2025-01126 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL -Airport South Industrial Annexation (P21-017) (Noticed on 11072025; Published 11072025; Passed for Publication 10212025; Published 10242025) [Updated 11/18/2025 @4:41 PM] - Part 9 — Sacramento City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Written
Comment
#
Sender Notes
1 Johnson
2 Plantilla
3 D’Elicio
4 Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
5 Fontanilla
6 Rodrigues
7 SacSewer
8 R.J.
9 Cajigas
10 ECOS- Letter to Natomas CPAC
11 Boyle
12 Bergeron
13 SAFCA
14 SMAQMD
15 SCEMD
16 Farm Bureau
17 SWRCB
18 CVRWQCB
19 Sharma
20 Hom
21 Sawaya
22 FOSH References available upon request
23 Harmatz
24 ECOS- Letter to the Planning Commission
25 NUSD
26 Howell
27 Gill
28 Residents
29 Olsen
30 Steiner
31 ECOS- Letter on DEIR References available upon request 32 Olsen-2
33 Brown
34 Sutter County
35 LAFCO
36 350 Sacramento References available upon request
37 GHCA
38 City of Sacramento
39 Soluri Meserve References available upon request
40 CDFW
41 Costa
42 Caltrans
43 Smallwood References available upon request

UPPER WESTSIDE COMPILED DEIR

COMMENTS
From: Amanda Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 10:23 AM
To:

PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject: Upper Westside Specific Plan draft
Hello,
Here are my comments with regards to the Upper Westside Natomas plan.

I HATE IT!!!
Urban sprawl often leads to increased traffic congestion, longer commutes, and a higher cost of living. I don't want Sacramento to become Roseville or Elk Grove. Rather than expanding into our precious farmland, we should focus on building walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

Only 38% of the world's land can be used for farmland. Sacramento is "farm to fork" and you want to get rid of our farms?

Preserving green spaces should also be a top priority. Green spaces improve our mental and physical well-being and offer vital habitats for animals. This is a flood zone, I know because I live here, this isn't the place to build more suburban development. By protecting these areas from development, we safeguard our environment, contribute to climate resilience, and provide sanctuary for wildlife that is increasingly displaced by unchecked growth.

Suburban
developments once they are completed are the best they are ever going to be. After that they decay, they cost the city more because they never adapt or grow. Never allowing more people to move into a neighborhood. Encouraging mixed-use zoning for current existing areas would allow for affordable housing options that are sorely needed, especially for low- income residents who are often priced out of traditional suburban developments. Why expand when we can do better and make Sacramento less like Elk Grove and Roseville and more like downtown.

I ask you to protect Natomas' farmland and instead prioritize urban planning strategies that emphasize walkability, mixed-use development, affordable housing, public transportation, and environmental conservation. Let's create a city where people and nature thrive together, rather than one where unchecked development diminishes the quality of life for all.

Thank you,
Amanda Burnitt
1 From: Albert Plantilla <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:26 AM
To: PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject:

Comment on Proposed Project County Control PLNP2018-00284 Good morning,
I support this development project. Sacramento has growing needs for housing with a growing population. It appears to have high density housing which will help to keep the market rate for housing down by increasing supply. The county should look for means to improve transit options to reduce traffic load as more population moves out of the central Sacramento area.

Alberto Plantilla
--
"The brightest light is invisible. It shines through your deeds. And warms the universe."
2 From: Mark D'Elicio <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 10:08 AM
To: PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Cc: Karina Talamantes <[email protected]>; Supervisor Serna <[email protected]>
Subject:

Opposition to Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP)
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP). As a resident of Sacramento County, I am deeply concerned about the significant and unavoidable impacts this project would have on our community.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has clearly identified numerous areas where the UWSP would cause irreversible damage. These impacts include:

Aesthetics
Agricultural resources
Air quality
Cultural resources
Noise
Tribal cultural resources
The fact that the county itself acknowledges these unavoidable impacts is alarming. It is unacceptable to sacrifice the well-being of our community and environment for the sake of development.

In addition to the concerns raised in the DEIR, I am also deeply troubled by two critical issues:

1. The increased traffic generated by the UWSP will only exacerbate existing congestion, leading to longer commute times, increased air pollution, and a decline in overall quality of life.

2. The land slated for development serves as a crucial spillway, designed to alleviate flooding in the event the Sacramento Weir is opened to protect the city.

Building in this area not only compromises its intended function but also significantly increases the risk of property damage and potential loss of life during major flood events. The development would essentially constrict the natural flow of water, potentially exacerbating flooding in other areas and 3 undermining the effectiveness of the Weir system.

Beyond these specific issues, I believe the UWSP is fundamentally flawed. It prioritizes short- term gains over long-term sustainability. It disregards the voices of residents who have expressed their opposition. It sets a dangerous precedent for future development projects in our county.

I urge you to protect our community from this harmful project. I believe that together, we can create a future for Sacramento County that is both prosperous and sustainable.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
-Mark D'Elicio
3060 Edgeview Drive
Sacramento, CA 95833
(415) 912-9546
[email protected]

From: King Tunson
To: Newton. Julie
Subject: RE: Notice of Availability of Draft EIR for the Upper Westside Specific Plan Date: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 2:51:04 PM
Hi Julie,
I reviewed the above-referenced document and don’t have any additional comments.

Thanks
King Tunson
Program Specialist
Fire Planning/Administration
Sacramento Fire Department
5770 Freeport Blvd, Ste 200
Sacramento, CA 95822
Office (916) 808-1358
[email protected]
4 From: Marvin Fontanilla <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 6:12 AM
To:

PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for Upper Westside Plan
Dear Sacramento County Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Upper Westside Specific Plan. While I acknowledge the environmental challenges outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, I believe this development is crucial for addressing our housing needs and creating sustainable communities. This plan undoubtedly will attract affluent residents, potentially leading to improved schools and increased community safety, much like the successes seen in Elk Grove and Roseville. These developments make our region more attractive to families and individuals looking for vibrant, well-rounded communities.

Sacramento is changing. It's time to recognize that and lean in––to the future.

Thank you for considering my support for this important project.

Sincerely,
Marvin
Fontanilla
5 September 12, 2024
Sacramento County, Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division Attn: Environmental Coordinator
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Upper Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse 2020100069, County Control PLNP2018-00284) Position: Oppose
Dear Planning Commission, Supervisors, CEQA Review Team, County Officials, et al, I am a homeowner and proud resident of the Gateway West neighborhood that borders the proposed project site. I strongly oppose this development because it will significantly harm wildlife, local farms, and the existing community.

Habitat Conservation
This region provides vital habitat for wildlife including migratory and resident birds, mammals, reptiles and insects. Consider protecting these lands as part of a mitigation bank rather than developing, to maintain open space and support Swainson hawk, VELB, western pond turtle and other threatened species. This area provides contiguous habitat along the Sacramento River and Bypass Wildlife Areas that should be protected.

Open space bordering our Garden Highway levee provides flood protection for greater Natomas, and permeable surfaces promote groundwater recharge.

Prime Farm Land
The existing farms on these lands feed our community and people around the world. My family enjoys watching the tomatoes, sunflowers, pumpkins, and corn grow in the fields down the street, and shopping at the Cuevas stand on El Centro for the freshest produce. Sacramento prides itself on being the Farm-to-Fork capitol. Please don’t pave over these iconic family farms.

Impacts to Locals
The 49er Travel Plaza is also a cornerstone of our community, serving travelers and truckers for more than 50 years. Their proximity to the I-5 and I-80 junction and being just offset from residential tracts is ideal.

Don’t build around them and force them out.

I do not want the added noise and air pollution, strain on our infrastructure and utilities, increased traffic, loss of wildlife, loss of existing community & tradition, and destruction of natural resources. Open space is precious and disappearing quickly. Let the developer go elsewhere to get rich. It’s already a nightmare trying to get homeowner’s and flood insurance in this area. Build somewhere else. Please protect these farms that are the symbol and heart of Sacramento, and the reason I chose to live here.

Thank you,
Amy Rodrigues
23 Alcanon Ct
Sacramento, CA 95833
6 General Manager/District Engineer
Director of Collection System Operations
Director of Internal Services
Masiku Tepa Banda

Goethe Road
September 24, 2024
County of Sacramento Department of Community Development - P
lanning and Environmental Review Division
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
S
ubject: NOTICE OF A V AILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPPER WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH# 2020100069) Project No: P LNP2018-00284
D
ear Environmental Coordinator,
The Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) has reviewed the subject document and has the following comments.

The Upper Westside Specific Plan Project area (Project) encompasses approximately 2,066 acres in the unincorporated Natomas community of Sacramento County, approximately 3.5 miles from downtown Sacramento. The Project area is bounded by Interstate 80 to the south, the West Main Drainage Canal to the east, Fisherman’s Lake Slough to the north, and Garden Highway to the west.

T
he Specific Plan would encompass a 1,532-acre development area and a 534-acre ag buffer area that is located west of the development area, providing a transition to the Garden Highway. Within the development area, the project proposes an urban, commercial, mixed‐use town center district near the intersection of El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue, surrounded by neighborhoods.

The development area includes 9,356 dwelling units and 3,096,245 square feet of commercial uses, with three K-8 school sites, one high school site, and several parks.

The Project area is located outside the SacSewer service areas. As such, SacSewer has not planned, designed, or constructed facilities to provide service to the Project area. To receive sewer service, annexation into SacSewer's Collection service area and the SacSewer Treatment and Resource Recovery service area will be required. The Project applicant should work closely with the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (https://saclafco.saccounty.net) to begin the annexation process.

Upon annexation from LAFCo, SacSewer will provide local sewer service for the Project area via its collection system, which conveys sewage from the collection system to the EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility for treatment, resource recovery, and disposal. 7 Upper Westside Specific Plan
SCH# 2020100069
PLNP2018-00284
September 24, 2024

Note: Effective January 1, 2024, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District and the Sacramento Area Sewer District merged into one district called the Sacramento Area Sewer District, or SacSewer for short.

SacSewer is not a land-use authority and plans and designs its sewer systems using information from land-use authorities. SacSewer bases the projects identified within its planning documents on growth projections provided by these land-use authorities.

To receive sewer service, the project proponent must complete Sewer Master Plans that include connection points and phasing information to assess the existing and buildout available capacity of the collection systems and determine if the current facilities can convey the additional flows generated by the Project area.

The Project proponents propose connecting the Project area’s sewage collection facilities to the SacSewer New Natomas Pump Station (NNPS) through proposed and existing SacSewer facilities.

The Project area was never intended to be provided service by the SacSewer NNPS, Lower Northwest Interceptor (LNWI), or the South River Pump Station (SRPS) during the design of these facilities. Allowing connection of the Project area may result in significant capacity constraints within the existing SacSewer collections and interceptor systems. These capacity constraints must be thoroughly addressed by the project proponent before receiving service from SacSewer. Entitlements located in the Project area may require projects to be constructed with improvements to store and meter flow into the collection system. The Project proponents should work closely with SacSewer to ensure proper connection to any existing SacSewer facilities.

This environmental impact report should contemplate the onsite and offsite environmental impacts associated with extending sewer service to the Project area.

In March 2021, the SacSewer Board of Directors approved the most current SacSewer planning document, the 2020 System Capacity Plan Update (SCP). In February 2013, the SacSewer Board of Directors adopted the Interceptor Sequencing Study (ISS). The SCP and ISS are on the SacSewer website at System Capacity Plans - Sacramento Area Sewer District (sacsewer.com) .

Customers receiving service from SacSewer are responsible for rates and fees outlined within the latest SacSewer ordinance. Fees for connecting to the sewer system recover the capital investment of sewer and treatment facilities that serve new customers. SacSewer does not guarantee sewer service or system capacity to the Project site until the proper permits are obtained to connect to the system and all facility impact (capacity) fees are paid. The SacSewer ordinances are on the SacSewer website at Ordinances - Sacramento Area Sewer District (sacsewer.com) .
• References to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) are to be revised to accurately reflect the new name as the EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility (EchoWater Facility) throughout the document. Please revise any references to this in the document.

Upper Westside Specific Plan
SCH# 2020100069
PLNP2018-00284
September 24, 2024

• References to the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) are to be revised to accurately reflect the new name as the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SacSewer) throughout the document. Please revise any references to this in the document.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (916) 876-6104.

Sincerely,
Robb Armstrong
Robb Armstrong
Policy & Planning

From: Rod <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 10:46 AM
To:

Clerk of the Board Public Email <[email protected]>; PER-CEQA <[email protected]> Subject: Natomas Upper West Side Public Comment
To County Supervisors,
I live in Natomas and oppose the Upper Westside Specific Plan. This area is not vacant, neglected lots in need of rehab. It is family farms and productive working lands. I'm not making plans for what to do with your wife after you're out of the picture, don't insult our landowners by making plans for what to do with their soil after they've been pushed out.

Emotions aside, the Upper Westside Specific Plan does not align with the City of Sacramento's 2040 General Plan and I urge you to scrap it and protect our farms.

Highlights from the 2040 Plan to keep in mind:

Sustainable and Responsible Growth lists as its #1 objective “Concentrate new growth within Sacramento’s existing footprint to promote a compact development pattern that supports efficient delivery of public services and infrastructure, while protecting surrounding open space lands.” Appendix A, Vision and Guiding Principles The Upper Westside Specific Plan falls within an area the City identifies as a “Special Study Area” currently composed of "Prime Farmland" and "Other Farmland." 3-3 p61 Land Use and Placemaking highlights Sacramento’s “1.5million acres of some of the most fertile farmland in the United States,“ and as such, “planning efforts are guided by ‘smart growth’ principles that aim to promote a compact development footprint, helping to minimize urban sprawl and pollution.” 3-2 p60 The Community Issues and Opportunities section of the plan notes that “North Natomas has some of Sacramento’s biggest opportunities for infill and redevelopment,” pointing out that “vacant and underutilized properties along the I-5 corridor, Del Paso Road, and Truxel Road are opportunities for infill development that make use of existing infrastructure and community resources.” 11-NN-5 p367 The 2040 Plan does not endorse expanding the urban services boundary or rezoning 8 agriculture to residential or commercial use.

When mentioning the proposals for the Upper Westside and Grandpark Specific Plans, community feedback showed “North Natomas residents want to see preservation of natural areas, including wildlife habitats and corridors within the unincorporated area consistent with the HCP; and want new development to have a compact form, integrated with existing development within the city so as to minimize traffic impacts and utility demand, and take advantage of opportunities for improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.” 11-NN-5 p367-8
Environmental Resources and Constraints objective #2 is “Thriving rivers, wildlife, and natural open spaces that contribute to public health, livability, and protection of the environment for future generations.” 6-3 p131
Sprawling beyond the City's current boundary to pave over food production and destroy wildlife habitat is not what we want. The Upper Westside Specific Plan is a direct contradiction to the goals and wishes of our community.

Stop this nonsense. Your time and resources are better spent elsewhere.

Thank you,
R.J.

From: Ashley Cajigas <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 8:02 PM
To: Clerk of the Board Public Email <[email protected]> Cc: PER-CEQA <[email protected]>; Supervisor Serna <[email protected]> Subject:

Natomas is OPPOSED! No to the Upper Westside Specific Plan! Greetings,
I am sending this email in opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan that threatens our environment, wildlife habitat, and our community. As the Draft Environmental Impact Report clearly states, the project would result in SIGNIFICANT and UNAVOIDABLE impact on the aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, cultural and historical resources, noise, population and housing, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. It will further impact climate change, geology, soils, hydrology, drainage, water quality, public services, and water supply to name just a few of the impacts on our region and community.

As a homeowner on Garden Highway, my family and neighbors have already seen the destruction of habitat, increased traffic, noise, impact on our water supply, and pollution resulting from the levee project. We have seen public safety response times decrease in addition to increased crime. I am deeply concerned about the additional pressure and burdens placed on our community if the Upper Westside Specific Plan moves forward.

Those of us who live in and around Natomas enjoy living in close proximity to locally owned and operated farms and farm stands, such as Cuevas Garden Hwy Gardens and Nick & Ray's Pumpkin Patch, formerly known as Goblin Gardens Pumpkin Patch at Bastiao Farms, that have been operating for generations. THIS is what community looks like; not some overly modernized grid developed by greedy developers.

The Upper Westside Specific Plan is a bad proposition for the public and our community; designed only to profit developers and increase the tax base, at the expense of the rest of us and our environment.

I urge you to reject this proposal.
9 Sincerely,
Ashley Cajigas
Garden Hwy Resident
From: Alexandra Reagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 10:05 AM
To:

Clerk of the Board Public Email <[email protected]>; PER-CEQA <[email protected]>; Rallanka. Rochelle <[email protected]> Subject: Natomas CPAC Agenda Item #1, on October 3, 2024 - Upper Westside Specific Plan Dear Members of CPAC,
On behalf of the Environmental Council of Sacramento, I am submitting by way of this email our comments on Natomas CPAC Agenda Item #1, on October 3, 2024 - Upper Westside Specific Plan. Please see the attached letter and respond to this email to confirm its receipt.

Regards,
Alexandra Reagan
(she/her)
Director of Operations
Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS)
P.O. Box 1526, Sacramento, CA, 95812
Cell: (916) 765-4977
Email:
[email protected]
www.ecosacramento.net
10 www.ecosacramento.net
Post Office Box 1526 | Sacramento, CA 95812-1526

October 3, 2024

Natomas Community Planning Advisory Council
Kyle Christopher, Chairperson Alice Montes, Vice Chairperson Don Keller Zack Clark
D.E. “Red” Banes Mian Ali Ahmad Zia
Jill Zito Sent by email to [email protected]

SUBJECT: Natomas CPAC Agenda Item #1, October 3, 2024 - Upper Westside Specific Plan

Dear Members of CPAC,

Thank you for serving on the Natomas Community Planning Advisory Council and taking on the responsibility of gathering community responses to proposed projects. The Environmental Council of Sacramento, which includes a number of Natomas residents, asks you to consider the following issues as you review the Upper Westside project and its Draft Environmental Impact Report.

