their affected property line. Actual installation of the barriers/fences would either be funded by, or comple ted by the project applicant. The barriers/fences must be constructed of solid material (e.g., wood, brick, or adobe) and be of sufficient density and height to minimize exterior noise levels. The barriers/fences shall blend into the overall landscape and have an aesthetically pleasing appearance that agrees with the color and character of nearby residences, and not become the dominant visual element of the community. Where there is a questi on regarding premitigation or postmitigation noise levels in a par ticular area, site-specific noise studies/modeling may be conducted to determine compliance or noncompliance with standards. Funding for the installation of this mitigation measure shall be provided by the project applicant. (DEIR, pp. 6.3-24, 25)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with long-term operational traffic noise. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (o r some of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
While Mitigation Measure 6.3-2 would substantially lessen exterior noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors, noise levels would still be substantially increased, and the feasibility of the mitigation to reduce all significant noise impacts is unknown. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.3-25)
4. UTILITIES
Impact 6.4-4 Environmental Impacts Associated with SRWTP Expansion. The SRWTP would provide wastewater treatment services for the project. The SRCSD approved an SRWTP to acco mmodate wastewater treatment demands for future growth and development. As a result, the project would contribute to the need to expand the SRWTP. According to the EIR prepared for the SRWTP 2020 Master Plan Expansion, construction and operation of facility improvements c ould contribute to significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction-related air quality. Because the project would contribute to the need for expanding the SRWTP, and would contribute to the impacts assessed in the EIR for the SRWTP 2020 Master Plan Expansion would be a significant impact to wastewater facilities. (DEIR, p. 6.4-14)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
105
6.4-4: (City of Sacramento)
The environmental impacts of expanding the SRWTP were appropriately evaluated in the EIR for the SRWTP 2020 Master Plan Expansion Project. All available mitigation was recommended to reduce the env ironmental impacts of this project where feasible. However, the EI R concluded that even with recommended mitigation, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction-related air quality, the cumula tive effects of which are discussed in Section 7.2, “Cumulative Impacts,” of the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p, 6.4-14)
Finding: The SRWTP would provide wastewater treatment for wastewater flows generated by the project. The SRWTP currently treats an average of 165 mgd of wastewater and is permitted to treat 181 mgd average dry weather flows (ADWF) and 392 mgd of daily peak wet weather flows. The SRCSD has determined that expansion of the SRWTP is necessary to meet increased demands over the next 20 years, a portion of which would be generated by the project. The S RCSD prepared and approved the SRWTP 2020 Master Plan Expansion Project in 2004, which would expand the plant in incremental steps on an as- needed basis to 218 mgd ADWF over the next 15 to 20 years. The SRCSD accommodate new development projects on a first-come-first-served basis. Phased facility expansion is currently on-going. The EIR prepared for the project (Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan 2020 Master Plan EIR, 2004) indicated that the expansion project would result in one significant and unavoidable impact related to construction-related air quality (see discussion of cumulative air quality impacts in Chapter 7, “Other CEQA Sections”). All other impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR. A copy of the EIR is available for review at the City of Sacramento, Pl anning Department, 915 I Stree t, Suite 300, Sacramento, California).
Although staff of SRCSD have indicated that wa stewater treatment capacity is currently available to the serve the project and woul d account for less than 2% of the existing permitted wastewater treatment of the SRWTP under ADWF and less than 1% under daily peak wet weather flows, the project in combination with other development would contribute to the need for expansion of the SRWTP and would contribute to the impacts assessed in the EIR for the SRWTP 2020 Master Plan Expansion Project, one of which would remain significant and unavoidable. The SRCSD expects to resolve the CEQA challenge to its EIR in the near future and in time to expand the SRWTP in response to demand. Therefore, the project would contribute to a significant wastewater impact. No other feasible mitigation is available. (DEIR, p. 6.4-14)
Because all feasible mitigation has been reco mmended to reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the SRWTP expansion and no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p.
6.4-14)
5. PUBLIC SERVICES
Impact 6.5-1 Increased Demand for Fire and Emergency
Medical Services .
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
106
Although SFD is planning to construct a new fire station near the project site and with this facility SFD would pr ovide services to the project site within acceptable standards, the timing of the construction of this facility is currently unknown. Because it is unknown whether adequate fire protection facilities would be in place at the time the first occupancy permit is issued, the project could result in residents living in an area where inadequate fire and emergency response services are provided. This would be a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.5-5)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.5-1: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. The project applicant shall coordi nate with the City of Sacramento to determine the timing of construction of a new fire station that would serve the proposed project. The project applicant shall enter into an agreement with SFD to ensure that adequate fire protection services would be in place before the issuance of the project’s first o ccupancy permit. Potential options for adequate services could include construction of a new fire station or an agreement for temporary dedicated services to serve the project site. b. The project’s Finance Plan shall identify necessary public facility improvements needed to serve the project, 100% of the costs required, and all the project’s fair-share costs associated with provision of these facilities and services. The project applicant s hall pay into a fee program, as established by the Greenbriar Finance Pl an, that identif ies the funding necessary to construct needed public facilities (e.g., police, fire, water, wastewater, library, and schools). T he Draft Greenbriar Finance Plan is provided in Appendix C of the DEIR. The Finance Plan would be structured to ensure that adequate public fa cilities are in place as development occurs. (DEIR, p. 6.5-5, 6)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effect to fire services as identified in the Final EIR.
With implementation of the above mitigation, the project’s impact to fire services would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, the mitigation proposed (i.e., construction of a new fire station) could result in construction-related environmental effects including increased air emissions, traffic trips, conversion of agricultural lands and open space areas, and impacts to special-status species and wildlife. Further, operation of the station could result in potential land use conflicts including increased noise associated with engine operations, increased roadway traffic volumes, and increased safety hazards. The proposed station would be located within the North Natomas area. Resources within the North Natomas area are generally similar to resources found within the project site.
Mitigation recommended for the project would also substantially reduce impacts associated with construction and operation of this facility. However, it is unknown whether mitigation would reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Theref ore, construction of the Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
107
proposed new fire station, wh ich would be required to prov ide adequate fire protection services at the project site, could result in significant and unavoidable environmental effects. Therefore, for purposes of CEQA, this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. 6.5- 6) Please see also Response to Comment 9-1 in the Final EIR. (FEIR, p. 4-209.)
6. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
Impact 6.6-2 Substantial Loss of Open Space Resources . The proposed project would result in the conversion of approximately 577 acres of agricultural land to nonagricultural use in an area that already is experiencing substantial development and loss of open space. The conversion of agricultural land to urban development would result in the permanent loss of open space resources. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.6-2: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. Consistent with the principles of t he City/County Joint Vision Plan, the project applicant shall coordinate with the City to identify appropriate lands to be set aside in a permanent conservation easements at a ratio of one open space acre converted to urban land uses to one-half open space acre preserved and at a ratio of one habitat acre conver ted to urban land uses to one-half habitat acre preserved. The total acres of land conserved shall be based on final site maps indicating the total on-site open space and habitat converted.
Conserved open space and habitat areas could include areas on the project site, lands secured for permanent habitat enhancement (e.g., giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk habitat), or additional land identified by applicant in consultation with the City. All conserved open space and habitat land shall be located in the NNJV area. Should the City and County change adopted mitigation ratios before issuance of any grading permits, the project applicant shall comply with the revised policy. (DEIR, p. 6.6-12)
LAFCo Prior to annexation, the city sha ll implement mitigation measure 6.6-2. (DEIR, p. 6.6-12)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with loss of open space. No mitigat ion is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of t he effects) therefore re main significant and unavoidable.