1) Consider all of the developments currently being proposed. Review the Upper Westside in the context of the entire 8,000 acres across three projects now proposed for development in the Natomas Basin in Sacramento County.

The map at right highlights
the Upper Westside, Airport
South Industrial, and Grand
Park projects.

These projects would
dramatically decrease open
land in Natomas and
present impacts to traffic,
air quality, flood control, the
Natomas Basin Habitat
Conservation Plan, and City
services -- all of which
should be considered
together.

2 of 5

2) Consider what it means to break through the Urban Services Boundary (USB). This boundary, in place for three decades, is based upon jurisdictional, natural and environmental constraints to urban growth and “is intended to be a permanent growth boundary not subject to modification except under extraordinary circumstances.”1

All three of the projects would break through the USB. Changes to the USB are to be made only for “extraordinary projects” and yet there is nothing extraordinary about Upper Westside except that it is close to the City of Sacramento. What is extraordinary about the area is the deep, prime agricultural soil from many years of overflow from the Sacramento River.

The USB was drawn in 1993 to protect development from the risk of flood and fire, and to preserve agriculture, ranch, and habitat lands. The image below of Sacramento County shows the urbanized area inside the USB, with areas outside of it in GREEN. With climate change, the USB is a bulwark of sustainability for our region.

Consider the requirements in Sacramento County’s
General Plan Policy LU-127 for projects that propose
to break through the USB:

LU-127. The County shall not expand the Urban Service
Boundary unless:
• There is inadequate vacant land within the USB to
accommodate the projected 25-year demand for urban
uses; and
• The proposal calling for such expansion can satisfy
the requirements of a master water plan as contained
in the Conservation Element; and
• The proposal calling for such expansion can satisfy
the requirements of the Sacramento County Air Quality
Attainment Plan; and
• The area of expansion does not incorporate open
space areas for which previously secured open space easements would need to be relinquished; and • The area of expansion does not include the development of important natural resource areas, aquifer recharge lands or prime agricultural lands;
• The area of expansion does not preclude implementation of a Sacramento County-adopted Habitat Conservation Plan;
OR
• The Board approves such expansion by a 4/5ths vote based upon on finding that the expansion would provide extraordinary environmental, social or economic benefits and opportunities to the County.

Given the impacts of this project on the region and the Natomas community, the Upper Westside project does not meet most of the listed requirements, nor does it merit a finding of extraordinary benefits and opportunities by 4/5ths of the Board of Supervisors.

1 Sacramento County General Plan, Land Use Element

3 of 5

3) Consider what it means to develop on land not within the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres. The NBHCP is basin-wide for important biological reasons. The hatched areas on the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) below indicate where development is permitted. Land outside of the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres “is designated for retention as Agricultural Cropland by the Sacramento County General Plan.”2

The Upper Westside project (Airport South Industrial and Grand Park as well) is proposed for areas outside of the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres. It would replace wildlife-supportive agriculture with concrete, vehicles and houses, severely impacting the resident wildlife in the Basin. The protection of resident wildlife in the Basin became a commitment when the City of Sacramento signed a contract with the federal government and approved the NBHCP. Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) also agreed to protect resident wildlife. The Upper Westside project cannot mitigate for its impacts to resident wildlife as the Natomas Basin is finite – the harm to the Basin’s wildlife conservation efforts will be irreparable.

The Natomas Basin is a deep flood
basin. Much of the interior of the
Basin is lower than the elevation of
the Sacramento and American
Rivers, particularly during annual
high-water flows in winter and
spring.

The Natomas levees were designed
for a 200-year storm, as it was
understood at the time of design in
the late 1990s. Climate change is
creating a moving target for flood
protection, we no longer can
accurately estimate size and
frequency of floods.

In a crisis, flood mitigation requires
everything to work perfectly –
pumps, electricity, detention
basins, canals, river levels, and
people. Hurricane Helene just
provided an example of what
happens when systems are
overwhelmed by water.

Development in the Natomas Basin
should be consistent with the
NBHCP.

2 https://natomasbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/natomas-basin-habitat-conservation-plan/5nbhcpland_use2006_a11y.pdf, pg III-13

4 of 5

4) Consider how Upper Westside is inconsistent with the goals of the Blueprint. On November 4, 2020, SACOG commented on the Notice of Preparation of the Upper Westside DEIR, stating “implementation of the Blueprint vision depends greatly on the efforts of cities and counties through local plans and projects. . . [and] the Upper Westside project and the project area itself are not anticipated for development in either the MTP/SCS or the Blueprint.”3

This is still true today.

SACOG’s selected land use
scenario for the 2025
MTP/SCS, dated April 2024,
does not include the Upper
Westside, or Airport South
Industrial, or Grand Park –
it includes no buildout in
the coming decades, as
shown in the excerpt at
right.

SACOG went on to say “The
Upper Westside project . . .
raises important policy
questions for the region’s
implementation of the
Blueprint. For example, the
capacity for growth in
existing entitled lands far
exceeds expected demand
over the next twenty years: collectively, the region’s jurisdictions have entitled, or are in the process of entitling 2.5 times the region’s projected need for the next 20 years. More than half of that capacity— 387,000 units—is in greenfield areas that are on the edge of existing development.”4 This means there is far more entitled acreage for new homes than the market will bear. Upper Westside is not needed.

5) Consider how Upper Westside is inconsistent with General Plans. The project proposes a change to Sacramento County’s General Plan from agricultural to residential/commercial uses. While the project would be in Sacramento County, it would obviously impact the City of Sacramento.

6) Consider the project’s effect on our Air Quality Plan. The proposed project would worsen the Sacramento regions ability to meet state and federal air quality standards by interfering with implementation of our Air Quality Plan. The Upper Westside DEIR makes clear that the project’s air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable. Failure to honor our Air Quality Plan could result in our area losing access to federal transportation funds.

3 MTP/SCS or Blueprint - https://www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint 4 James Corless, SACOG Ex Dir., November 4, 2020 letter to County Environmental Planning, Notice of Preparation of DEIR for Upper West Side Specific Plan (PLNP2018- 00284, p. 6) Jobs Jobs
Sacramento City
Potential Developing Communities (not yet under construction) Panhandle - -
Airport South Industrial Project -
Sacramento County Unincorporated
Potential Developing Communities (not yet under construction) Cordova Hills - 320
Glenborough at Easton - -
South Mather - -
Aerojet 1,600
Elverta 10
Grand Park 20
Jackson Township 10
Jackson West 1,240
Newbridge 110
Upper Westside 430
New Induced Growth Areas 200
Attachment A
500 - -
30 900 5,690
110 11,210 16,484 - -
10 450 3,075
60 3,820 9,356
- 940 3,522 400 730 1,805
- 40,180 -
50 200 5,627
10 3,010 23,892
- 3,190 8,000 350 600 1,500
- 1,800 3,239 - 80 300
- - 1,620 595 130 1,295
- - -
2025 Blueprint (MTP/SCS) Discussion Scenario
April 2024
Jurisdiction/Community Type
Baseyear and
Buildout
Spring 24 Discussion
Scenario
Existing Conditions
(2020)
Potential
Buildout
2020 - 2035 2020 - 2050
Housing
Units
Jobs Housing
Units
Housing
Units
Jobs Housing
Units
5 of 5

7) Consider the other areas available for development. Open land inside the Urban Services Boundary (USB) is available for housing, both in the City of Sacramento and unincorporated Sacramento County – land that is not in a deep flood basin or on prime farmland. In addition, there is enormous capacity for infill development in existing communities, especially around transit stations. Building in communities with existing public infrastructure and services can limit costs to local jurisdictions for maintenance and operations, and it can lower the combined housing-transportation costs to households. While the Upper Westside project proposes the City of Sacramento extend its utilities and services to the project, the City’s new 2040 General Plan strongly emphasizes infill development to provide needed housing.

8) Consider the land uses being proposed. We need more housing, but it does not need to be located in the Natomas Basin; and the Upper Westside project does not address our most critical housing need -- for low income households.

The project proposes three million square feet of commercial space. For comparison, the Westfield Galleria shopping mall in Roseville is 1.3 million square feet. If this commercial space is built, will it take the life out of the 100,000 square-foot shopping mall at West El Camino and Truxel Road?

The proposed site is on the urban edge, bounded by the Sacramento River. For an educational campus, this means difficult access by automobile, and certainly by public transit.

9) Consider the traffic impacts. The project proposes 9,000 residences and three million square feet of commercial space, plus the schools. The project will be almost entirely auto-centric. Thousands of auto-trips each day will significantly impact El Centro Road and West El Camino (whose width varies from 2 lanes to 6 lanes between I-80 and Northgate Blvd), as well as Garden Highway and San Juan Road (neither of which can be widened.)

Traffic will increase throughout South Natomas. The six-lane West El Camino overpass of I-80 and El Centro Road, at the primary gateway to the project, will be especially congested. This junction and the gateway itself, intended to be a “smart growth street”, will be bumper to bumper.

In conclusion, the Upper Westside conflicts with land use planning actions of regional significance including the Blueprint, Urban Services Boundary, and Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan -- each hard won, painstakingly agreed to, and in place for decades. These land use actions are our legacy; they represent our core values; and now, in 2024, they are sustainability bulwarks against climate change. Let’s not toss them aside.

Thank you for considering what we have written above. As you carefully review the Draft EIR before making your recommendation, consider it in the context of the entire Natomas Basin. We will provide more extensive comments on the Draft EIR in the days to come. You represent us, the Natomas Community as well as future generations of this community who will live with increasingly extreme weather in our changing climate.

Sincerely,

Heather Fargo
Heather Fargo, Chair Susan Herre AIA AICP
ECOS Natomas Team President of the Board of Directors

From: Lisa Boyle <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 4, 2024 10:21 AM
To: Clerk of the Board Public Email <[email protected]> Cc: PER-CEQA <[email protected]>; Supervisor Serna <[email protected]> Subject: Natomas is OPPOSED! No to the Upper Westside Specific Plan! Greetings,
I am sending this email in opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan that threatens our environment, wildlife habitat, and our community. As the Draft Environmental Impact Report clearly states, the project would result in SIGNIFICANT
and UNAVOIDABLE impact on the aesthetics, agricultural
resources, air quality, cultural and historical resources, noise, population and housing, transportation, and tribal cultural resources. It will further impact climate change, geology, soils, hydrology, drainage, water quality, public services, and water supply to name just a few of the impacts on our region and community.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Sincerely,
Lisa Boyle
11 Garden Hwy Resident
October 7, 2024
Sacramento County Department of Community Development
Planning and Environmental Review Division
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan as outlined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated August 2024. The project presents significant and unacceptable environmental and community impacts that cannot be sufficiently mitigated. Specifically, I am concerned about the increase in traffic, deterioration of air quality, irreversible loss of agricultural land, destruction of critical habitat for endangered species, and disruption of migratory bird patterns.

1. Unacceptable Increase in Traffic
The proposed development will result in a substantial and unavoidable increase in traffic congestion. The DEIR’s acknowledgment of traffic impacts, including the projected rise in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), is deeply concerning. The existing infrastructure is ill-equipped to handle the dramatic increase in population and vehicular traffic, particularly along critical roads like El Centro Road and West El Camino Avenue. This will lead to worsened commute times, increased air pollution from vehicle emissions, and heightened risks of accidents.

The mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR, such as improvements to local roads and intersection upgrades, are inadequate given the scale of the development. No amount of roadway expansion can fully address the significant traffic burden this project will impose. I strongly oppose the project on the grounds that it will create unmanageable traffic conditions, further degrading the quality of life for existing residents.

More specifically, as a resident of Swallows Nest (at the corner of Garden Highway and Orchard Lane), I travel Garden Highway frequently. It is a narrow two-lane road that cannot be widened.

The impact on Garden Highway alone should be significant cause for concern. Cars already exceed the 40 MPH speed limit and unsafely pass other cars on a regular basis. The significant increase in traffic on Garden Highway because of this project will surely lead to an increase in fatal accidents.

The other significant impact will be the overpass of West El Camino Avenue at Interstate 80. It sounds as though the mitigation measure in the DEIR may or may not happen. The overpass is also a two-lane roadway that is already bumper to bumper on a regular basis. If this project is approved, widening of this key overpass should be a requirement prior to beginning development.
12 2. Detrimental Impact on Air Quality
The construction and operation of the Upper Westside Specific Plan will lead to a sharp increase in air pollution, exacerbating already poor air quality in the region. The DEIR acknowledges significant emissions of particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and other harmful pollutants. The nearby residential communities, particularly vulnerable populations such as children and the elderly, will suffer the health consequences of this increased pollution.

The proposed mitigation measures, while helpful, are not sufficient to protect public health or meet the necessary air quality standards. The scale of development is simply too large for effective mitigation, and I oppose this project due to its unacceptable risks to air quality and public health.

3. Irreversible Loss of Farmland
The Upper Westside Specific Plan will result in the permanent conversion of 1,372 acres of valuable farmland to urban uses. This represents a tragic and irreversible loss for Sacramento County’s agricultural industry, a key component of the local economy. The mitigation measures proposed in the DEIR, such as the 1:1 farmland preservation ratio, do not compensate for the destruction of prime agricultural land that has sustained our community for generations.

Sacramento County’s farmland is a finite resource, and this project’s large-scale urban sprawl will permanently destroy it. This loss is unacceptable, and I oppose the project for its unsustainable consumption of irreplaceable agricultural land.

4. Destruction of Habitat for Endangered Species
The project will have devastating effects on critical habitats for several endangered and threatened species, including the giant garter snake and Swainson’s hawk. Despite the mitigation measures outlined in the DEIR, the destruction of habitat will lead to a decline in these species, undermining years of conservation efforts in the region.

Urbanization on such a large scale is incompatible with the preservation of sensitive ecosystems.

Habitat corridors and conservation easements are insufficient to counteract the profound disruption this development will cause to wildlife. I oppose the project because of its irreversible harm to endangered species and their habitats.

5. Disruption of Migratory Bird Patterns
The project area serves as a crucial stopover for migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The DEIR outlines significant risks to nesting and migratory patterns, which are vital to the survival of many bird species. The loss of open space and wetlands will severely impact these birds, whose populations are already in decline.

The seasonal restrictions on construction and other mitigation measures mentioned in the DEIR are inadequate to protect the migratory bird populations. I oppose the project because it will cause significant and irreversible harm to these important avian species.

Conclusion
In conclusion, I strongly oppose the Upper Westside Specific Plan. The project will have severe, long-lasting, and irreversible impacts on traffic, air quality, agricultural land, endangered species, and migratory birds. The proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to address the scale of harm this project will cause. I urge Sacramento County to reconsider and ultimately reject this unsustainable development.

Thank you for considering my opposition to the project. I hope that the County will prioritize long-term environmental and community health over short-term development interests.

Sincerely,

Liz Bergeron
2301 Wailea Pl
Sacramento, CA 95833

Office 916-874-7606
Fax 916-874-8289
1325 J Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814
October 8, 2024
Sacramento County
Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division Attention: Environmental Coordinator
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Upper Westside Specific Plan
State Clearinghouse No. 2020100069
County Control Number PLNP2018-00284
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Environmental Coordinator:

The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) has received the Notice of Availability for the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and offers the following comments.

1. GENERAL
As you may be aware, SAFCA is responsible for providing flood protection for the Natomas Basin where the subject project is located. SAFCA has undertaken a number of actions over the last several years to improve the level of flood protection provided to the Natomas Basin.

The Natomas Levee Evaluation Study Final Report, dated July 14, 2006 (Final Report), identified improvements to levees required to provide the Natomas Basin with 200-year flood protection. In response to the Final Report, SAFCA embarked on a long -term, multi-phased project to provide the Natomas Basin with 200 -year flood protection, referred to as the Natomas Levee Improvement Project (NLIP), which has been implemented in Phases 1, 2, 3, 4a and 4b. The completion of all phases of the NLIP is necessary to provide adequate flood protection for the Natomas Basin.

In 2008, in response to the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ ( USACE’s) notification that the levees protecting the Natomas Basin were inadequate to prevent severe flooding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) changed the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels (i.e. floodplain zoning maps) for the Natomas Basin for Sutter County (December 2, 2008) and the City and County of Sacramento (December 8, 2008) and designated the Natomas Basin as Special Flood Hazard Zone AE (2008 Designation). The 2008 Designation required local land use regulatory agencies to limit development of new structures in the Natomas Basin such that the lowest occupied floor would be constructed at least ten feet above grade, effectively preventing development of new struc tures in the 13 Upper West Side Specific Plan
SAFCA Comments on Draft EIR
October 8, 2024

Page 2 ends

Natomas Basin. The NLIP has been designed to provide flood protection for the residents, businesses and other improvements within the Natomas Basin.

On June 16, 2015, in response to the construction of flood control improvements in the initial phases of the NLIP between 2007 and 2013, FEMA revised the FIRM Panels to designate the Natomas Basin as Zone A99 (2015 Designation). The local floodplain management agencies, including the County of Sutter, the County of Sacramento and the City of Sacramento , then adopted that designation, thereby lifting or modifying their building limitations in response to the 2015 Designation. A Zone A99 designation requires homeowners and businesses with federally backed loans to carry flood insurance but does not require the elevation of structures above the 100 -year water surface elevation. FEMA issued the 2015 Designation because SAFCA had completed the flood control improvements in Phases 1 -3 and a portion of Phase 4a of the NLIP and it reasonably anticipated that the Project Partners would complete the later phases of the NLIP to improve the levee system that encircles the Natomas Basin.

In June 2014, Congress authorized the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, including the American River Watershed Project, Natomas Basin improvements, under which the USACE will continue the work initiated by SAFCA in the earlier phases of the NLIP.

On August 16, 2016, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board and SAFCA entered into the Local Project Partnership Agreement for the American River Watershed Project, Natomas Basin improvements. On August 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of the Army, the State, and SAFCA entered into the Project Partnership Agreement for the American River Watershed Project, Natomas Basin improvements.

To continue implementing the Project, the USACE, in cooperation with the State of California Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) and SAFCA, plans to build flood control improvements along the Sacramento River East Levee, the Natomas Cross Canal south levee, the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) West Levee, the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC) West Levee, and the American River north levee in the Natomas Basin area of the City and County of Sacramento and County of Sutter.

As discussed in Chapter 13 - Hydrology and Water Quality of the DEIR, in 2007 the California Water Code and Government Code were amended to require local land use agencies such as the County of Sacramento to make one of four findings regarding the provision of an Urban Level of Flood Protection (ULOP) before approving new development agreements, discretionary entitlements, permits allowing building one or more new homes, or tentative maps or parcel maps. in specified floodplains. As listed in the DEIR, the County General Plan policies related to ULOP include SA-5, SA-22, SA-22a, and SA-22b.

2. COMMENTS

The comments presented below are related to the Specific Plan and various chapters of the DEIR.

Upper West Side Specific Plan
SAFCA Comments on Draft EIR
October 8, 2024

Page 3 ends

A. Road 9

The new Road 9 roadway connection to the Garden Highway, which sits atop the Sacramento River east levee, will not be allowed at the location shown on the Upper West Side Roadway Master Plan. If the County wishes to have a connection to garden Highway in this area, it should utilize the ramp that has been constructed at Farm Road. See the attached markup of the Roadway Master Plan.

B. Continuation of Legal Access to TNBC Cummings Tract and SAFCA Johnson Ranch

The legal access to The Natomas Basin Conservancy's (TNBC) Cummings Tract (Sacramento County Assessor's Parcel Numbers [APNs] 225-0110-061 and 225-0110-060) and SAFCA's Johnson Ranch property (APNs 225-0010-019 and 225-0110-020) is through the private road reservation shown along the east side of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 and the west side of Lot 7 of Natomas Riverside Subdivision No. 3, filed for recording on August 6, 1918 in Book 15 of Maps, Page 43, Records of Sacramento County, California.

The proposed development along the west side of APN 225 -0110-025 should be modified to include an OS-AG corridor to preserve the existing private road reservation. See the attached markup of the Roadway Master Plan.

C. Conversion of Radio Road and Farm Road to Public Use

The Radio Road roadway connection to the Garden Highway is currently within a private road and canal reservation shown along the south side of Lot 8 of the Map of Natomas Riverside Subdivision No. 3. The Farm Road roadway connection to the Garden Highway is currently within a private road reservation shown along the south side of Lot 9 and the north side of Lot 23 of the Map of Natomas Riverside Subdivision No. 2, filed for recording on February 26, 1918 in Book 15 of Maps, Page 41, Records of Sacramento County, California.

Converting these private road rights to a public road right of way will require the property owner to grant a public road easement for this use. SAFCA expects to be compensated for these conveyances on SAFCA-owned property.

D. TNBC's Alleghany Tract

DEIR Plate PD-4 shows all of TNBC's Alleghany Tract (APN 225-0190-011) as being owned by SAFCA. This is also discussed in Footnote 1 at the bottom of DEIR Page 2 -27. SAFCA only purchased a portion of this parcel from TNBC. SAFCA's parcel is now known as APN 225-0190-023. TNBC's remainder parcel is now known as APN 225-0190-024.

E. Chapter 13 - Pages 13-3, 13-9, and 13-25

The discussion of the levees surrounding the Natomas Basin in the second paragraph of the section entitled "Flood Protection" on Page 13-3 of the DEIR should add the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal in the list of flood sources.

SACRAMENTO RIVER
INTERSTATE - 80
INTERSTATE - 5

FISHERMAN'S
LAKE/
SLOUGH
ARENA
BOUL

WEST EL CAMINO AVENUE
EVARD

NATOMAS

CROSSINGDRIVE(FUTURE)

GARDEN HIGHWAY

HIGHWAYGARDEN

DUCKHORN

BOULEVARDSAN JUAN ROAD

SACRAMENTO COUNTYYOLO COUNTY

NATOMAS WESTSIDE PATH

WITTERCANAL

RADIO ROAD

SAN JUAN ROAD

EL CENTRO ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD
STREET 7

FARM ROAD
STREET 1

STREET F
STREET 8STREET 10
CMU
VLDR
VLDR33.6 ± AC

62.7 ± AC

6.4 ± AC
VLDR70.4 ± AC
OS-AG24.5 ± AC
AG117.2 ± ACLDR10.9 ± ACLMDR7.8 ± ACMDR4.6 ± AC
HS64.2 ± AC
LDR41.7 ± ACUF10.0 ± AC
K-816.0 ± AC
P4.5 ± AC
LDR25.7 ± AC
LDR15.1 ± AC
K-816.0 ± ACLDR13.8 ± AC
EHC41.8 ± AC
EHC11.1 ± AC
LDR31.2 ± ACLMDR21.5 ± AC
P18.4 ± AC
LDR17.0 ± AC
LMDR22.2 ± AC
P4.8 ± AC
LDR3.5 ±
LDR11.9 ± AC
LDR11.1 ± AC
P4.4 ± AC
LMDR10.8 ± ACLMDR11.2 ± AC
LDR12.8 ± ACLDR11.8 ± AC
LMDR12.8 ± ACLMDR12.5 ± AC
MDR4.2 ± ACHDR4.1 ± ACMDR4.1 ± ACHDR4.3 ± AC
VHDR3.9 ± ACVHDR3.8 ± AC
CMU4.2 ± ACCMU4.4 ± AC
VHDR3.8 ± AC
CMU4.1 ± ACCMU4.2 ± AC
VHDR3.7 ± ACVHDR3.7 ± AC
MDR3.9 ± ACHDR3.8 ± AC
LDR24.3 ± ACLDR16.4 ± AC
CMU4.1 ± AC
VHDR3.7 ± AC
HDR3.9 ± ACMDR4.0 ± AC
HDR3.3 ± AC
CMU3.7 ± AC
CMU4.2 ± ACCMU3.8 ± AC
HDR3.4 ± AC
MDR4.8 ± AC
MDR6.1 ± AC
HDR6.9 ± AC
HDR6.7 ± AC
K-817.0 ± AC
P17.4 ± AC
P7.4 ± AC
LDR10.1 ± AC
LDR29.9 ± AC
LDR26.8 ± AC
LDR18.8 ± AC
OS35.1 ± ACOS35.6 ± AC

EL CENTRO ROAD
G3.0 ± AC

4.2± ACOS-AG

11.5 ± ACOS

4.5 ± ACG

1.3± ACG1.3± ACG1.7 ± ACG

2.9 ± ACG 2.3 ± ACOS4.1 ± ACG

EL CENTRO ROAD

BRYTE BEND ROAD

0.5 ± ACP 0.6 ± ACP0.5 ± ACP0.5 ± ACP

3.5 ± ACOS-C 4.1 ± ACOS-C 3.7 ± ACOS-C 3.7 ± ACOS-C STREET I

ORCHARD LANE
LDR7.7 ± AC
CC11.0 ± AC

0.4 ± ACP
STREET 2
AG130.1 ± AC

4.0 ± ACMDR

2.0 ± ACMDR

4.4 ± AC4.4 ± AC

0.9 ± ACG

4.3 ± AC4.3 ± ACCMU

STREET G

1.4 ± ACG 6.0 ± ACG

STREET A

STREET B

STREET C
STREET 3
STREET 4
STREET 5
STREET 6
1890' ±
1500' ± 950' ±
700' ±
CMU25.5 ± AC

1.6 ± ACCMU
AG113.2 ± AC
2800' ±
250' ±
250' ±
250' ±
LDR18.3 ± AC
STREET 7

0.2 ± ACG
LDR12.5 ± AC 1.3 ± ACG 0.2 ± ACG

2.0 ± AC1.4 ± ACGGOLDEN1
AR63.9 ± AC
OS20.0 ± AC
LMDR19.4 ± AC
LMDR9.0 ± AC
1 2
3 LMDR7.7 ± AC
LDR10.8 ± ACP7.5 ± AC
OS27.6 ± AC

1.1 ± ACOS4.4 ± ACOS

3.1 ± ACOS-AG
MDR4.6 ± ACSTREET 12

STREET H

WEST EL CAMINOAVENUE
LDR
OS

OSSTREET D

STREET E

ELECTRICAL
ELECTRIC SUBSTATION #2

STATION SITESEWER PUMP
*PROPOSEDSUBSTATION #1

1.7 ± AC

1.3 ± AC
P4.0 ± AC

7.4 ± ACOS

3.2 ± AC
LDR5.5 ± AC0.6 ± AC
AR22.2 ± AC
P5.1 ± AC
G MDR9.6 ± ACCMU

STREET F

FARM ROAD
*POTENTIAL SHERIFFSUBSTATION
CMUCMU

FIRE STATION

2.9 ± ACP

WATER TANK STORAGE

2.0 ± ACOS

0.2 ± ACP

4.8± ACOS-AG
AG53.8 ± AC
STREET 9
STREET12
OS13.7 ± AC
AC
G

SOUTH BASIN

WEST BASINEAST BASIN

NORTH BASINBASINNORTH

1.3 ± ACG

3.1 ± ACOS

1.1 ± ACOS
AB4
H1
C3
H1
H1
C3
H2
C1
C2C2
C1
H2
E
D3
G
A B3
B3
D1
H2
C4
D1
H1
H6
B1B6 C5
H6
H1
F
D2
H2
G
G
B2
C6
E
C2
D1
H6
H5
E
E
E
EE
E
H1H1
E
EE
E
EE
E
H1
H1
H3
H3
D1
H1
D2
K
H2
H5
H2
B5 H1H1
E
H2
C5
G
H3
H3
H3
H3
D2
H3
H3H3 H1
H1
H3
H3H3H3
H3
D1
C2
F

TRANSITION TOCOLLECTOR STREET
12' 12'5'10' 6'
80'± 56'
12'
25'
56' STREET SECTIONBRYTE BEND ROAD - South of Street 2 (Collector A Street)SCALE: 1"=15'C1 29'
8' 8' 11'2'5'2'3'

COLLECTOR A
60' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
R/WR/W

LANDSCAPEMEDIAN

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANEBIKELANEBIKELANETRAIL WALK

GREENBELT CORRIDOR OR URBAN FARM NODES

RAISED MEDIAN

POST &RAIL FENCE
TRANSMISSION TOWERCORRIDOR LOCATEDSOUTH OF STREET 2

PLANTER
BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
STREET TREES(TYP.)

POTENTIAL ROWCROPS ORLANDSCAPING

POTENTIALLID WATERQUALITY SWALE
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

C/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

ESMT. ORP.L.ESMT. ORP.L.

PLANTERPLANTER3'C/G2' 2'

TRAIL/WALK MEANDERS INTOTHE GREENBELT CORRIDOR
7'PLANTERDGDG
12' 12' 8'5'10' 6'*80'±
61'
12'
25'
61' STREET SECTIONBRYTE BEND ROAD - Between Street 2 and Farm Road & North of San Juan Road (Collector A Street)SCALE: 1"=15'C2 29'
8' 8' 11'7' 2'5'2'3'

COLLECTOR A
60' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
R/WR/W

LANDSCAPEMEDIAN

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANEBIKELANEBIKELANETRAIL WALKGREENBELT CORRIDOR OR URBAN FARM NODESRAISED MEDIANPLANTER PLANTERPLANTER BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
STREETTREES (TYP.)

GREENBELT/URBAN FARM

POTENTIALLID WATERFEATURE

POTENTIAL GREENHOUSEAT TOWN CENTER
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

PARKINGC/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

POST &RAIL FENCEPOTENTIAL ORCHARD,ROW CROPS, ORLANDSCAPING

PLANTER
3'C/G
WHERE ADJACENT TO SCHOOLS OR PARKS, SIDEWALK SHALL BE WIDENED TO 8 FEET.* NOTE:
2' 2'DG DG12' 12'5'10' 6'
56'
12'
25'
56' STREET SECTIONBRYTE BEND ROAD - North of Farm Road (Collector A Street)SCALE: 1"=15'C3 29'
8' 8' 11'2'5'2'3'

COLLECTOR A
60' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
R/W R/W80'±

LANDSCAPEMEDIAN

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANEBIKELANEBIKELANETRAIL WALKRAISED MEDIANPLANTER PLANTER BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
STREETTREES (TYP.)

OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR/DRAINAGE CHANNEL
POST & RAILFENCE (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

C/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

PLANTER3'C/G2'2'7'PLANTER
3:1 SLOPE
3:1 SLOPE
24'±5'± 2'±DRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPE25'±VARIES24'±DRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPEDG DG 12'TRAVEL LANE12'12'BIKELANE5'8'PARKING 5'2' 3'7'PLANTER6'WALK20'SETBACK 8' 10' 61' R/WR/W 29'
7'
80'±
61' STREET SECTIONSAN JUAN ROAD - Between El Centro Road and Bryte Bend Road at Existing Front-On Lots (Collector Street) SCALE: 1"=15'C4
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL"FRONT-ON" HOUSE
5'±
60' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
24'±24'±2'
(EXISTING)
33'
POST & RAILFENCE (TYP.)BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)NO PKG.

TRAVEL LANERAISED MEDIANBIKELANE TRAIL

COLLECTOR A

PLANTER

OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR/DRAINAGE CHANNEL

DRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPEDRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPE
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

C/G

LANDSCAPEMEDIAN
STREETTREES (TYP.)
3'C/G
(EXISTING)(EXISTING)
3:1 SLOPE
3:1 SLOPE
25'±VARIES2'±2'DG2'DGPLANTER12'TRAVEL LANE12'12'BIKELANE5' 5'2' 3'7'PLANTER6'WALK12'PLANTER 8' 10' 56' R/WR/W 29'
7'
80'±
56' STREET SECTIONSAN JUAN ROAD - East of El Centro Road & RADIO ROAD - East of Bryte Bend Road (Collector Street)SCALE: 1"=15'C5 EXISTING 6' WALL/FENCE@ RESIDENTIAL (TYP.)
24'24' 25'± 5'±
60' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
25'LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.
3'C/G
POST & RAILFENCE (TYP.)BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)NO PKG.

TRAVEL LANERAISED MEDIANBIKELANE TRAIL

COLLECTOR A

PLANTER

OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR/DRAINAGE CHANNEL

DRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPEDRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPE
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

VARIESC/G

LANDSCAPEMEDIAN
STREETTREES (TYP.)
NO PARKING(TYP.)
(EXISTING)
2' 2'±
POST & RAILFENCE (TYP.)

RESIDENTIAL ORHIGH SCHOOL
3:1 SLOPE
3:1 SLOPE
(EXISTING)
2'DG 2'DGPLANTER
SCALE: 1"=15'THOROUGHFARE (El Centro Road at Truck Stop)102' STREET SECTIONA 12' 11' 11'12'11'11' 5'5' 3' 3'3'3' 8' 10'
CL
12'
51'51'
10'±
29'
102'
EXISTING 69 KWPOWER LINES
R/WR/W
7'
96' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
25'
STREETTREES (TYP.)

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANE BIKELANEBIKELANE PLANTERTRAILSETBACK BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

RAISED MEDIAN

THOROUGHFARE
C/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

C/G
CMU orE/HC

EXISTINGTRUCKSTOPOR
6'WALK9'PLANTER
CMU orVHDR orHDR
2'DG2'DGPLANTER
80'
12'11' 11'12'5'3'3' 5'3'3'
40'40'
8'6'WALK11'±LANDSCAPE
R/WR/W
25'± 29'
SCALE: 1"=15'EL CENTRO ROAD (South of West El Camino Avenue)80' STREET SECTIONB474' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS 12'
EXISTING69 KW POWERLINES
LANDSCAPED SETBACK/P.U.P.F.E.

EXISTINGCOMMERCIAL
CL
TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANERAISED MEDIANBIKELANE BIKELANEPLNTR.

STREETTREES (TYP.)
BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.ARTERIAL
C/GC/G

TOWNCENTER
8'PLANTER
10'SMUD ESMT.

REMOVE & RELOCATEEX. SIDEWALK
100' APPROXIMATE 100' PUBLIC ROAD EASEMENT PER 31 RS 46 10' 7'TRAIL2'DG2'DGPLANTER
80'
12'11' 11'12'5'3'3' 5'3'3'
40'40'
8'8' 10'6'
R/WR/W
SCALE: 1"=15'EL CENTRO ROAD (Between Farm Road & San Juan Road)80' STREET SECTIONB3 11'
25' 29'
7'
80'
74' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS
12'
EXISTING69 KW POWER LINES
CL

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANERAISED MEDIANBIKELANE BIKELANEPLANTERPLANTER TRAILWALK STREET TREES(TYP.)

PLANTER
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

PLANTER

OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR
POST & RAILFENCE (TYP.)