Agricultural lands within the North Natomas area are part of an assortment of other open space areas within Sacramento County. Sacramento County has been among the top 10 urbanizing counties in California and in the t op ranks for net loss of irrigated land as Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
108
mapped between 1988 and 2002 by the FMMP of the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Land Resource Protection. The project site is within a portion of the county that historically has been devoted to agriculture, but rapid urban development is replacing much of this open space. As of December 2004, approximately 12% of the existing land in the City’s Policy Area (approximately 12,946 acres) was in agricultural use, with a large portion of the existing agricultural land located in North Natomas. The proposed project would result in the direct conv ersion of approximately 577 acres (gross) of agricultural land to nonagricultural use and urban development in an area that already is experiencing substantial development and lo ss of open space. Total open space land converted would actually be somewhat reduced through the provision of on-site open space features (e.g., open space corridors, lake/detention basins). The NNJV MOU requires that future development projects preserve permanent open space in the Natomas area through conservation easements at a 1:1 mitigation ratio (comprised of half-to-one ratio for habitat and half-to-one for open space). Because the pr oject would result in the permanent conversion of open space resources and no conservation easements are proposed as an element of the project, the loss of open space would be a significant impact. (DEIR, p. 6.6- 11)
As described for Mitigation Measure 6.6-2, implementation of mitigation requiring preservation of open space and habitat land would substantially lessen significant impacts associated with the conversion of open space on the project site because conservation easements would assist the public and private sectors in protecting other open space from the pressures of development. However, pr eservation of existing open space resources would only partially offset conversions of open space associated with project impacts, no new open space would be made available. (DEIR, p. 6.6-12)
For these reasons, and because no other feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact associated with loss of open space in North Natomas, the project’s impacts to open space resources would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. (DEIR, p.
6.6-12)
7. AESTHETICS
Impact 6.7-3 Degradation of Visual Character. The visual character of the Natomas Basin has been gradually changing from agricultural to suburban development as development proceeds north in Sacramento. The project would convert a large area of land fr om visual open space to suburban development. This is a significant impact to the visual character of the area.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.7-3: (City of Sacramento)
Because of the scale and location of the pr oject, there is no feasible mitigation available to address aesthetic resource impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to urban development. Although design, architectural, development, Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
109
and landscaping standards through the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Guidelines would provide an urban development on the project site that remains within certain aesthetic guidelines, there is no mechanism to allow implementation of the project while avoiding the conversion of the local viewshed from agricultural to urban development. Impacts related to t he degradation of the local viewshed through conversion of agricultural lands to urban development are considered significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.7-10)
Finding: No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Individuals may also consider the conversion of agricultural land to urban development on this scale (577 acres) as a loss of an aes thetically pleasing and valuable viewshed.
Because agricultural lands can be considered a valuable aesthetic resource and this resource is diminishing in the project area, and because of the size and visual prominence of the site (577 acres), the change in visual character would be considered a significant impact. Due to the conversation of agricultural lands to urban development, this would be considered significant and unavoidable after mitigation. (DEIR, p. 6.7-10)
8. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDS
Impact 6.8-3 o Potential for Safety Hazards from Proximity of Airport to Proposed Land Uses. The project’s residential land uses would be compatible with safety standards outlined in the Sacramento International Airport CLUP. However, the proposed parks and light rail station located within the overflight zone (a safety zone of the Sacramento International Airport) could result in densities that exceed 50 persons per acre at any one time, which would exceed densit y standards allowed by CLUP.
Therefore, this impact would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure(s) have been identified to reduce this impact. However, for the reasons se t forth below, no mitigat ion measure(s) are available to reduce the impact to less than significant:
6.8-3: (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
a. Prior to City pre-zoning and prior to annexation, the City shall request a consistency determination of propos ed land use with the CLUP from Sacramento County ALUC. The consistency determination shall describe the specific land uses that would be allowable and consistent with the CLUP in accordance with ALUC standards.
b. Prior to City pre-zoning and prior to annexation, if the consistency determination by ALUC comes to the conclusion that certain proposed land uses would be inconsistent with the CLUP the City shall review the decision of the ALUC and determine whether to override the ALUC’s decision. The City shall submit its notice to override the consistency to the ALUC for review before approving the override. (DEIR, p. 6.8-19)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
110
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in , or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with potential safety haz ards from proximity of the Project to the airport. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Because of the nature of activities that occu r at park facilities and light rail stations (i.e., gathering of people attracted to the particular use), there is no feasible mitigation available to restrict the number of per sons gathering at these propos ed land uses to less that 50 persons per acre. Restricting the number of persons or relocating park facilities and/or the light rail station could affect the overall viability (e.g., low revenue for commercial uses, low ridership numbers on light rail, and lack of fac ility use for park fac ilities) of proposed facilities and would not meet the applicant’s, City’s, SRTD’s objectives for these facilities.
Therefore, this would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, p. 6.8-19)
10. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE, AND WATER QUALITY
Impact 6.10-
3 On-Site Flooding Risk from Potential for Levee or Dam Failure. FEMA intends to revise the FIRM thr ough the Physical Map Revision process and will place the Natomas Basin in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The preliminary FIRM revision is expected to be issued by summer 2007 with a final FIRM effective date of fall 2007 or winter 2008. FEMA has not yet published the preliminary FIRM, and di fferent development restrictions would apply depending on the SFHA desi gnation ultimately selected.
Because it is possible that some damageable structures and/or homes could be in place prior to implementat ion of all levee improvements that would provide 100-year flood protec tion, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable for a short-term period of time. (FEIR, p. 3-
4.)
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.10-3 (City of Sacramento and LAFCo)
The following mitigation shall apply in the event that FEMA revises the FIRM and issues a new SFHA designation that indicates the Natomas levees can no longer provide 100-year flood protection (decertification). The City anticipates that after decertification, but before recertification, FEMA will likely remap the Natomas area (including the Greenbriar project site) as one of three potential SFHA designations: AE, AR, or A99 zone. Each designation prescribes specific building and design requirements for new, above-ground development.
If the Greenbriar project site is remapped by FEMA into an AE, AR, or A99 zone, then:
(1) the City will require development within the project site to comply with all applicable building and design regulations identified by FEMA and by the City of Sacramento’s Floodplain Management Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
111
Ordinance in existence at the date of issuance of building permits pertaining to the applicable remapped zone;
(2) the project applicant shall participate in a funding mechanism such as an assessment district established by SAFCA and/or the City for the purpose of implementing measures that would provide no less than 100-year flood protection for the Greenbriar project site, or for that portion of the Natomas Basin requiring recertification for 100- year flood protection including the Greenbriar project site provided that such funding mechanism is:
i. based on a nexus study;
ii. is regional in nature;
iii. is proportionate, fair, and equitable; and
iv. complies with all applicable laws and ordinances.
(3) the requirements of the applicable FEMA zone and corresponding requirements under the City of Sacramento’s Floodplain
Management Ordinance shall be met prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Homeowners within the floodzone shall maintain federal flood insurance, as required under the applicable FEMA and City of Sacramento Floodplain Management Ordinance regulations.
Mitigation measures (1) and (3) shall terminate upon the first recertification of the levees by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under any of the three SFHA designations (AE, AR, or A99), homebuilders within the floodzone area shall disclose to all prospective buyers, lenders, bondholders and insurers of property through written disclosure, prior to the sale of units, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the levees
protecting the Natomas Basin may not provide flood protection from a 100-year or greater storm event until the levees are recertifi ed as providing 100-year flood protection. (FEIR, pp. 7-12 to 7-13.)
In addition, the Project applicant submitted a letter to Sacramento LAFCo dated September 19, 2007, wherein the applicant states that it will not pursue vertical residential construction until and unless the property has 100-year flood protection. (Letter dated September 19, 2007, from AKT Development to Sacramento LAFCo.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with farmland conversion. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of t he effects) therefore re main significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the above mitigation would ensure that all development that occurs at the project site prior to recertification of the Natomas levee system would comply with the development restrictions established for flood hazard areas and would result in a less- than-significant long-term flooding impact because 100- year flood protection would be provided at the project site. Although ther e is reasonable certai nty that the levee Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
112
improvements would be in place to provide 100-year flood protection by 2010, depending on the SFHA designation select ed for the site, it is possible that some damageable structures and/or homes coul d be in place prior to implementation of all levee improvements that would provide 100-year flood protection. Should this occur, significant and unavoidable flood hazard impacts would occur for a short-term period of time.
Because the construction of structures and homes would be allowable within FEMA’s regulations, no other feasible mitigation would be available. (FEIR, p. 7-13.) See also Master Response to Comment 3.1. (FEIR, pp. 3-1 to 3-3-5.)
11. AGRICULTURE
Impact
6.11-1
Conversion of Important Farmlands. The project would result in the conversion of 518 acres of import ant farmlands to urban land uses.
Conversion of important farmland to nonagricultural use would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:
6.11-1: (City of Sacramento)
a. The project applicant shall implem ent Mitigation Measure 6.6-2.