ARTERIAL

RESIDENTIAL
BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

C/GC/G
10'SMUD ESMT.0' - 5'-10"±FROM R/W
5' - 13'-8"±FROM R/W
25' HIGHWAY R/W PER 1280 OR 403

SOUNDWALL
24'± 5'±
3:1 SLOPE
3:1 SLOPE
24'±25'±2'± DRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPEDRAINAGE CHANNEL SLOPEVARIES2'DG2'DG EXISTINGWALL (TYP.)
12'TRAVEL LANE11'TRAVEL LANE 12'TRAVEL LANE11'TRAVEL LANE5'BIKELANE5'BIKELANE 12'±PLANTERWALKPLANTER5'7'± CL
RAISED MEDIAN14'PLANTER7'±WALK5'12'±PLANTER 24'±24'±
76'ARTERIAL
38'TRAVEL LANE38'TRAVEL LANE
SCALE: 1"=15'EL CENTRO ROAD (At Existing Subdivision)76' STREET SECTIONB274' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS EXISTING STREETTREES (TYP.)
BUSH (EX.)
R/WR/W
3'3'
EXISTING69 KW POWER LINES

EXISTINGRESIDENTIAL
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

C/GC/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.
10'

EXISTINGTELEPHONE POLE

EXISTINGRESIDENTIAL
UNABLE TO RE-STRIPE TOPROVIDE BIKE BUFFER (TYP.)
SMUD ESMT.
80'
12'11' 11'12'5'3'3' 5'3'3'
40'40'
8'6'
R/WR/W
11'
25' 29'
SCALE: 1"=15'ARTERIAL (El Centro Road - North of Existing Subdivision)80' STREET SECTIONB174' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS 12'
EXISTING 69 KWPOWER LINES
CL

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANERAISED MEDIANBIKELANE BIKELANEPLANTERWALK STREET TREES(TYP.)
BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)

PLANTER
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.ARTERIAL
C/GC/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

RESIDENTIALORBASIN

EXISTINGVLDR,
8' 10' 7'PLANTERTRAIL2'DG2'DGPLANTER
10'SMUD ESMT.
80'
12'11' 11'12'5'3'3' 5'3'3'
40'40'
8'8' 8'6'
R/WR/W
11'
25' 25'
9'
SCALE: 1"=15'ARTERIAL (Farm Road east of El Centro Road)80' STREET SECTIONB574' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS 12'
CL
TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANERAISED MEDIANBIKELANE BIKELANEPLANTERPLNTR. WALKWALK STREETTREES (TYP.)
BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)
PLNTR.

LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

PLANTER

ARTERIAL
C/GC/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

PARK

POTENTIALWALL
80'
12'11' 11'12'5'3'3' 5'3'3'
40'40'
8'6'
R/WR/W
11'
25' 25'
SCALE: 1"=15'ARTERIAL (El Centro Road - adjacent to North Lake Basin)80' STREET SECTIONB674' STREET SECTION IN COUNTY STANDARDS 12'
EXISTING 69 KWPOWER LINES
CL

TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANETRAVEL LANERAISEDMEDIANBIKELANE BIKELANEPLANTERWALK STREET TREES(TYP.)
BIKE LANEBUFFER (TYP.)

PLANTER
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.ARTERIAL
C/GC/G
LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR/P.U.P.F.E.

RESIDENTIALORBASIN

EXISTINGVLDR,
8' 8' 9'PLANTERWALKPLANTER
10'SMUD ESMT.

ROADWAY MASTER PLANUPPER WESTSIDECOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIAJANUARY 15, 2024

ROADWAY MASTER PLAN - UPPER WESTSIDE
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS ONE PROJECT AT A TIME3301 C St, Bldg. 100-BTel 916.341.7760Fax 916.341.7767Sacramento, CA 95816 0 NORTH600
1200
2400
NOTE: DIMENSIONS CIRCLED IN RED VARY FROMAPPLICABLE STREET SECTION STANDARDS FOUND INTHE SACRAMENTO COUNTY 2018 IMPROVEMENTSTANDARDS, SECTION 4: STREET DESIGN SHEET 1 OF 2
777 12th Street, Ste. 300 • Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: 279-207-1122 • Toll Free: 800-880-9025
AirQuality.org
October 7, 2024
Sacramento County, Planning and Environmental Review
Environmental Coordinator
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Upper Westside Specific Plan (SAC201902113)(PLNP2018-00284)
Dear Julie,
Thank you for allowing the Sac Metro Air District (District) the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Upper Westside Specific Plan. The Project encompasses approximately 2,066 acres in the unincorporated Natomas community of Sacramento County, approximately 3.5 miles from downtown Sacramento. The Project area is bounded by Interstate 80 to the south, the West Drainage Canal to the east, Fisherman’s Lake Slough to the north, and Garden Highway to the west. The Project is located outside of the County’s Urban Policy Area and Urban Services Boundary, and is bounded on three sides by the City of Sacramento, bordering the communities of North and South Natomas. Below are our comments:

The following comments pertain to the Upper Westside Specific Plan DEIR Mitigation Measures.

Mitigation Measure AQ1B
Super-Compliant VOC Architectural Coating during Operations To ensure compliance into the future, please consider having an appropriate successor agency (such as the HOA ) and not the project sponsor be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure.

Best Available Emissions Controls for Stationary Emergency Generators When evaluating BACT we include NOx with VOC/ROG and PM when looking at technology that reduces multiple pollutants. Under Best Available Emissions Controls for Stationary Emergency Generators, please revise the first bullet, last sentence to read If the CARB adopts future emissions standards that exceed the Tier 4 requirement, the emissions standards resulting in the lowest ROG and DPM emissions shall apply, up to and including zero emissions.

Promote Use of Green Consumer Products
Promoting the use of green consumer products is a good idea, but individuals can have different interpretations of what this means, and the term can be vague and misleading, 14

Page 2 ends

DEIR Comments for Upper Westside Specific Plan (SAC201902113) leading to confusion. Please consider focusing this mitigation measure on specific, actionable education campaigns that a successor agency (such as the HOA) can implement. Examples include waste diversion programs at local schools, promoting tips to save electricity, energy savings tools and conserving energy at home.

Mitigation Measure AQ 4B
Not all eligible existing receptors may have heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems that are compatible with MERV-13 or higher filers. Please consider revising the language to clarify that indoor air filtration for the project may, if an HVAC system is not compatible, either upgrade the HVAC systems to use MERV-13 or higher (for vulnerable populations such as schools and nursing homes, MERV-14 or higher should be used) capable of at least 0.5 air exchanges per hour or provide California certified portable air-cleaning devices.

Residential users should be provided with at least one air-cleaning device per occupied bedroom, with sufficient air flow to complete at least two air exchanges per hour. Residents will be trained on their use, optimal placement, and are encouraged to move the air-cleaning device(s) to where they will be breathing.

Mitigation Measure AQ4C
While we appreciate the specificity of the language, due to climate change and urban forestry practices, we recommend generalizing language on the last bullet. For example, redwoods may be an inappropriate choice due to current climate. Last sentence would read, “Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following species such as …….

The following comments pertain to the Air Quality Section of the Upper Westside Specific Plan DEIR Report

Chapter 6.0 Air Quality

Page 6 ends

an attainment-maintenance area for both CO and PM-10. Sacramento County is no longer a maintenance area and is in attainment now for CO (for both 1 and 8 hour CO)– see https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2023-carbon-monoxide-sip-revision but is still an attainment-maintenance area for PM-10. Table AQ-4 should be corrected to refer to ozone as severe-15 and not moderate for 8-hour ozone.

Local, Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District The most recent Ozone Air Quality Plan for Ozone is for the 2008 NAAQS (not for the 1997 Plan as referenced) which is available at:
https://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/Sac%20Regional%202008%20NA AQS%20Attainment%20and%20RFP%20Plan.pdf An updated list of SMAQMD’s most recent plans can be found at: https://www.airquality.org/Air-Quality-Health/Air-Quality-Plans.

Page 3 ends

DEIR Comments for Upper Westside Specific Plan (SAC201902113) The most recent PM10 Plan was the second PM10 Maintenance Plan was approved by EPA on March 14, 2024 and can be found at
https://www.airquality.org/ProgramCoordination/Documents/PM10%20Second%20MP%20Fin al%20Draft%202021-07-23.pdf Please see: https://www.airquality.org/Air-Quality-Health/Air- Quality-Plans for list of most recent plans.

For CO the most recent plan from SMAQMD is stated from 2004. Please add a footnote to clarify that Sacramento is in Attainment for Carbon Monoxide and that the 20-year maintenance period is over. see https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/2023-carbon- monoxide-sip-revision

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Page 6 ends

transportation (and not general) conformity.

Sacramento County General Plan

Page 6 ends

General Plan. Please make sure that the air quality goals and policies are consistent with the latest version of the General Plan Air Quality Element which was last amended on October 25, 2022 and can be found at: https://planning.saccounty.gov/PlansandProjectsIn- Progress/Documents/General%20Plan%20Amendments/5.%20Air%20Quality%20Element%20- %20Amended%2010-25-2022.pdf

Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of an Applicable Air Quality Plan This section references the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and RFP Plan which is accurate but is inconsistent with Local, Sacramento AQMD section (see previous comment) which references an earlier SIP.

Sincerely,

Rich Muzzy
Air Quality Planner/Analyst
CEQA and Land Use

cc: Paul Philley, AICP, Program Supervisor

11080 White Rock Road Ste 200 • Rancho Cordova, California 95670 • fax (916) 875-8513 Environmental Compliance (916) 875-8550 ● Environmental Health (916) 875-8440 www.saccounty.net • emd.saccounty.net
Department of Environmental
Management
Jennea Monasterio
Director
County of Sacramento
Divisions
Administration
Environmental Compliance
Environmental Health
October 8, 2024
TO: [email protected]
FROM: Leana Nguyen ([email protected])
SUBJECT: PLNP2018-00284 Upper Westside Specific Plan
LOCATION: The Project encompasses approximately 2,066 acres in the unincorporated Natomas community of Sacramento County, approximately 3.5 miles from downtown Sacramento. The Project area is bounded by Interstate 80 to the south, the West Drainage Canal to the east, Fisherman’s Lake Slough to the north, and Garden Highway to the west. The Project is located outside of the County’s Urban Policy Area (UPA) and Urban Services Boundary (USB), and is bounded on three sides by the City of Sacramento, bordering the communities of North and South Natomas.

EMD PROJECT COMMENTS:

1. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, each lot that is newly developed as part of the Legado Specific Plan must connect to public water.

2. CONDITION: Prior to final occupancy, each lot that is newly developed as part of the Legado Specific Plan must connect to public sewer.

3. CONDITION: The applicant must contact the Environmental Health Plan Check Department prior to beginning construction of any food facility. Environmental Health may be contacted at (916) 874-6010.

4. ADVISORY: Prior to recordation of the final map, if an abandoned well is found on the property, it must be issued an inactivation permit (subject to review and approval from EMD), repaired and brought back into service, or it must be destroyed at the parcel owner’s cost. All well-related activities must be performed in compliance with EMD’s well permitting and inspection program requirements. Contact [email protected] with any questions. 15 11080 White Rock Road Ste 200 • Rancho Cordova, California 95670 • fax (916) 875-8513 Environmental Compliance (916) 875-8550 ● Environmental Health (916) 875-8440 www.saccounty.net • emd.saccounty.net

5. ADVISORY: Prior to recordation of the final map, if an abandoned septic system tank is discovered on the property, it must be destroyed in compliance with EMD’s liquid waste permitting and inspection program requirements. When these septic systems are no longer in use, the septic tanks must be abandoned under a permit issued by EMD. Contact [email protected] with any questions.

6. ADVISORY: Any facility in Sacramento County that handles and/or stores a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities (55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases) must obtain a permit and submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) to EMD. The purpose of the HMBP Program is to protect public health and the environment and groundwater from risks or adverse effects associated with the storage of hazardous materials.

Contact Thomas Vohoska at [email protected] with any questions.

7. ADVISORY: Any facility in Sacramento County that generates hazardous waste must obtain a permit from EMD. The purpose of the program is to ensure compliance with the Hazardous Waste Control Act, verify Hazardous Waste accumulation, labeling, container and tank management standards, and waste generator status, respond to complaints of illegal disposal of hazardous waste, and issue permits and inspects businesses that treat hazardous waste pursuant to permit by rule, conditional authorization, or conditional exemption laws and regulations. Contact Thomas Vohoska at [email protected] with any questions.

8. ADVISORY: Any facility in Sacramento County that stores petroleum products in above ground tanks in quantities 1,320 gallons or greater must obtain a permit from EMD per the Above Ground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA). You must also develop and implement the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan requirements per Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 112. Contact Thomas Vohoska at [email protected] with any questions.

W:\Land Use\COMMENT LETTERS\2024\PLNP2018-00284 Upper Westside Specific Plan.pdf From: Executive Director <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 4:02 PM
To: PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Cc: Pat Hume <[email protected]>
Subject: Upper Westside Specific Plan Comment Letter
Hello,
Please see the attached comment letter from Sacramento County Farm Bureau in regard to the Upper Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No 2020100069, County Control Number PLNP2018-00284). Please keep the SCFB informed of any updates and future notices.

Thank you.

Amber McDowell | Executive Director
Sacramento County Farm Bureau
8970 Elk Grove Blvd.

Elk Grove, CA 95624
O: (916) 685-6958 | C: (916) 513-1619
16 8970 Elk Grove Boulevard, Elk Grove, California 95624 Phone 916-685-6958 ● www.sacfarmbureau.org ● [email protected]

October 9, 2024

Sacramento County,
Department of Community Development, Planning & Environmental Review Division Attn: Environmental Coordinator
827 7th St, Rm 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]

RE: Upper Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No 2020100069, County Control Number PLNP2018-00284)

Dear Environmental Coordinator,

The Sacramento County Farm Bureau is a non-governmental, non-profit, grassroots membership organization. Our purpose is to preserve and protect our agricultural economy and rural lifestyle since 1917. Four thousand acres of vital farmland are lost each year to urbanization. There is great concern among farmers and ranchers that not only is the practice of farming and ranching decreasing, but their rural way of life is being threatened. Area growers work hard to supply consumers with high quality products while battling obstacles such as increased production costs and water availability. As the earth’s original conservationists, farmers and ranchers have a keen interest in preserving our precious land for future generations. Farmers are concerned with natural resources, animal health, water, and air quality, among other imperative issues. Farm Bureau’s voluntary elected leaders and professional staff work hard for all Californians to ensure the rural economy’s growth, to protect the family farm, and to maintain the treasured natural resources that are important to this state’s vitality and lifestyle.

The Sacramento County Farm Bureau has several concerns with the Specific Plan that will develop over 1,532 acres and detrimentally impact the remaining 534 acres left of the 2,066 acres in the project area. The Draft EIR further supports the issues that we address with the proposed project. The Draft EIR identifies multiple significant and unavoidable impacts to agricultural land with the proposed project. All this area needs to be preserved as agricultural lands for flood control, health benefits derived from agricultural lands, wildlife habitat, and a sustainable local food supply.

The proposed narrow strip of remaining agricultural land, some as narrow as 700 feet, will be detrimentally impacted by the urban zone. The placement of the elementary school is a poor choice due to the state regulatory requirements placed on agriculture operations. The neighboring school will disrupt production for most of that parcel and will lead to pest and disease outbreaks, food quality and health issues, and crop losses because operational practices

8970 Elk Grove Boulevard, Elk Grove, California 95624
Phone 916-685-6958 ● www.sacfarmbureau.org ● [email protected]

including pest management will be blocked due to the school’s location. In addition, the 30-50 foot buffer gravel access trail and farm fence is not a conducive buffer to protect the agricultural land against food safety hazards, pest infestations, or maintain quality production while also maintaining public safety. The minimum buffer to protect agricultural production needs to be a quarter mile.

This project area is already the needed flood buffer between the river and the urban city. The County needs to preserve this appropriately sized flood buffer which also consists of mostly prime agricultural land. These lands are classified by the State and County as important for a reason and need to remain intact as such. The county needs to protect the actual agricultural lands already here without trying to mitigate with other land that most likely is already protected or classified as important. Agricultural land cannot be created; what land is here is all that is left. Trying to substitute other land is not an acceptable or equable mitigation. The county must be cognizant about these classifications to ensure priority is maintained in preserving these limited land resources that cannot be created. Agricultural lands provide numerous benefits to the community including cooler temperatures, cleaner air, a diverse and reliable food supply that often is healthier and cheaper the less distance it must travel, carbon sequestration, producing oxygen essential for humans and wildlife, flood and fire control buffer, groundwater basin sustainability with recharge, and a habitat for wildlife. The technological advances and efficiencies applied to farming practices also assist in improving the environment and food quality.

These agricultural lands are full of wildlife. Wildlife and agricultural lands have a symbiotic relationship that benefits wildlife survival because of the agricultural practices on those lands.

Agricultural lands provide food sources, a living habitat, protection from predators, functional water resources, and spacing needs for both individuals and specie population. The wildlife utilizes this particular area because of the resources the agricultural land provides and allows them to thrive. Moving them to other areas only impacts those other areas that already contain populations of various diverse species. The phasing buildout of this Specific Plan is backwards and will cause major issues for wildlife to be able to migrate from the area and will trap many species in the phasing buildout. Buildout needs to start next to the current existing developed edge and work out from that location to direct wildlife towards the future remaining agricultural land and river. Ultimately, this project causes an overall loss of land; therefore, leaving a substantial small area for all wildlife to concentrate on for the sake of surviving and thriving. Agricultural lands also provide a buffer to limit wildlife impacts within the residential and urban areas.

The DEIR mentions that the City of Sacramento is to provide the water to this new development. Where will the water to supply this new development come from? There will be less groundwater to pull from as around 1,500 acres will now be permanently covered, preventing water to infiltrate down into the groundwater basin. This project reduces the

8970 Elk Grove Boulevard, Elk Grove, California 95624
Phone 916-685-6958 ● www.sacfarmbureau.org ● [email protected]

amount of water that can recharge this basin and increases the amount of flooding for this and neighboring areas. This land has been in agriculture not only because of its prime soil quality to grow food but also to be a flood buffer for the urban zone. The annual crops grown in this area are grown because the ground is too wet in the winter. It is designated by FEMA as a high-risk flood zone. Developing this low-lying area puts more people at risk and causes more economic damage when flooding occurs. The narrow strip of agricultural land left to be a flood buffer is not large enough. The DEIR points out under PH-1, the contradictory plans of the General Plan and SACOG which will create a huge unplanned population growth of about 25,460 residents in 9,356 housing units of whom will need water, food, and other vital resources that must be obtained and maintained. In addition, the impact of traffic, noise, carbon emissions that previously were very minimal for the area will be greatly elevated and disruptive to the current rural residents’ lifestyle. Their way of life will be destroyed. Even the remaining agricultural zone and wildlife will be heavily disrupted and degraded with the bombardment of trash, traffic congestion, trespassing, and other damaging impacts. The people on these agricultural lands and rural residences value the land and the livelihood with it.

Our organization has concerns with the perception the county has of how to protect our local food system. The Project Description states under the Sustainable Community section of incorporating measures that would preserve sensitive habitat and conserve agricultural lands.

How can this Specific Plan state that when they will remove 1,324 acres (over 70%) of the agricultural land and the wildlife associated with it? It is contradicting. While small urban farms are important to the diversity of produce, they cannot sustain the region or a large city like the neighboring City of Sacramento. It requires large acreage of good land to grow the quantity and variety of food required to provide a balanced diet and plentiful supply to sustain grocery stores, restaurants, and farmers markets for all residents and guests within the entire region.

Relying on other areas for a food supply and sending our dollars to those areas is not a sustainable decision. Quality agricultural land is a finite and priceless resource. The cities that preserve these types of lands now will benefit the best later as food, which is essential for life, becomes a very limited resource in most areas. Preserving agricultural land in our county reduces transportation of those foods allowing for a lower carbon footprint, less pollution, fresher and healthier products, and maintains local control with jobs and economic dollars staying in the area.

The County needs to understand this agricultural land currently assists with lowering the carbon footprint with carbon sequestration, provide resources for the wildlife on them, and as a buffer for flooding and wildfires. The County is doing a disservice to its current residents and businesses by eliminating agricultural lands from this area. In addition, human health and safety will be threatened. Agricultural lands and managed conservation areas are the key for carbon sequestration. This project will add to the carbon the county emits. The County needs to preserve this project area in its current state to provide aid in balancing its carbon footprint.

8970 Elk Grove Boulevard, Elk Grove, California 95624
Phone 916-685-6958 ● www.sacfarmbureau.org ● [email protected]

The County needs to determine the value of all aspects of this project area and not focus on one component that will ruin everything else for the one. In addition, a quick profit for one component but then leaves an entire community in dire straits with potential issues with water availability and quality, food shortages, poor air quality, increased flooding, and climate change is not a valid strategy the County should support. This project area has a lot of State designated Prime Farmland. Most other counties do not have any Prime Farmland. Our county is privileged to have so much abundant prime and statewide important farmland. This makes Sacramento County very valuable as other areas continue to develop more urban centers.

The County needs to support Alternative 2: No project/Existing Zoning as the best option for this area. It has the ideal proper placement, proper growth, proper preservation of resources including land, food, wildlife, water and air quality, and carbon sequestration. As more areas remove agricultural land, the need for food and land to produce food will increase.

Preservation of agricultural land for long term options is best in this drastically developing region. Once covered over, the land able to produce food will be gone forever and leaves our county dependent on other areas for the resources vital for human survival. It is a priceless resource we cannot get back.

Absolute consideration of preserving agricultural lands in Sacramento County is imperative to sustain the county with an abundant food supply, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and the local economy. The Draft EIR acknowledges these issues and that this specific plan will lead to an overall loss of farmland. This is deemed unacceptable. Therefore, the project should not move forward. Please keep the Sacramento County Farm Bureau informed with any updates and future notices.

Sincerely,

Amber McDowell
Executive Director

State Water Resources Control Board
October 14, 2024
Julie Newton
Sacramento County
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814

COMMENT LETTER ON THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY (COUNTY),

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT) FOR THE PLNP2018-00284 UPPER WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT (PROJECT); STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2020100069
Dear Julie Newton:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Environmental Document for the proposed Project. The State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water (State Water Board, DDW) is responsible for regulating public water systems and issuing water supply permits pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. This Project is within the jurisdiction of the State Water Board, DDW’s Sacramento District.

If the above noted project results in the formation of a new public water system, an application must be submitted, and a permit must be obtained from the DDW Sacramento District before water can be provided for human consumption. “Human consumption” means the use of water for drinking, bathing or showering, hand washing, oral hygiene, or cooking, including, but not limited to, preparing food and washing dishes.” Health & Saf. Code § 116275 subd. (e).

Note, Health & Saf. Code § 116527 subd. (b) requires that any person submitting a permit application for a proposed new public water system must first submit a technical report at least six months before initiating construction of any drinking water-related improvements. The technical report must include an examination of the possibility of connecting to or being annexed by an existing adjacent community water system.

A permit amendment must also be obtained from the DDW Sacramento District when changes are made to a permitted domestic water supply source, storage, or treatment and for the operation of new water system components- as specified in the Cal. Code Regs. § 64556.
17 Julie Newton - 2 - October 14, 2024
The State Water Board, DDW, as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act has the following comments on the County’s Environmental Document:
· The Project will be served domestic water by a new or existing public water system. Under section 2. “Project Description”, “Intended Uses of the EIR” please add “The State Water Board, Division of Drinking Water” as an approving agency and “water supply permit” as the approval (PDF page 221-223). · The City of Sacramento (City), through an agreement with the Sacramento County Water Agency (SCWA), will provide potable water for the Project as a wholesaler [PDF Page 207]. The Sacramento County Local Agency Formation Commission will need to approve an annexation of the service area to the SCWA (PDF page 182). Please clearly disclose if a new “public water system”, pursuant to Health and safety Code section 116275 subd. (h), will be created under the authority of SCWA. The State Water Board, DDW encourages projects that would otherwise create a new public water system to connect with nearby community water systems, where possible, instead of forming a new public water system. If no nearby systems will agree to serve the Project, the applicant will need to submit a technical report to DDW Sacramento District pursuant to Health and Saf. Code § 116527 subd. (b).
· The City plans to sell water to the new development. The City has domestic wells in both the North American Groundwater Basin and the South American Groundwater Basin (PDF page 815). The South American Groundwater Basin is designated as a high priority groundwater basin by Department of Water Resources (Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard), but the Project impacts on this basin were not discussed in the Environmental Document. If water will be pumped from the South American Basin for the Project, please discuss the amount of water that will be pumped and the impacts of that pumping on the South American Groundwater Basin. · The City will provide 4,313 acre-feet per year of treated water to meet the Project’s total water demand (PDF page 841). Please explain why the City water system can’t directly serve the Project and needs to provide treated water. o Will other sources of water besides purchased water from the City be used to serve the Project? If so please explain these sources and discuss the impacts of the use of these sources, as needed.
· Please disclose if the existing groundwater wells are on the Project site. If so, explain what actions will be taken to protect water quality. Has a well assessment or will a well assessment for the existing wells occur? Are there plans to use any of the wells as domestic supply or destroy them for the protection of water quality?
· Cal. Code. Regs. § 64572 requires separation of drinking water service lines from sources of potential contamination such as irrigation drainage channels, sewer mains, and stormwater detention basins. The Project site includes existing irrigation drainage channels and will also install new irrigation drainage channels, sewer mains, and four stormwater detention basins (PDF pages 206, 209, and 616). Please indicate if separation requirements can be met or if a waiver or alternative to Waterworks Standards (Cal. Code. Regs. § 64551.100) Julie Newton - 3 - October 14, 2024
will be needed. If a waiver is needed, the water system will need to provide the DDW Sacramento District with the alternative plans and a waiver approval should be listed as part of the needed DDW approvals in the Environmental Document.

Once the Environmental Document is certified, please forward the following items in support of water system’s permit application to the State Water Board, DDW Sacramento District Office at [email protected]:
· A copy of the Environmental Document and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP);
· A copy of comment letters received and the lead agency responses as appropriate;
· A copy of the Resolution or Board Minutes certifying the Environmental Document and adopting the MMRP; and
· A copy of the date stamped Notice of Determination filed at the County Clerk’s Office and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse.

Please contact Lori Schmitz of the State Water Board at (916) 449-5285 or [email protected], for questions regarding this comment letter.

Sincerely,
Lori Schmitz
Environmental Scientist
Division of Financial Assistance
Special Project Review Unit
1001 I Street, 16th floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Cc:

Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse
Austin Peterson
District Engineer
Sacramento District
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
14 October 2024
Julie Newton
Sacramento County Planning
827 7th Street, Suite 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]

COMMENTS TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PLNP2018-00284 UPPER WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN, SCH#2020100069, SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Pursuant to the State Clearinghouse’s 30 August 2024 request, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board) has reviewed the Request for Review for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the PLNP2018-00284 Upper Westside Specific Plan, located in Sacramento County.

Our agency is delegated with the responsibility of protecting the quality of surface and groundwaters of the state; therefore our comments will address concerns surrounding those issues.

I. Regulatory Setting
Basin Plan
The Central Valley Water Board is required to formulate and adopt Basin Plans for all areas within the Central Valley region under Section 13240 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Each Basin Plan must contain water quality objectives to ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses, as well as a program of implementation for achieving water quality objectives with the Basin Plans. Federal regulations require each state to adopt water quality standards to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Clean Water Act. In California, the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and the Antidegradation Policy are the State’s water quality standards. Water quality standards are also contained in the National Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.36, and the California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR Section 131.38.

The Basin Plan is subject to modification as necessary, considering applicable laws, policies, technologies, water quality conditions and priorities. The original Basin Plans were adopted in 1975, and have been updated and revised periodically as required, using Basin Plan amendments. Once the Central Valley Water Board has adopted a Basin Plan amendment in noticed public hearings, it must be approved by 18 PLNP2018-00284 Upper - 2 - 14 October 2024
Westside Specific Plan
Sacramento County

the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Office of Administrative Law (OAL) and in some cases, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Basin Plan amendments only become effective after they have been approved by the OAL and in some cases, the USEPA. Every three (3) years, a review of the Basin Plan is completed that assesses the appropriateness of existing standards and evaluates and prioritizes Basin Planning issues. For more information on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, please visit our website:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/

Antidegradation Considerations
All wastewater discharges must comply with the Antidegradation Policy (State Water Board Resolution 68-16) and the Antidegradation Implementation Policy contained in the Basin Plan. The Antidegradation Implementation Policy is available on page 74 at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/sacsjr_2018

05.pdf
In part it states:

Any discharge of waste to high quality waters must apply best practicable treatment or control not only to prevent a condition of pollution or nuisance from occurring, but also to maintain the highest water quality possible consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

This information must be presented as an analysis of the impacts and potential impacts of the discharge on water quality, as measured by background concentrations and applicable water quality objectives.

The antidegradation analysis is a mandatory element in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and land discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) permitting processes. The environmental review document should evaluate potential impacts to both surface and groundwater quality.

II. Permitting Requirements
Construction Storm Water General Permit
Dischargers whose project disturb one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Construction General Permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). For more information on the Construction General Permit, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:

PLNP2018-00284 Upper - 3 - 14 October 2024
Westside Specific Plan
Sacramento County

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.sht ml
Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permits1 The Phase I and II MS4 permits require the Permittees reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using Best Management Practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MS4 Permittees have their own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post- construction standards that include a hydromodification component. The MS4 permits also require specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

For more information on which Phase I MS4 Permit this project applies to, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/storm_water/municipal_p ermits/
For more information on the Phase II MS4 permit and who it applies to, visit the State Water Resources Control Board at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/phase_ii_munici pal.shtml
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
If the project will involve the discharge of dredged or fill material in navigable waters or wetlands, a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act may be needed from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). If a Section 404 permit is required by the USACE, the Central Valley Water Board will review the permit application to ensure that discharge will not violate water quality standards. If the project requires surface water drainage realignment, the applicant is advised to contact the Department of Fish and Game for information on Streambed Alteration Permit requirements. If you have any questions regarding the Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, please contact the Regulatory Division of the Sacramento District of USACE at (916) 557-5250.

Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit – Water Quality Certification If an USACE permit (e.g., Non-Reporting Nationwide Permit, Nationwide Permit, Letter of Permission, Individual Permit, Regional General Permit, Programmatic General Permit), or any other federal permit (e.g., Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act or Section 9 from the United States Coast Guard), is required for this project due to the disturbance of waters of the United States (such as streams and wetlands), then a Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the Central

1 Municipal Permits = The Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Water System (MS4) Permit covers medium sized Municipalities (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large sized municipalities (serving over 250,000 people). The Phase II MS4 provides coverage for small municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which include military bases, public campuses, prisons and hospitals.

PLNP2018-00284 Upper - 4 - 14 October 2024
Westside Specific Plan
Sacramento County

Valley Water Board prior to initiation of project activities. There are no waivers for 401 Water Quality Certifications. For more information on the Water Quality Certification, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/water_quality_certificatio n/
Waste Discharge Requirements – Discharges to Waters of the State If USACE determines that only non-jurisdictional waters of the State (i.e., “non- federal” waters of the State) are present in the proposed project area, the proposed project may require a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit to be issued by Central Valley Water Board. Under the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, discharges to all waters of the State, including all wetlands and other waters of the State including, but not limited to, isolated wetlands, are subject to State regulation. For more information on the Waste Discharges to Surface Water NPDES Program and WDR processes, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/waste_to_surface_wat er/
Projects involving excavation or fill activities impacting less than 0.2 acre or 400 linear feet of non-jurisdictional waters of the state and projects involving dredging activities impacting less than 50 cubic yards of non-jurisdictional waters of the state may be eligible for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 2004-0004-DWQ (General Order 2004-0004). For more information on the General Order 2004-0004, visit the State Water Resources Control Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/200 4/wqo/wqo2004-0004.pdf
Dewatering Permit
If the proposed project includes construction or groundwater dewatering to be discharged to land, the proponent may apply for coverage under State Water Board General Water Quality Order (Low Threat General Order) 2003-0003 or the Central Valley Water Board’s Waiver of Report of Waste Discharge and Waste Discharge Requirements (Low Threat Waiver) R5-2018-0085. Small temporary construction dewatering projects are projects that discharge groundwater to land from excavation activities or dewatering of underground utility vaults. Dischargers seeking coverage under the General Order or Waiver must file a Notice of Intent with the Central Valley Water Board prior to beginning discharge.

For more information regarding the Low Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/water_quality/2003/ wqo/wqo2003-0003.pdf
For more information regarding the Low Threat Waiver and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/waiv ers/r5-2018-0085.pdf
PLNP2018-00284 Upper - 5 - 14 October 2024
Westside Specific Plan
Sacramento County

Limited Threat General NPDES Permit
If the proposed project includes construction dewatering and it is necessary to discharge the groundwater to waters of the United States, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Dewatering discharges are typically considered a low or limited threat to water quality and may be covered under the General Order for Limited Threat Discharges to Surface Water (Limited Threat General Order). A complete Notice of Intent must be submitted to the Central Valley Water Board to obtain coverage under the Limited Threat General Order. For more information regarding the Limited Threat General Order and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/gene ral_orders/r5-2016-0076-01.pdf
NPDES Permit
If the proposed project discharges waste that could affect the quality of surface waters of the State, other than into a community sewer system, the proposed project will require coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A complete Report of Waste Discharge must be submitted with the Central Valley Water Board to obtain a NPDES Permit. For more information regarding the NPDES Permit and the application process, visit the Central Valley Water Board website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit/ If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 464-4684 or [email protected].

Peter G. Minkel
Engineering Geologist
cc: State Clearinghouse unit, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento

From: Kaushal Sharma <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 2:10 PM
To: PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments & Concerns regarding the Upper Westside Specific Plan Hello,
I am a Natomas resident and here are my concerns/comments regarding the Upper West Side Project.

1. Traffic: Since this development will tremendously increase the flow of traffic, what are the plans to overcome that congestion?

2. Environmental Impact: Are there any native species that will be impacted by the project? If so, how are you mitigating it? Aren't we decreasing the natural habitat for those species?

3. Flood Impact: Will this project decrease the area for groundwater recharge? Will the project increase the chance of flooding during a high water event? Will more impervious layers create high risk of flooding?

4. Wildlife Impact: This project will cause significant and long term impact on existing wildlife habitat.

Regards,
Kaushal
Natomas
Resident
19 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2024 2:54 PM
To:

PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition: Upper Westside Specifc Project
October 12, 2024
Chair Christopher and members of the Natomas CPAC
700 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Upper Westside Specific Project
Dear Chair Christopher and members of the Natomas CPAC, I oppose the Upper Westside Plan. This project greatly threatens our environment, wildlife habitat and our community. As the draft Environmental Impact Report states that this project would result in
significant and unavoidable impact on the
aesthetics, precious resources (such as agricultural, cultural, historical and tribunal), air quality, noise, population, and transportation.

I object to the paving over farmland which will increase traffic congestion on Interstate 5 and 80 and its connecting roads, along with increasing the poor air quality from cars and trucks.

Another threat of this project is to public safety because it increases flood danger to current residents.

I urge the members of the CPAC to reject this project.

Linn Hom
20 From: Angie S. <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 13, 2024 1:45 PM
To:

PER-CEQA <[email protected]>; Sac.Plan <[email protected]> Subject: Written Public Comment for: Upper West Side Specific Plan: PLNP2021-00177 Re: Upper West Side Specific Plan, PLNP2021-00177
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan as currently proposed. While I recognize the need for urban development, the proposed project fails to adequately address the significant environmental concerns posed by its proximity to the Natomas Basin and Fisherman’s Lake, critical habitats for several protected species, including the
Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). Both species are listed as threatened under California and federal laws, and this project poses severe risks to their populations, as well as to the broader ecosystem of the region.

1. Inadequate Buffer Zones and Encroachment on Habitat
The proposed development plans to extend dangerously close to the boundaries of the Natomas Basin and Fisherman’s Lake. For species like the Swainson’s Hawk and the Giant Garter Snake, maintaining appropriate buffer zones is critical for minimizing disturbances.

The Swainson’s Hawk relies on open grasslands for nesting and foraging, and the close proximity of residential and commercial development will drastically reduce the available habitat and increase the risk of disturbance. Urban encroachment within 0.5 miles of Swainson’s Hawk nesting sites can lead to nest abandonment and population decline, yet the plan does not offer adequate setbacks from known nesting areas.