6.11-1 (LAFCo)
b. Prior to annexation the applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 6.6-2. (DEIR, p. 6.11-7)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with farmland conversion. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of t he effects) therefore re main significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.11-1 would substantially lessen significant impacts associated with the conversion of farmland on the project site because LAFCo would only approve the conversion of agricul tural land where it is consis tent with its conservation policies. Further, the project would conserve open space and habitat lands some of which would be used for agricultural practices at a ratio consistent with the mitigation ratio identified in the City/County Joint Vision Plan MOU. Because the conservation easements are purchased for land exhibiting benefits to wildlife, including a combination of habitat, open space, and agricultural lands, the mitigation would not be applied exclusively to agricultural lands. Therefore, this mitigation would only partially offset conversions of farmland associated with the project impacts. In addition, no new farmland would be made available, and the productivity of existing farmland would not be improved as a result of the HCP mitigation. The City and LAFCo do not have any other adopted policies that address farmland conservation. Therefore, full compensation for losses of farmland would not be Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
113
achieved. Impact 6.11-1 would remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. (DEIR, p. 6.11-8)
Impact 6.11-
3 Conflict with Off-site Agricultural Operations . The project site is located adjacent to agricultural operations to the north and development of the project could result in conflicts between adjacent agricultural activities and proposed residential land uses, which could lead to the abandonment of agricultural operations on lands to the north of the project site and could potentially result in the ultimate conversion of this land to non-agricultural land uses. This would be considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:
6.11-3: (City of Sacramento)
The project applicant shall notify all prospective residents and tenants located within 500 feet of existing agricultural uses north of Elkhorn Boulevard of the types of existing agricultural operations that could occur within close proximity of their homes or businesses. Notification provided to residents and tenants shall include information on the types of land use conflicts that could occur (e.g., noise, dust) and the appropriate means by which to address these conflicts. The City shall approve the content of this notification and this notification shall be included in all residential deed and tenant agreements at the time of sale or lease. (DEIR, p. 6.11-9)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that substantially lessen, but do not avoid, the potentially significant environmental effect associated with urban-agricultural conflicts. No mitigation is available to render the effects less than significant. The effects (or some of the effects) therefore remain significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the above mitigation measure would notif y prospective residents of potential land use conflicts asso ciated with agricultural activities that occur north of the project site; however, it would not remove or substantially reduce potential conflicts. Other than precluding development adjacent to agricultural lands, no other feasible mitigation is available to eliminate potential urban/agricultural land use conflicts. Further, because of the developing nature of the City and the fact that current plans for development to the north of the project site (e.g., North Natomas Joint Vision Plan) are under contemplation by the City, it is unknown whether lands to the north would remain in agricultural production indefinitely.
It is reasonable to anticipate that these lands would likely convert to urban development within the next 10 to 20 years. As such, it would not be reasonable for the City for preclude development near these agricultural lands unless it knew that development would not occur. For these reasons, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 6.11-9)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
114
D. Findings Related to the Relations hip Between Local Short-term Uses of the Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity.
Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City Council, the City Council makes the following findings with respect to the project’s balancing of local short term uses of the environment and the maintenance of long term productivity:
The proposed plan, land uses, zoning, and public improvements for the project site would create a residential development that provides access to alternative modes of transportation (e.g., light rail, bicycle, walking) to on-site commercial and retail centers and to off-site employment centers. The project would provide a variety of housing types at an intensified density along with mixed-use development to promote use of alternative modes of transportation. The project’s use of a grid street pattern would provide multiple access routes to destinations on-site and off-site and allow for narrower streets within residential neighborhoods.
The purpose of the project is to create a mixed-use neighborhood through the development of retail and commercial uses, multi-family attached homes, and high density single-family detached homes. In addition, the project w ould allow for future on-site retail and commercial development in support of surrounding housing. The project also promotes the use of public transportation by incorporating a light rail station at the core of development. (DEIR, p. 3-1.)