Similarly, the Giant Garter Snake depends on wetland habitats, and the project’s proximity to these sensitive wetlands risks both habitat destruction and fragmentation. Current research indicates that this species requires extensive wetland corridors for foraging and migration, and buffer zones of at least 300 feet from wetland edges are necessary to preserve this habitat.

The Upper Westside Specific Plan fails to provide sufficient protection for these wetland areas, leading to potential habitat loss and further population declines.

2. Long-term Construction Disturbance and Habitat Degradation 21 The multi-year construction process associated with a development of this scale will have a prolonged and cumulative impact on the wildlife in and around Fisherman’s Lake. Noise, light pollution, and physical disturbances caused by heavy machinery will disrupt the natural behaviors of both the Swainson’s Hawk and Giant Garter Snake, particularly during critical periods such as nesting, foraging, and migration. Continuous construction activities may lead to nest abandonment for the hawk, and could displace or even kill Giant Garter Snakes during their active season.

3. Traffic Congestion and Infrastructure Strain
The DEIR acknowledges that the introduction of thousands of housing units and commercial space will increase traffic in the area, yet the mitigation strategies outlined in the report are insufficient to address the scale of the congestion that will follow. The surrounding freeway systems, including major interchanges, are already heavily trafficked, and the addition of this development will exacerbate an already strained infrastructure. Without significant upgrades to these systems and the development of alternative transportation solutions, traffic congestion will become a major quality-of-life issue for both existing and new residents.

The DEIR does not adequately account for the impact on nearby interchanges, particularly those connecting to the I-5 and I-80 corridors, which will experience heightened congestion as a direct result of this project. Further evaluation and traffic impact studies need to be conducted to provide a more realistic picture of how this development will affect commuting patterns and regional traffic flows.

4. Noise Pollution from Sacramento International Airport The proximity of this development to Sacramento International Airport introduces a significant noise pollution risk that has not been fully addressed in the DEIR. The noise generated by airport traffic, including both passenger and cargo flights, will have detrimental effects on residents’ health and quality of life, particularly in the absence of appropriate mitigation measures.

Despite recognition of noise as a potential issue, the DEIR does not offer robust solutions for how to mitigate airport noise for the thousands of new residents expected in the area. Sound insulation and other building standards need to be enforced to ensure that homes are adequately protected from constant aircraft noise. Additionally, establishing more comprehensive buffer zones between the airport and residential areas is critical. I urge Sacramento County to ensure that all possible measures to minimize noise pollution are fully considered and implemented before any further development takes place.

5. Recommendations
Given the numerous environmental risks posed by this project, I urge the County of Sacramento and all relevant stakeholders to:

Increase the size of buffer zones to at least 0.5 miles for Swainson’s Hawk nesting sites and 300 feet for wetlands critical to the Giant Garter Snake.

Conduct further studies on the long-term impacts of construction and post- construction habitat degradation on these sensitive species, and revise the DEIR to reflect these findings.

Implement stronger, locally-focused mitigation measures, including on-site habitat restoration and enhancements, rather than relying on off-site mitigation banks.

Address the projected traffic impacts more comprehensively, focusing on the major freeways and interchanges affected by the new developments.

Enforce soundproofing measures in buildings near the airport and implement larger buffer zones to mitigate the adverse effects of noise pollution.

In conclusion, the Upper Westside Specific Plan, as currently proposed, presents significant risks to the Swainson’s Hawk, Giant Garter Snake, and other wildlife that depend on the habitats within and around Fisherman’s Lake. The environmental impacts of this development are far-reaching and potentially irreversible. The plan also fails to provide sufficient solutions to the significant increases in traffic and noise pollution. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject this plan or substantially revise it to prioritize the protection of the sensitive ecosystems, mitigate traffic concerns, and implement robust noise pollution controls before proceeding.

Sincerely,
Angie Sawaya
1 www.swainsonshawk.org
Send all notices & correspondence to: Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk, 8867 Bluff Lane, Fair Oaks, CA 95628 916-769-2857 [email protected] October 21, 2024
Sacramento County,
Department of Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division Attention: Environmental Coordinator
827 7th Street, Room 225 Sacramento, CA 95814;
Via email [email protected]
Re: Upper Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No 2020100069, County Control Number PLNP2018-00284)
Friends of the Swainson's Hawks concurs with the comments of the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), forthcoming, which incorporate our concerns about the DEIR as an informational document and address the deficiencies in the DEIR.

We are transmitting via separate attachments to this letter, references not included in the DEIR which are referenced in the ECOS comments. Please include these documents in the record.

The following two documents are included in Appendix J, to the NBHCP, on the Natomas Basin Conservancy website, attached.
1994 Permit Number 199200719 U.S.ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT.SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95814 -2922 March 11, 1994, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Revised Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project (PN 199200719) in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 22 2
2003 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN June 24, 2003 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Intra-Service Biological and Conference 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. National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Civ-S-04-0579 DFL JFM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2005) ICF. 2024. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report: 2023 Annual Survey Results. July. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF, Sacramento, CA). Yolo County Ordinance Chapter 10, “Habitat Mitigation Ordinance” Wood, et al, “Defining Population Structure And Genetic Signatures Of Decline In The Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas)” Conservation Genetics (April 11, 2015) Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

James P. Pachl Judith L. Lamare

Josh W. Harmatz
4171 Garden Hwy
Sacramento, CA, 95834
[email protected]
916-284-2507
October 13, 2024
Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Upper Westside Specific Plan (Control Number: PLNP2018-00284)
Dear Members of the County Board of Supervisors,
I am writing to submit my formal comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP). As a resident of the area, I have serious concerns regarding the traffic impacts, road safety issues, and quality of life reductions that the proposed development will impose, specifically related to Garden Highway, Powerline Road, and West side of Del Paso Road.

Traffic Impacts and Roadway Conditions
The roads in question, including Garden Highway, are currently narrow, single-lane roads that do not meet current county standards, with lane widths ranging from 8 feet to 10 feet. According to the Local Transportation Analysis (March 2022), these roads are already at or near capacity in peak travel times, and the additional traffic from the proposed 25,000 new residents, heavy commercial vehicles, and workers commuting to the commercial spaces at Metro Air Park will severely exacerbate the existing problems.

The Draft EIR acknowledges the requirement to widen Garden Highway to 12 feet in each direction, with a 6-foot shoulder. However, the current development proposal does not provide adequate solutions for how this widening will be funded or executed. Recent improvements to the levee system along Garden Highway, including setback levees and power pole relocations, have already been completed without considering the road widening necessary for this project.

Additionally, neither the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nor the Central Valley Flood Protection Board have been consulted regarding these modifications, which are crucial to ensure both traffic safety and flood protection.

Recommendation: I strongly urge the Board to delay approval of the Upper Westside Specific Plan until the necessary road improvements are fully funded and coordinated with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers and the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. This coordination is 23 essential toprevent conflictswithexistingfloodprotectionmeasuresandtoensurethat theseroadscansafelyaccommodatetheadditional trafficload.

Request for UpdatedFreeway andLocal RoadImpact Study
Thecurrent trafficanalysisdoesnot adequatelyaddressthepotential for freewaycongestionalonghighwaysI-5and99todivert trafficontolocal roadssuchasPowerlineRoadandGardenHighway. Duringpeakcongestion, vehicles, includingheavytrucks, oftenreroutethroughtheseroadstoaccessI-80or downtownSacramento. Withfuturedevelopmentssuchas3millionsquarefeet of commercial spaceat MetroAir Park, theWatt EVproject, SacramentoAirportexpansion, Airport SouthIndustrial Project, andtheUpper Westsidedevelopment, freewaycongestionandtrafficreroutingwill worsensignificantlyandwerenot adequatelymodeledinthe2022trafficstudy.

Recommendation: Arevisedcomprehensivefreewayimpact studyshouldbecommissionedtoevaluatethereroutingeffectsduringpeaktraffictimes. Thestudyshouldassesshowincreasedtrafficfromthesedevelopmentswill impact PowerlineRoadandGardenHighwayandprovidemitigationmeasurestoprevent trafficvolumesfromexceedingroadcapacity. It iscritical toaddressthesefreewayimpactsbeforedevelopment movesforward.

SandCoveParkandBeach–Environmental Impact onSalmonPopulation SandCovePark, locatedat 2005GardenHighway, will likelyexperienceasharpincreaseinvisitorsduetothe25,000newresidentsjoiningtheUpper Westsidecommunity. TheEIRfailstoaddresshowthisincreasedactivitywill impact thepark'sresources, suchasparking, trashmanagement, andsafety, aswell astheenvironmental impact ontheSacramentoRiver anditsprotectedsalmonpopulations.

TheSacramentoRiver ishometoseveral protectedsalmonspeciesunder federal andstateregulations. Increasedhumanaccesstotheriver throughtheparkcouldleadtopollution, illegalfishing, andhabitat disruption, potentiallyharmingthesevulnerablespecies.

Recommendation: I urgetheCountytoconduct athoroughstudyontheexpectedincreaseinvisitorstoSandCovePark, other riversidebeachaccessareas, anditsimpact ontheriver’ssalmonpopulation. Thisstudyshouldalsoincludeaplanfor increasedfundingfor trashmanagement, parking, andenforcement of fishingregulationstoprotect theecosystem. Thepotential harmtonativefishpopulationsduetoincreasedhumanactivityneedstobefullyassessedandmitigated.

Class1BikePathonGardenHighwaySetbackLevee
TheproposedClass1bikepathalongtheGardenHighwaysetbackleveeraisesconcerns. AClass1bikepathmust meet specificstandards, suchasprovidingan8-12foot widepavedright-of-wayfor exclusivebicycleandpedestrianuse, witha2-foot shoulder oneachside.

However, theDraft EIRlacksdetailsonfunding, theconstructiontimeline, andcoordinationwiththeCentral ValleyFloodProtectionBoardandtheU.S. ArmyCorpsof Engineerstoremoveexistingbarrierslikepower polesandsteel barriers.

Recommendation: TheCountyshouldrequireafullydevelopedplanfor theClass1bikepath,detailinghowit will meet SacramentoCounty’sdesignstandards. Thisplanmust includespecificfundingsourcesandcommitmentsfromtheCentral ValleyFloodProtectionBoardandtheU.S. ArmyCorpsof Engineerstoremoveexistingobstacles. Additionally, thetimelinefor thebikepath’sconstructionshouldalignwiththeoverall development project toensurethat it isbuiltinatimelymanner.

SafetyConcernsfor PedestriansandResidents
Theincreasedtraffic, particularlyfromlargecommercial vehicles(over 7tons) that theprojectwill bring, will posesignificant safetyriskstopedestrians, cyclists, andlocal residentsalongGardenHighway, PowerlineRoad, andWest Del PasoRoad. Theseroadsarecurrentlynotsuitablefor high-trafficvolumes, andthenarrowwidths, lackof proper shoulders, anddeterioratingconditionsmakethemdangerousfor bothmotoristsandnon-motorists.

TheDraft EIRacknowledgesthat operational deficienciesandpotential safetyissuesat keyintersectionswill remainsignificant andunavoidable, evenwithproposedmitigationmeasures.However, theplandoesnot provideadequatedetail onhowsafetyimprovementswill beimplementedor whowill fundthesemeasures.

Recommendation: I urgetheCountytorequirethedeveloper toprovidedetailedsafetymitigationmeasures, includingspecificfundingcommitmentsandtimelinesfor roadwidening,signageupgrades, andpedestrianinfrastructure. Additionally, thereshouldbetrafficcalmingmeasurestoslowdownvehiclesandprotect non-motorists.

Impact onEmergencyResponseTimes
Theincreasedtrafficandcongestionfromthisdevelopment will alsoaffect emergencyresponsetimes. GardenHighwayisacritical accessroutefor emergencyservices, andincreasedcongestioncouldsignificantlydelayresponsetimesfor fire, medical, andlawenforcementservices. Therelocationof theprimaryfirestationthat servestheareacompoundsthisconcern.

Recommendation: TheCountyshouldrequireanupdatedtrafficstudythat addressesemergencyvehicleaccessandresponsetimesunder increasedtrafficconditions. Thisanalysisshouldensurethat emergencyservicescanmaintaincurrent responsetimes, particularlyduringpeakcongestionperiods.

Qualityof LifeandLong-TermImpacts
Theprojectedtrafficincreaseswill not onlyaffect roadsafetyandemergencyservicesbut willalsosignificantlyreducethequalityof lifefor existingresidents. Increasednoiselevels, airpollution, andtheconstant flowof largevehicleswill makethearealesslivableandmorehazardousfor residents. Thelackof current infrastructuretosupport thislevel of developmentwill worsencongestion, leadingtolonger commutetimesanddecreasedpropertyvalues.

Recommendation: TheCountyshouldrequireamorecurrent anddetailedtransportationstudythat takesintoaccount post-pandemictrafficconditions, andtheproject shouldbedelayeduntilall necessaryinfrastructureimprovementsarefullyfundedandapproved. Additionally, anyfuturedevelopment shouldincludeprovisionsfor mitigatinglong-termimpactsonair quality,noise, andlocal trafficcongestion.

Conclusion
Inconclusion, theUpper WestsideSpecificPlan, ascurrentlyproposed, will havesevereandunavoidableimpactsontraffic, safety, emergencyservices, andtheoverall qualityof lifeforexistingresidents. Theseissuesarenot adequatelyaddressedintheDraft EIR, andthereisaclear needfor morecomprehensiveplanningandcoordinationbeforethisproject canproceed.

I respectfullyurgetheBoardof Supervisorstodelayapproval of theproject until thefollowingconditionsaremet:

1. Completionof afullyfundedanddetailedplanfor wideningGardenHighwaytoCountystandards(12feet widelaneswith6-foot shoulders) incoordinationwiththeU.S. ArmyCorpsofEngineersandtheCentral ValleyFloodProtectionBoard.

2. Commissioningof arevisedfreewayimpact studytoanalyzereroutingeffectsfrompost-pandemictrafficandnearbydevelopmentsintheapproval anddevelopment process, andtheir impactsonPowerlineRoadandGardenHighway.

3. Implementationof clear andspecificsafetymeasuresfor pedestrians, cyclists, andmotorists,withfundingcommitmentsfromthedeveloper.

4. Completionof acurrent, updatedurbanroadtrafficstudythat takesintoaccountpost-pandemictrafficpatternsandensuresthat theroadwayscanhandletheprojectedtrafficvolumes.

5. Coordinationwithemergencyservicestoensurethat responsetimesarenot adverselyaffectedbyincreasedtrafficandcongestion.

6. Acomprehensivestudyontheenvironmental impactstoSandCoveParkandtheSacramentoRiver toassessincreasedhumanactivity'seffectsontheprotectedsalmonpopulation, withmitigationmeasurestoaddresstrashmanagement, fishingregulations, andparkinfrastructure.

7. Afullydevelopedplanfor theproposedClass1bikepath, detailingthedesign, fundingsources, andagencycommitmentsnecessarytoremoveexistingbarriers.

Thankyoufor your considerationof thesecritical issues.
www.ecosacramento.net
Post Office Box 1526 | Sacramento, CA 95812-1526
October 21, 2024
Sacramento County Planning Commission
Justin Raithel, Chair
Jofil Borja, Vice Chair
Damon Conklin
Mariana Corona Sabeniano
Joseph Devlin
Sent by email to [email protected]
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 3, October 21, 2024 Sacramento County Planning Commission Natomas – Upper Westside, PLNP2018-00284 – GP Amendment, Specific Plan, etc.

Dear Chair Raithel and Planning Commissioners,
The Environmental Council of Sacramento, which includes a number of Natomas residents, asks you to consider the following issues as you review the Upper Westside project and its Draft Environmental Impact Report. 1) Consider all of the developments currently being proposed. Review the Upper Westside in the context of the entire 8,000 acres across three projects now proposed for development in the Natomas Basin in Sacramento County.

The map at right highlights
the Upper Westside, Airport
South Industrial, and Grand
Park projects.

Consider the requirements in Sacramento County’s
General Plan Policy LU-127 for projects that propose
to break through the USB:

1 Sacramento County General Plan, Land Use Element

3 of 7

The Upper Westside project (Airport South Industrial and Grand Park as well) is proposed for areas outside of the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres. It would replace wildlife-supportive agriculture with concrete, vehicles and houses, severely impacting the resident wildlife in the Basin. The protection of resident wildlife in the Basin was promised when the City signed a contract with the federal government and approved the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) also agreed to protect resident wildlife. The Upper Westside project cannot mitigate for its impacts to resident wildlife as the Natomas Basin is finite – the harm to the Basin’s wildlife conservation efforts will be irreparable.

Development in the Natomas Basin
should be consistent with the
NBHCP.

2 https://natomasbasin.org/wp-content/uploads/natomas-basin-habitat-conservation-plan/5nbhcpland_use2006_a11y.pdf, pg III-13

4 of 7

This is still true today.

3 MTP/SCS or Blueprint - https://www.sacog.org/planning/blueprint 4 James Corless, SACOG Ex Dir., November 4, 2020 letter to County Environmental Planning, Notice of Preparation of DEIR for Upper West Side Specific Plan (PLNP2018- 00284, p. 6) Jobs Jobs
Sacramento City
Potential Developing Communities (not yet under construction) Panhandle - -
Airport South Industrial Project -
Sacramento County Unincorporated
Potential Developing Communities (not yet under construction) Cordova Hills - 320
Glenborough at Easton - -
South Mather - -
Aerojet 1,600
Elverta 10
Grand Park 20
Jackson Township 10
Jackson West 1,240
Newbridge 110
Upper Westside 430
New Induced Growth Areas 200
500 - -
30 900 5,690
110 11,210 16,484 - -
10 450 3,075
60 3,820 9,356
- 940 3,522 400 730 1,805
- 40,180 -
50 200 5,627
10 3,010 23,892
- 3,190 8,000 350 600 1,500
- 1,800 3,239 - 80 300
- - 1,620 595 130 1,295
- - -
2025 Blueprint (MTP/SCS) Discussion Scenario
April 2024
Jurisdiction/Community Type
Baseyear and
Buildout
Spring 24 Discussion
Scenario
Existing Conditions
(2020)
Potential
Buildout
2020 - 2035 2020 - 2050
Housing
Units
Jobs Housing
Units
Housing
Units
Jobs Housing
Units
5 of 7

The proposed site is on the urban edge, bounded by the Sacramento River. For an educational campus, this means difficult access by automobile, and certainly by public transit.

10) Consider impacts on biological resources. The Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP), if approved, would harm the viability of the NBHCP conservation strategy and impair NBC’s ability to protect wildlife in its preserve system. The UWSP conflicts with the NBHCP’s intent to conserve wildlife in the Basin and fails to comply with the NBHCP’s proviso that additional development outside of the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres be mitigated by amending the NBHCP or writing/obtaining approval of a new HCP to cover the project’s impacts.

The NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres are not built out so the impact on wildlife of full buildout is yet to be determined. At this time, key species are showing signs of serious decline, so, now is not the time to remove habitat. Instead NBC should respond with strategic and tactical remedial actions and additional resources.

NBC’s monitoring studies show Giant Garter Snake (GGS) has not been found at Fisherman’s Lake since 2017. This key indicator of species protection performance shows that the range of this federally endangered species has been reduced by development despite significant effort by NBC to build robust GGS preserves. This problem must be corrected before any more development outside of the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres is considered. The UWSP would have direct and indirect impacts on the Fisherman’s Lake preserve area and NBC and SAFCA mitigation properties included in and adjacent to the UWSP. The proposed mitigation is deferred, speculative, out of basin, and inadequate.

6 of 7

The UWSP removes 2,000 acres of essential habitat in the Swainson’s Hawk zone, a key part of the NBHCP conservation strategy. Yet the Draft Environmental Impact Report does not mention the NBHCP’s requirement for development projects proposed for land outside of the NBHCP/MAPHCP Permit Acres to obtain 2081 permits from the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife. Swainson’s Hawk monitoring by the NBC has shown huge swings in nesting productivity, indicating a population under stress and unstable. The NBHCP is designed to support the Basin population of Swainson’s Hawks through the various natural stresses in the environment. But this guarantee is only with the availability of at least 13,000 acres of foraging habitat, focused in the Swainson’s Hawk Zone, maintained in the Basin in perpetuity per the 2003 NBHCP. UWSP proposes to mitigate for these impacts somewhere out of Basin. The project will result in the reduction of the range of the Swainson’s Hawk and severely compromise its sustainability in the Natomas Basin.

11) Consider impacts on ground conditions. Development of the region would likely cause subsidence of the project area and exacerbate risks for natural hazards like flooding.

With 3 million square feet of commercial use, the weight load of construction may increase subsidence. The land proposed for the Upper Westside development, with its particular soil type, flood plain status, and proximity to the Hunting Creek-Berryessa fault system, has experienced “moderate to high land subsidence in the past.” (DEIR, 11-15) Considering the area consists largely of expansive soils that shrink and expand dynamically, additional subsidence should be expected. In addition to the structural hazards that progressive subsidence poses, further depression of the already low-lying land would increase the intensity and range of flooding in and surrounding the area.

Project designs for Upper Westside should factor in the subsidence and flooding that the buildings will cause; should evaluate the buildings’ contribution to regional subsidence and flooding and ensure that existing structures in the surrounding areas will not be compromised as a result of new construction-related subsidence.

While safe, code-compliant designs can mitigate the subsidence and flood risks to the buildings, the required structural and seismic measures may alter the land itself, and they may be costly. How costly would development of California Building Code- and County-compliant structures be, compared to development in other already approved greenfield plots within the USB?

12) “It’s housing – what’s not to like?!”
The capacity for growth in existing entitled lands far exceeds expected demand over the next twenty years according to SACOG. “Collectively, the region’s jurisdictions have entitled, or are in the process of entitling

2.5 times the region’s projected need for the next 20 years. More than half of that capacity—387,000 units—is in greenfield areas that are on the edge of existing development.”5

This means there is far more entitled acreage for new homes than the market will bear. Upper Westside is not needed.

5 James Corless, SACOG Ex Dir., November 4, 2020 letter to County Environmental Planning, Notice of Preparation of DEIR for Upper West Side Specific Plan (PLNP2018- 00284, p. 6) 7 of 7

Conclusion:

The Upper Westside conflicts with land use planning actions of regional significance including:

• Blueprint – the Sacramento region’s smart growth plan concept that then-Senator Darrell Steinberg applied statewide in 2008 through SB375;
• Urban Services Boundary (USB) -- a Sacramento County construct, but which now in light of climate change has regional significance) See the Powerpoint on why the USB was delineated as it was – the forces that shaped it;
• Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan – to protect twenty-two threatened species.

Each of these actions was hard won, painstakingly agreed to, and in place for decades. These land use actions are our legacy; they represent our core values. They are sustainability bulwarks against climate change. Don’t toss them aside.

Today, Sacramento County staff recommends that you end the DEIR process and “direct staff to prepare the FEIR.”

If you do this, you will turn your back on our planning legacy. Instead, we ask that you direct staff to reject the project and stop the process.

Sincerely,

Heather Fargo
Heather Fargo, Chair Susan Herre AIA AICP
ECOS Natomas Team President of the Board of Directors

Emma Patten
Senior Planner
Planning and Environmental Review
827 7th Street
Sacramento, CA. 95814
Re: Draft EIR for the Proposed Upper Westside Specific Plan Dear Mrs. Patten,
Thank you for your previous responses to the Natomas Unified School District (NUSD) comments on the last drafts and the opportunity to provide comments on the current drafts of the Upper Westside Facilities Financing Plan (3rd draft) and Urban Services Plan (2nd draft).

NUSD is very appreciative of the efforts to provide for adequate school sites, central to proposed residential areas, with a focus on convenient and safe active transportation routes between proposed residential development and the proposed school sites. We agree with the need for four schools, and believe that the DEIR fundamentally includes them and they are required. The district respectfully requests the County require the evidence of a satisfactory plan that will ensure adequate funding of the schools before approval of the EIR. NUSD wholeheartedly supports the intent of the General Plan and General Plan policies, and we believe that the County’s policy framework provides clear guidance for this Specific Plan and implementing documents, including:

Land Use Element, page 43 (Intent): “…Each residential development should have access to a variety of local destinations that provide for residents’ daily needs, including retail, employment, recreational amenities, schools, and municipal and social services. The resulting non-automobile street activity will promote human contact and a sense of neighborhood, as well as reduce automobile traffic and the associated impacts.” Policy PC-6. Infrastructure Master Plan and Financing Plan (Requirements for Amending the General Plan Land Use Diagram). Required: Inclusion of an Infrastructure Master Plan and Financing Plan that include the following:
• The Infrastructure Master Plan shall identify required public facilities and infrastructure (including roads, transit, water, sewer, storm drainage, schools, fire, park, library, and 25 2
other needed community facilities) and associated costs for the development of the proposed UPA expansion/Master Plan; • The Financing Plan shall: ● …Identify the phase or timing for when the facilities are needed; ● Identify the funding mechanisms proposed to pay for the identified infrastructure and facilities… Public Facilities Element, page 18 (Intent): “Schools are an important part of any neighborhood. In addition to their central educational role, they serve as a place for meetings, special programs, after-school play, soccer and little league games, and precinct voting. How well the school functions in these various roles depend very much on the school's location with respect to other community uses and how accessible it is… school siting and design should be a key element of a neighborhood planning effort. There remain many opportunities for design innovation and good, sensible planning to achieve neighborhoods which better integrate the school into the fabric of neighborhood life.” Policy PF-29. Schools shall be planned as a focal point of neighborhood activity and interrelated with neighborhood retail uses, churches, neighborhood and community parks, greenways and off-street paths whenever possible. Policy PF-30. New elementary schools in the urban area should be planned whenever possible so that almost all residences will be within walking distance of the school (one mile or less) and all residences are within two miles of a school. Policy PF-35. New schools should link with planned bikeways and pedestrian paths wherever possible. Public Facilities Element, page 20 (Intent): …from a school facilities perspective, school enrollment and the size of the school site are basic requirements… in growing districts the problems of timely school construction and, above all, funding new school facilities requires resolution in order to achieve this objective. NUSD greatly appreciates the County’s efforts to involve us in reviewing draft versions of the Public Facilities Financing Plan and also for the opportunity to review the Draft Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). As we move from draft to final versions of these documents, NUSD believes that the County’s General Plan – particularly the direction related to identifying the cost of required public facilities, identifying when public facilities are required, and providing funding for such public facilities – will be very helpful. NUSD applauds the County’s planning efforts here – particularly the greenbelt system placement relative to school sites (summarized on Draft EIR page 2-23) and the strategic planning of school sites so that “over 90 percent of the proposed residential units would be within three-quarters of a mile of a K-8 school site” (Draft EIR, page 2-53).

3 In the Final EIR, Final Specific Plan, and Final Public Facilities Financing Plan, it will be important to arrive at mutually agreeable language that ensures funding in adequate amounts, and with the right timing such that school sites can be constructed within the Specific Plan Area when schools are needed by Specific Plan Area residents. This is important to meet expectations expressed in the aforementioned General Plan policies, but also because the analysis presented in the Draft EIR relies on the presence of school sites. For example, on page 8-41 of the Draft EIR is a description of the features of the Draft Specific Plan that would reduce vehicular travel demand and associated greenhouse gas emissions, including a note that “the proposed UWSP would include the development of commercial mixed use and employment/highway commercial uses, as well as schools… [and that]…[b]y providing a range of residential, commercial, and school uses within the UWSP area, approximately 22.9 percent of home-based trips associated with the proposed UWSP would be internal.” The rate of internal trips used in the air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and transportation noise analysis in the Draft EIR would need to be adjusted if school construction is ultimately not feasible as presented in the Draft Specific Plan and Draft EIR. Specific Comments and Questions Page ES-15: Toxic Air Contaminants (and page 24-4). On page ES-15, in the Executive Summary table, the toxic air contaminants impact notes that there is a significant impact for exposure of sensitive uses to substantial pollutant concentrations. School uses are identified as being within 1,000 feet of Interstate 80. From the Land Use Plan, it does appear that there is a proposed K-8 school site within approximately 1,000 feet of Interstate 80, though we only have a PDF version of the Land Use Plan and cannot create an accurate estimate of this distance. Would Mitigation Measure AQ-4c apply to this school site – the mitigation measure that requires installation of high-efficiency filtration systems – to this school site? How would the ongoing maintenance, repair, and replacement of such a system (as described in the second bullet of this mitigation measure) apply to this school site? Page ES-64: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The strategy for reducing GHG emissions relies on the preparation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans for future project tentative maps (Mitigation Measure CC-1b). The District is interested in how this may relate to school facilities master planning as well as more detailed transportation facilities planning and improvements that ensure safe walking and bicycling routes between homes and school sites within the Specific Plan Area. Bullet 2 of Mitigation Measure CC-1b identifies a performance standard of 1.42 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per thousand square feet, measured in a future year. Does the estimate proposed in the Draft EIR include non-residential development proposed for school uses? If so, how would the strategies related to a prohibition on natural gas, on-site renewable energy, purchase of zero GHG electricity, tree planting, etc. apply to the proposed school sites? On page ES-64, there is reference to a strategy to reduce vehicular travel demand and associated GHG emissions through an “increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare.” Would this increase in access be achieved through augmenting the current active transportation plan to increase connectivity and ensure a very low stress active transportation network between proposed homes and school sites? The District is highly supportive of a transportation system that would distribute

4 traffic and provide very low stress and convenient pedestrian and bicycle routes to the school sites, but we are unclear how an increase would be pursued beyond the estimates presented in the Draft EIR. Additionally, since the estimates of GHG emissions rely on the presence of the four proposed school sites, what mechanism would be most effective for ensuring adequate funding for these school sites for the Specific Plan and EIR? How would the future GHG Reduction Plans prepared at the tentative map level guarantee adequate funding to provide for school sites? Page ES-98, Subsequent Review for School Parking Lot Noise (and page 15-46). On this page of the Executive Summary is an overview of an impact related to the placement of proposed noise-sensitive uses near proposed school sites that would have parking areas. Mitigation Measure NOI-4a (page 15-48) suggests that there would be a future acoustical study to evaluate parking lot-generated noise relative to the County’s exterior noise performance standards with building placement, buffering through distance, or a sound wall to shield adjacent proposed noise-sensitive uses from parking lot-generated noise. NUSD supports strategies to avoid land use-noise compatibility issues in this Specific Plan – both issues that would affect educational activities at the proposed school sites and issues that could be caused by school-generated noise. However, NUSD is interested in clarifying that, if buffering is required in the future, that this buffer would be required outside of the proposed school sites, if a sound wall is proposed, that this would be constructed by others outside of school property, and that if a sound wall is constructed, that it not interrupt casual surveillance of the area and not interrupt pedestrian and bicycle connectivity in the vicinity of school sites. In addition, it may not be feasible to place buildings in locations that would break the line of site between future parking fields and adjacent noise-sensitive uses. Page ES-108, Subsequent Review for School Parking Lot Noise (and pages 15-46 and 15-64). NUSD has the same questions about the school parking lot noise discussion and Mitigation Measure NOI-7h on page ES-108 as we have in relation to the discussion on page ES-98 and Mitigation Measure NOI-4a. Page ES-108 and 109, Subsequent Review for School Playground Noise (and page 15-64). The Draft EIR includes an impact related to the placement of proposed residential uses near possible future playground areas within future school sites. NUSD strongly supports the County’s goal to avoid land use-noise compatibility issues that could arise but we do feel that this should be balanced with a goal of making sure that school sites are fully integrated into planned residential areas in a way that supports safe and convenient walking and bicycling to school. Mitigation Measure NOI-7i recommends a minimum 90-foot setback between the center of play areas and adjacent “residential boundaries.” NUSD assumes this setback would be from the center of future playground activity areas and outdoor gathering spaces associated with future residential developments, rather than 90 feet from the edge of adjacent residential property boundaries, but this clarification could be helpful. In addition, the proposed mitigation seems to suggest that the recommended buffer would be provided by future school site planning. While such a buffer may be feasible, NUSD must consider a broad range of criteria in site planning, and it may not be possible in all cases to ensure such a buffer on the school property. It may be necessary to relax the referenced exterior and interior

5 standards for residential dwellings adjacent to school sites or to consider building orientation and the location of outdoor gathering spaces for future residential development in areas adjacent to school sites. Page ES-109, Subsequent Review for School Stadium and Sports Fields Noise (pages 15-64 and 15-65). On this page of the Executive Summary is an overview of an impact related to the placement of proposed noise-sensitive uses near proposed school sites that would have a stadium and sports fields. Mitigation Measure NOI-7j requires an acoustical study demonstrating compliance with County exterior noise performance standards prior to issuance of a building permit for proposed school uses. NUSD has a somewhat different process for school site planning and permitting that does not involve issuance of a building permit from the County. We are also interested in understanding who would prepare this acoustical study, and whether strategies to reduce noise exposure (distance, intervening structures, etc.) would be the responsibility of adjacent proposed residential tentative maps or other form of residential applications. NUSD absolutely supports the goal of avoiding adverse noise impacts associated with special events and use of sports fields. However, we do not believe that future residential sensitive outdoor areas near the proposed school sites have been identified, and NUSD has not done any programming or site planning for the school sites, either. Therefore, unless the site planning for proposed residential adjacent residential areas occurs in tandem with school site planning and there is flexibility on the placement and methods of noise attenuation, it may be necessary to relax the exterior noise standards for special events and school use of outdoor sports fields. In addition to “operational limits on amplified sound equipment,” it may be possible to reduce noise exposure through design of public address systems, such as through the sizing and placement of loudspeakers, but this option involves additional expense, and NUSD is not in a position at this time to determine definitively whether such additional expense would be feasible for future school sites within the Upper Westside Specific Plan Area. Page ES-113, School Impacts (and page 17-17). In this portion of the Executive Summary, the Draft EIR explains that “the NUSD has existing capacity for the elementary and middle school students generated by the proposed UWSP, it does not have existing capacity for the high school students generated by the proposed project.” The Draft EIR goes on to explain that school facilities “impacts are included as part of the analysis of physical impacts to the environment.” This is true so long as the school sites that are proposed are developed with school facilities as identified in the Draft Specific Plan and Draft EIR. The Draft EIR assumes the presence of these schools, and impact analysis related to criteria air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation noise, and other topics assumes that the proposed school sites are operational for K-8 and high schools. Since the analysis assumes the presence of the planned schools, and since NUSD has provided information on the current cost of school facilities and the need for additional funding to ensure that schools can be provided as identified in the Specific Plan and Draft EIR, it will be important to include language in the County’s documents that ensures adequate funding and requires that adequate funding is available for construction of planned schools once they are needed to serve proposed residential development in the Specific Plan Area. Also, in this part of the Executive Summary, the Draft EIR notes that, “compliance with mitigation measures… would reduce construction-related effects to the extent feasible.” NUSD would typically

6 conduct environmental review for proposed school sites, and in the past, NUSD has coordinated this review with Sacramento County as a responsible agency. Assuming NUSD conducts environmental review of the planned school sites within the Specific Plan Area, this environmental review would require feasible mitigation for potentially significant impacts, including construction-related impacts. It may be helpful to understand which mitigation measures specifically are being referenced here for future school sites in the Draft EIR. Page 2-59, Phasing. The text on page 2-59 suggests that, “non-residential development anticipated under Phase 1 includes 1.3 million square feet of office development, an elementary school, and a 33.5-acre community park.” Certainly, the first phase of development will require school facilities, and the analysis in the Draft EIR relies on the presence of school facilities, but it appears that Plate PD-22 shows the southern half only of a proposed K through 8 site rather than a complete school site. Clarification here could be helpful regarding the details of the phasing (and funding) approach for school sites to serve proposed residential development. Page 4-18, Lighting Impacts. The Draft EIR discusses the planned high school site and associated outdoor lighting impacts. The Draft EIR identifies that such lighting would be required to comply with “Countywide Design Guidelines and Commercial Lot and Commercial and Institutional Project Development Standards in Chapter 5 of the Zoning Code.” NUSD would typically conduct environmental review for proposed school sites, and would include feasible mitigation to address potentially significant impacts. If the future high school site includes outdoor sports lighting standards, and if there could be a potentially significant impact associated with this component of a future high school project, NUSD may indeed require that sports lighting include certain design components to avoid light spillage and glare. However, it would be helpful to have more clarity about any mechanism that would require school sites to comply with the County’s Zoning Code. Page 5-12, Pesticides. The Draft EIR includes a reference to a requirement for agricultural operators to notify schools if their agricultural operation is within a quarter mile from the school boundary and identify all pesticides to be used during the school year. What pesticides are currently applied during the school year in areas near planned school sites? Please provide documentation that sites designated AG-Cropland near the planned school sites will not use pesticides during the school year once these schools are operational. Page 8-40, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Actions in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies local actions that can be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including off-site mitigation (California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix ED, page 30). Among off-site mitigation options is: “Off-site EV chargers can increase access to EV charging throughout a community. Some examples could include EV chargers in multi-unit dwellings in disadvantaged or low-income areas, public locations (schools, libraries, city centers), workplaces, key destinations (e.g., parks, recreation areas, sports arenas).”