The project has the following project objectives:
• create a quality residential development near the major employment centers of downtown Sacramento and Metro Air Park,
• create a transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly development, • provide development and land for construc tion of a light rail stop along the proposed Downtown-Natomas-Airport light rail line with densities that would support the feasibility of a light rail line,
• develop the project site in a manner consistent with and supportive of Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG’s) Blueprint plan, • develop a project that is consistent with the Sacram ento International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) to the degree feasible, • design a project that promotes using various modes of transportation by locating high-density residential development within a quarter-mile of the proposed light rail station,
• provide vertically and horiz ontally mixed-use neighborhoods, • provide neighborhood and community reta il near residential development to shorten or reduce the number of vehicle trips,
• incorporate parks and open space into t he project design in a manner that provides community connectivity,
• create a residential development with a variety of housing types, • provide park and recreation opportunities within walking distance of residents, • provide an elementary school site to serve the project’s student demands, Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
115
• encourage walking and bicycle use by designi ng residential areas in a grid street pattern,
• make efficient use of development opportuni ty as the project site is bordered on three sides by existing or planned urban development,
• satisfy the requirements of the City of Sacramento’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in part by providing an age -restricted facility (senior housing, retirement community) located near transit and other services that are affordable to very low- and low-income households, and
• ensure adequate, timely, and cost effective public services for the project • develop and implement the project cons istent with the General Plan Update Vision and Guiding Principles adopted by the City of Sacramento.
E. Project Alternatives.
Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there ar e feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environm ental effects of such projects[.]” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002, italics added.) The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Ibid., italics added.) Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects.” (Ibid.)
CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The CEQA Guidelines add another factor: “legal” considerations. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364; see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastruc ture, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1).) The c oncept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. ( City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.)
Where a significant impact can be substantially lessened (i.e., mitigated to an “acceptable level”) solely by the adoption of mitigation measures, the lead agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feas ibility of alternatives with respect to that impact, even if the alternative would miti gate the impact to a greater degree than the project. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002; Laurel Hills Hom eowners Association v. City
Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 691, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
116
v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.) In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur.
Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility of modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).)
With respect to a project for which signific ant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found the proj ect’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated that, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interest, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are respons ible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.)
The preceding discussion regarding Project impacts reveals that nearly every significant effect identified in the EIR has been at least substantially lessened, if not fully avoided, by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
Thus, as a legal matter, the Cit y, in considering alternatives in these findings, need only determine whether any alternatives are envir onmentally superior with respect to those significant and unavoidable impacts. If any alternatives are in fact superior with respect to those impacts, the City is then required to determine whether the alternatives are feasible.
If the City determines that no alternative is both feasible and environmentally superior with respect to the unavoidable significant impacts identified in the DEIR, the City may approve the Project as mitigated, after adopting a statement of overriding considerations.
CEQA does not require that all possible alternatives be eval uated, only that “a range of feasible alternatives” be discussed so as to encourage both meaningful public participation and informed decision making. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).) “The discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive, and t he requirement as to the discussion of alternatives is subject to a construction of reasonableness. The statute does not demand what is not realistically possible given the limitation of time, energy, and funds. ‘Crystal ball’ inquiry is not required.” ( Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 286; see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(3).) Indeed, as stated by the court in Village of Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 1022, 1028, although there may be “ literally thousands of “reasonable alternatives’ to the proposed project . . . ‘the statutory requirements for consideration of alternatives must be judged against a rule of reason.’” ( Ibid., quoting Foundation for San Francisco’s Architectural Heritage v. City and County of San Francisco (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 893, 910.) “‘Absolute perfection is not required; what is required is the production of information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned.’” (Id., at p. 1029.) The requirement has been fulfilled here; the DEIR exami ned the Project alternatives in detail, exploring their comparative advantages and disadvantages with respect to the Project. As the following Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
117
discussion demonstrates, however, only the Projec t as proposed is feasible in light of Project objectives and other considerations.
The City Council has considered the Project alternatives presented and analyzed in the final EIR and presented during the comment period and public hearing process. Some of these alternatives have the potential to avoid or reduce certain signif icant or potentially significant environmental impacts, as set fo rth below. The City Council finds, based on specific economic, legal, social, technologica l, or other consider ations, that these alternatives are infeasible . Each alte rnative and the facts supporting the finding of infeasibility of each alternative are set forth below.
Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration
CEQA requires that the lead agency identify any alternatives that were considered but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the infeasibility determination (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[c]).
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR is failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. The DEIR included the following alternatives that were considered, but dismissed from further consideration. (DEIR, pp. 4-4.)
1. Off-Site Alternative
In many EIRs, an off-site alternative is ev aluated to provide a greater range of possible alternatives to consider in the decision-making process. The key question is whether an off- site alternative is available that would feasib ly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, and would also avoid or substantially lessen any of the environmental effects of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). The basic objectives of the Greenbriar project include creating a residential development located near downtown Sacramento and Metro Air Park, as well as creating a single-family residential neighborhood that meets the growth principles established by the Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) Blueprint plan, and providing development and land for construction of the proposed Downtown-Natomas-Airport (DNA) light rail ex tension. The Project site is the most reasonable location to provide urban development that would support a light rail stop because it is the only site that surrounds the proposed alignment for the DNA light rail line.
While the Project site is the only available site located on the proposed DNA line alignment, in order to find an off-site alternative, the North Natomas community was considered because it is located within close proximity of the proposed DNA line and it is an area that supports new growth and development.
Development in the North Natomas area has occurred fairly rapidly since adoption of the NNCP in 1994 and of the properties that are currently designated for residential land uses, there is not a known site that could accommodate a development similar to the Greenbriar project (in size) that is not already bei ng pursued for development by other property owners. Further, there are not sufficient properties available that, when combined, could provide sufficient area for the proposed land uses. Areas that are currently being actively pursued by other developers include the area to the south of the project site, the Panhandle area (in the eastern portion of North Natomas, north and south of Del Paso Road), the area Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
118
just west of Natomas Crossing, and the area to the southeast of the junction of State Route 70/99 (SR 70/99) and Elkhorn Boulevard. These vacant properties ar e either currently under City review for development, or homebu ilders (other than the Greenbriar property owner) are actively assembling land in anticipation of submitting a development application.
None of the undeveloped residential properties within the NNCP area is currently owned by the Greenbriar property owner. Although it may be possible for the applicant to acquire a property of a similar size or acquire an aggregate of properties that could accommodate the proposed land use within the North Natomas area, given the timing of the application and the status of development in the North Natomas area, it is not reasonable to consider that the applicant would be successful in obtaining such a property and there is no site available that provides a key transit station. Pursuant to CEQA, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any of the significant effects of the project. (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, subd. (a),(f).) Notably, “among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives is whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site. (CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, subd. (f)(1), emphasis added.)
In Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 574, the court rejected petitioner’s claim that the county should not have rejected alternative sites simply because the applicant did not ow n them: “A project alternative which cannot be feasibly accomplished need not be exhaustively considered. A feasible alternative is one which can be ‘accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, legal social and technological factors.’ Whether a property is owned or can reasonably be acquired by the project proponent has a strong bearing on the likelihood of a project’s ultimate costs and the changes for an expeditious and ‘successful accomplishment’.” In this instance, the property required for the off-site alternative cannot be reasonably acquired by the project applicant.
Further, while other property may be availabl e outside the City limits, it would be more distant from the City and would “leapfrog” undeveloped areas, leading to undesirable land use patterns and substantial growth inducement potential. For these reasons, an off-site alternative would not be a feasible project for the applicant to implement and this alternative would create land use patterns that would be in consistent with this vision of the City’s general plan including extension of light rail service. This alternative was therefore rejected from further consideration. (DEIR, p. 4-4 to 4-5.)
Nonetheless, an analysis is provided below to describe the comparative environmental effects if this alterative were feasible. For the reasons described above, while an off-site alternative that would be located within the North Natomas area is considered in the EIR, a specific off-site property has not been selected as the “off-site alternative project site.” However, to consider the relative environment al impacts of an alternative in one of the undeveloped areas of the NNCP currently designated for low or medium density residential development, the EIR provides a comparative analysis of a theoretical off-site alternative within the vacant low or medium density residential properties within the NNCP. (DEIR, pp. 8-1 to 8-2.)
Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
119
Comparative Environmental Effects
A key aspect of this alternative is that, if development of the project were to occur within the boundaries of the NNCP, it would displace development that would otherwise occur within the boundaries of the NNCP. It is assumed, therefore, that the overall development of the NNCP would be the same, i.e., development of the project would replace a similar level of development already planned within the NNCP, but the Greenbriar site would not be developed. Therefore, overall development (considering the NNCP and Greenbriar) would be less under this alternative than under the pr oposed project if this alternative were feasible. (DEIR, p. 8-2.)
Impacts Reduced Under the Off-Site Alternative:
With less development, it can be assumed that an off-site alternative within the boundaries of the NNCP would result in comparatively substantially less traffic impacts; and less impact to agricultural lands would result as fewe r acres (i.e., 518 fewer acres) of Important Farmland would be converted to urban uses. (DEIR, p. 8-2, 8-5.) Further, because less land would be developed under this alternative, it would have less of an effect on sensitive biological resources. (DEIR, pp. 8-5 to 8-6.) A development within the NNCP would also result in the less aesthetic resources impacts, because the existing urban core of the City would be maintained. (DEIR, p. 8-4.)
Development of a site within the NNCP would not result in demands that are additive to overall development demands of the NNCP because they have already been included in those projections for that area. For this reason, an off-site alternative, while resulting in the same demands as the project based on a per capita demand factor for each public services and parks and open space, would have compar atively less impacts because demands associated with build out of the NNCP area have already been planned for by the City the NNCP. (DEIR, pp. 8-3 to 8-4.)
If an alternative were developed within an ava ilable site within the NNCP, noise levels associated with roadway traffic volumes would likely be comparatively less (i.e., less than 74 to 81.1 dBA unmitigated) because this site would be located at a greater distance from the combined impacts of traffic noise from I-5 and SR 70/99. Thus , significant noise impacts to residential and school uses may be eliminated depending on the location of the off-site alternative. However, final determination of traffic noise reductions can not be made with knowing the specific loca tion of the off-site alternat ive. Similarly, although noise impacts at the site from aircraft operations at Sacramento International Airport are less than significant, the off-site alternative would likely be located a greater distance from regularly used flight paths and would therefore be subject to less frequent overflights by aircraft and would likely have reduced single event (SENL) levels. When compared to the project, because of its likely more distant location from I-5 and SR 70/99 and airport operations, the off-site alternative would result in less noise impacts when compared to the project. (DEIR, p. 8-3.)
With respect to public hazards, the DEIR notes that a project site within the boundaries of the NNCP would locate the proposed lake/detention basin at a greater distance from the Sacramento International Air port, which would reduce potential bird hazard impacts in comparison to the project. The Sacramento International Airport discourages the Greenbriar (M05-046 / P05-069) January 22, 2008
120
construction of water features which could attract hazardous wildlife within 5 miles of the airport. Although the off-site alternative would construct the same water feature at a greater distance from the airport, it nonetheless would likely be located within the airport’s 5-mile radius and would be considered a hazardous wildlife attractant. However, implementation of the project’s mitigation to reduce bird hazards from the lake would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impacts Similar Under the Off-Site Alternative:
Project impacts related to construction noise, geology, water quality and cultural resources would remain similar under an off-site alternat ive. In addition, as the air quality impacts identified for the proposed project are related to construction, the land uses proposed (e.g., residential, elementary school and commercial tenants), and the location of these land uses adjacent to I-5 and SR 70/99, construction of an off-site alternative would result in the same construction and long-term operational emissions as the project because the same land uses would be developed. Simila rly, operational emissions a ssociated with the off-site alternative would be the same as the propos ed project because the same land uses are proposed. However, because overall ther e would be less development under this alternative than if the Greenbriar site were to develop, regional emissions would be substantially less than with the project. Furt her, depending on the location of the off-site alternative, the off-site alte rnative may not be located in close proximity (i.e., within 500 feet) of a nearby freeway (e.g., I-5 or SR 70/99) and may reduce potential less-than- significant health risk-related air quality impac ts associated with toxic air contaminants.
However, because the specific location for the off-site alternative is not known, it can not be determined with any certainty whether this project would reduce this potential. Therefore, the DEIR concludes that overall the project would result in similar air quality impact. (DEIR, p. 8-2.)
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts That Would No Longer Occur:
The significant environmental impacts that would occur with the provision of wastewater treatment services (i.e., expanded wastewater treatment facilities) to the project would not be expected to occur under this alternativ e because the NNCP area is within the City’s corporate boundaries and was planned for in the SRCSD’s facility master plan. Therefore, this alternative would elim inate the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to wastewater treatment services. Although the proposed project and an off-site alternative within the boundaries of the NNCP would have similar utility system demands, the off-site alternative would eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to wastewater treatment services. (DEIR, p. 8-3.)