7 It may be worth considering identifying the funding of EV chargers within the proposed school sites as an additional greenhouse gas emissions mitigation strategy.

Page 15 ends

amplified music events at “the pavilion,” but NUSD is unable to find a discussion of this element in the Draft Specific Plan. It may be helpful to understand the location of this planned facility vis-à-vis planned school sites. On page 24-6 of the Draft EIR, there is a discussion of an outdoor pavilion in a proposed 25.8-acre park in the west-central portion of the Specific Plan Area, but NUSD is unable to find any park site of this land area on the Land Use Plan.

Page 17 ends

have clarified: “[t]hrough careful planning, a reduced Plan Area school site could follow the recent trend of school downsizing and meet the Department's criteria.”

Page 22 ends

that “[t]he proposed UWSP would construct K-8 schools and a high school to serve the needs of students generated in the UWSP area.” It is our understanding that NUSD would be responsible for construction and operation of the proposed school sites, though it is important to clarify the funding mechanisms for the construction of school sites and to include language requiring that such funding is available in amounts and with the right timing to ensure NUSD schools can serve students in the Specific Plan Area once dwelling units are occupied.

Again, NUSD is very appreciative of the County’s collaborative approach on the Public Facilities Financing Plan. We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). NUSD looks forward to continued collaboration with the County to find mutually agreeable language related to school funding for this ambitious and important development Plan.

Sincerely,

Lalanya Rothenberger
Executive Director, Facilities and Strategic Planning
Natomas Unified School District

County Planning Commission:

T
he following items are my comments for the County Planning Commission 21 Oct meeting, agenda item 3 (Upper Westside Specific Plan) and for the UWSP DEIR:

1. A
gricultural Resources: The loss of local farmland and local produce (1805 acres) is very significant and irreplaceable. Mitigation Measure AG-1 (replacing on a 1:1 ratio) does not guarantee local farmland will be replaced "locally", with similar "prime soil", or even be actively farmed. Does the developer plan on buying currently unused "prime soil" land locally (1:1) and pay farmers to ensure it is actively farmed as it is today?

2. C
ultural Resources: The land planning on being developed in the UWSP was originally part of the watershed for the Sacramento River before the levee was built and was a known area of historical tribal activity and burial site. When any construction on Garden Hwy is planned there is a requirement to investigate "on a parcel by parcel" basis for any historic- era archaeological resources even though all the land on Garden Hwy was elevated by dredging from the river and fill from elsewhere to build the aforementioned levee. Any development in the UWSP will have to excavate into the original watershed to the actual depth (and below) of these culturally significant areas, potentially causing irreparable harm. Is there a plan to investigate via Mitigation Measure CUL-2a and CUL-2b on a "plot by plot" basis based on the size of each new parcel (home/apartment) being built?

3. No
ise: The increased traffic noise on Garden Hwy (and other previously low-use roads) will be substantially increased according to the UWSP DEIR. Speed reductions have been tried before but have not been effective and there is no room for any kind of noise wall / barrier. Other than "rubberized asphalt" how does the developer plan on reducing this new, unacceptable noise? The plan proposal of a stadium in the flat geometry of the previous farm land would greatly increase the noise levels as it travels unhindered across the new project.

4. P
opulation and Housing: This project envisions population density equivalent to the most crowded parts of New York City of ~18,000 people per sq mile (taking into account most of the housing will be within 1 sq mile), with no real mass transit and a “job geography” that requires most people to drive. The DEIR states they believe a significant portion of residents will work in the project footprint and walk, bike, Uber, or carpool - but that does not reflect the reality of life in California. Directly from page 15 of the agenda proposal, the proposed UWSP "is ultimately inconsistent with SACOG plans, and thus would be considered to directly induce substantial unplanned population growth in the region." This in itself is reason enough to stop this ill- conceived project. The SACOG Blueprint was developed for a reason, stick to it. The County’s Urban Services Boundary document says, “The County shall not expand the Urban Service Boundary unless there is inadequate vacant land within the USB.” There is adequate vacancy inside the Urban Services Boundary for the number of housing units and commercial space the project proposes. Before considering this project, I urge you to hold public hearings on expanding the Urban Services Boundary if truly deemed necessary.

5. T
ransportation: The proposed addition of substantial traffic to an already bottlenecked I-5/I- 80 via the already sub-par and "landlocked" West El Camino interchange is the Achilles heel of 26 this entire project. Based on their “Traffic Conceptual Feasibility Analysis“, this project is already not feasible. It shows going from 16,000 daily traffic on the West El Camino / I-80 interchange (which is already gridlocked at certain times of day) to 69,000 with a LOS (Level of Service) of “F”. Does this even account for all the new housing recently built to the east of the interchange? The DEIR envisions West El Camino being enlarged to 6 lanes (+ bike, pedestrian). This would also require increasing the width of the on/off ramps to 2 lanes, which there does not appear to be room for based on development already completed surrounding the interchange. Furthermore, what is the point of increasing the capacity of an interchange to a frequently gridlocked freeway that can't handle that capacity? All this development would exacerbate the use of surface roads to find alternate access to freeways away from the gridlock. The UWSP DEIR states on page 22-67 that traffic on Garden Hwy from Powerline to San Juan would double from 3300-4700 ADT to 7000-9500 ADT. Many commuters continue down Garden Hwy south of San Juan and thus I believe the additional traffic would constitute all of Garden Hwy from Powerline Rd to the I-5 interchange (near Chevy's restaurant). This is especially so considering all the proposed traffic to Garden Hwy from the new entrances (Radio Rd, Farm Rd [renamed Street 9 since no Farms], and Brytle Bend Rd [by I-80 bridge]) that the UWSP proposes. The DEIR states this volume exceeding 6000 ADT would necessitate a widening of Garden Hwy to conform with current County design standards. This widening could possibly have occurred when the adjacent levee was built in the last 10 years, but the County did not fund it and USACE would not approve it. The USACE has very strict levee guidelines and they would not authorize the new power poles to extend into the new widened levee "foot print" past where they currently are. Hundreds of these poles were removed and replaced in the last 10 years for the widened levee, and without removing and replacing them again (which the USACE won't allow) there is no room to upgrade Garden Hwy to the required County standards. The DEIR also states many of their other "required" transportation mitigation strategies require approval from other various agencies outside of County jurisdiction. Does the County plan on approving the UWSP before approval of all required agencies is assured? If this plan is approved, I believe we are setting ourselves up for Los Angeles style gridlock on our decidedly smaller Sacramento roads.

Unless the aforementioned issues can be resolved and a feasible design for the projected exponential traffic increase can be proven and paid for, any further time and money spent on this project is unwarranted.

Thank you for your time,

Arthur Gibson Howell
Natomas Resident
From: Amreen Gill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 1:05 PM
To:

PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject: Upper Westside Project - In support
Hi there,
My name is Amreen Gill and I am a homeowner in Westshore and have been here since 2020. We are so excited about this project and the tremendous value that it will bring to our community. I listened to the public comments that were made yesterday and realized that the majority of those opposing this project are the elderly population who are not ready for change. The voices from our younger generation are really what we should be listening to as this project will probably take about 10-20 years to complete and will be the population frequenting this location.

As a new younger family with a toddler, we are so excited to hear about the schools, parks and housing developments this project will bring. Retail structure in this area would be amazing. It’s difficult to find things to do in Natomas so we often find ourselves visiting downtown Sacramento or Roseville for entertainment. We would love to put our money spent back into our own community. We would fully support local business and want to be proud of our community aesthetics and show our friends the beautiful Westside canal and Town Center.

The infrastructure should be addressed including roadways to support this level of traffic and the levees to prevent flooding. As long as there are solutions for these issues, we are in full support of the Upper Westside Project.

Thank you so much,
Amreen Gill PA-C. MPH
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. v.173.295 Thank you.
27 Sacramento County
Community Development, Planning and Environmental Review 82,7 7th St, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
OCT O ::i 2024
County ot Sacramento
Department of Community Development
Planning and Environmental Review Division
RE: Public Comment on Draft EIR for .Upper Westside Specific Plan (SCH No. 202100069) .

De�r Sacramento County Planning Commission,
As a coalition ofresidents living in Natomas' Gateway West, Sundance Lake, Willow Creek, Natomas Crossing, Westlake, Creekside, Village 7 and Naton;ias Park communities, we clre submitting the following comments in opposition to the Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP) in Natomas as proposed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). As concerned· residents and advocates for responsible development and environmental conservation, we urge you to reconsider the long-term environmental and social impacts that this project would impose on the Sacramento region.

1. Impact on Vernal Pools and Wetlands
The Upper Westside area is home to vernal pools, wetlands, and unique ecosystems that support a wide array of native species, including several threatened and endangered species such as the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Giant Garter Snake. The DEIR acknowledges significant impacts . . on these sensitive habitats, yet the mitigation measures proposed do not adequately ensure the preservation of these fragile ecos,ystems. These ecosystems serve critical ecological functions, including water filtration, flood control, and providing habitat for migratory birds. ' '
It is essential that development in this area be halted or scaled back to protect these vital wetland habitats. There are insufficient guarantees that the mitigation banking proposed will fully offset the habitat destruction caused by the UWSP. Once these ecosystems are lost, tney're gone.

2. Flood Risks
The'Natomas Basin is highly flood-prone, and the area identified for the UWSP sits within a FEMA-designated floodplain. Although the DEIR discusses levee improvements, the increased urbanization of this area would exacerbate flood risks and strain existing infrastructure. Climate change is expected to intensify the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, which could lead to catastrophic flooding, particularly as the Sacramento River and its tributaries swell.

Increased development in a flood-prone area runs counter to the region's commitment to climate resilience and puts both future residents and current taxpayers at risk, as levee failures or extreme floods would require significant public funding to mitigate the damage.

3. Increased Traffic and Air Pollution
The proposed UWSP would lead to an increase in vehicle traffic, contributing to greater air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. The DEIR suggests that roadway improvements and 28 October 28, 2024
TO: [email protected]
FROM: Christine Olsen, Garden Highway, Sacramento County SUBJECT: Comments on the UWSP EIR
Issues Throughout the EIR
Falsehoods, Inaccuracies, Misrepresentations
EIR’s are intended, by law, to present the public and decision-makers with factual, evidence-based, unbiased information about current circumstances and a project’s potential impacts. The UWSP EIR throughout contains false, inaccurate, and misleading statements, raising questions about the truthfulness, completeness and accuracy of the entire EIR document. False statements must be deleted. Misleading statements must be clarified. The EIR does not meet legal requirements or serve the public or decision- makers if it is not reliably thorough and accurate.

The project applicant does not have the necessary entitlements to proceed with the project. The UWSP EIR identifies changes the project applicant is seeking to the County’s 2030 General Plan policies, County zoning, to the Urban Services Boundary, and to the Urban Policy Area, among others. But throughout the EIR, the EIR makes false claims that the project does not conflict with County plans and policies. That is not true. If the UWSP project was already consistent with, and had no conflicts with County plans and policies, then the project would not be seeking amendments and other entitlements in order to be compliant.

Under Agricultural Resources, the EIR says, “the proposed UWSP would not conflict with existing agricultural use and zoning.” That is untrue. The project site is mostly zoned and used for agriculture and would be rezoned for urban uses, a violation of County policy. Under Land Use, the EIR says, “the proposed UWSP would not conflict with Sacramento County’s Land Use Plans.” That is inaccurate. There is a long list of County land use plans, policies and codes that the UWSP project seeks to change in order for the project to comply with and not to be in conflict with County policies.

Under Growth Inducement impacts, the EIR completely fails to address growth inducement impacts directly due to the project applicant’s requested changes to County plans, policies and codes.

The EIR is required by law to identify existing conditions and accurately state impacts from a proposed project. The current zoning for the project area is largely agricultural and has not yet changed. The EIR cannot legally assume a proposed project has entitlements it does not have, such as in the Agricultural Resources section where the EIR says, “Because the entitlements requested as components of the proposed UWSP would change the zoning to make it consistent with the proposal, the proposed UWSP would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use within the UWSP area.” That statement is grossly inaccurate, violates the legal requirements for an EIR, and it and any similar assumptions in the EIR that the project applicant has entitlements that the project applicant does not have and is seeking, should be removed.

Statements in the EIR must be deleted that say or suggest the UWSP project complies with or is consistent with County land use plans, policies and codes when in fact the UWSP does not currently comply with those County policies and when in fact the UWSP is seeking to change those County policy in order to comply.

Any statement that the project agrees in principle with or agrees with objectives in County plans and policies must be restated to make clear that the project does not in fact comply with County plans and policies, and changes would be needed to County plans, policies and codes for the project to comply and not conflict with County policies.
29 Mitigation is not Preservation
Throughout the EIR, the County’s preservation policies are inaccurately equated with mitigation. The County has policies to preserve habitat and farmland. To preserve means to keep as is, intact. If habitat and farmland that County policy seeks to preserve are lost to urbanization, then there is a significant impact that is not identified in the EIR. Mitigations attempt to replace the loss somewhere else, but that is very different than keeping what exists intact. If the UWSP project is approved, an impact is that the farmland and habitat County policies sought to protect is lost forever. Mitigation may lessen the impact of the environmental harm but does not change the fact that farmland and habitat is not preserved where it currently exists. If I accidentally destroyed a family heirloom you were preserving, I could mitigate the loss by paying you, but the loss would remain.

Impacts Not Identified
The County’s stated General Plan, Urban Services Boundary, and Urban Policy Area policies are intended to reduce urban sprawl and its impacts, preserve habitat and open space, and protect local farming. The UWSP project would have significant environmental impacts that conflict with those policies. These impacts should be and are not fully stated in the EIR.

Mitigations Outside Sacramento
The EIR fails to state that when mitigations occur outside Sacramento, Sacramento residents lose the benefits of those resources in their community.

Tables-Charts
The EIR is intended to be a public information document with clearly presented information. As recommended in CEQA guidelines, graphics help decisionmakers and the public rapidly understand the documents. The UWSP EIR would greatly benefit from more charts and tables where existing conditions and proposed changes are easier to see and compare, such as for commercial and retail square footage discussed under Urban Decay, in sections on agricultural acreage, housing units and elsewhere in the EIR where there are presentations of a lot of numbers that should be presented in tables for easy comparison.

Comments Specific to EIR Sections

Aesthetics

- The EIR notes that nighttime lighting from the UWSP project would have a permanent impact in the area.

But the EIR fails to adequately address the harmful impacts of nighttime lighting on human health and on wildlife, including migratory birds using the Pacific Flyway.

- The EIR fails to identify possible nighttime lighting mitigations, such as establishing a minimum one-half mile setback between the UWSP project and any rural areas (i.e. Garden Highway), with the setback to include a minimum 100-foot-wide densely planted tree buffer of tall native evergreen trees at the western project boundary, with the setback established and the tree buffer installed before the first stage of project construction.

Agricultural Resources

- The proposed UWSP project site is currently primarily farmland classified as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, and farmland of local importance. The EIR fails to state clearly that the UWSP project violates County policies that say the County shall protect these types of farmlands located outside of the Urban Services Boundary from the urban encroachment represented by the UWSP project.

- The UWSP is requesting a General Plan amendment to rezone prime farmland for urban use. The EIR fails to state clearly that the UWSP request conflicts with existing County policy which says the County shall not accept applications for General Plan amendments outside the Urban Services Boundary re- designating valuable farmland for urban use.

- The EIR fails to adequately assess impacts from changes the UWSP is proposing to County policies regarding farmland preservation.

- The EIR says, “the proposed UWSP would not conflict with existing agricultural use and zoning.” That is not true and must be deleted. The UWSP would conflict with existing agricultural use and zoning, turning farmland to urban use.

- The EIR says, “Because the entitlements requested as components of the proposed UWSP would change the zoning to make it consistent with the proposal, the proposed UWSP would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use within the UWSP area.” That statement is inaccurate, violates the legal requirements for an EIR, and should be removed. The project does not have requested entitlements. Project impacts must be assessed based on existing conditions.

- The EIR fails to make clear that County policy is focused on farmland rather than on land zoned for agriculture. Land zoned for agriculture may or may not be used for farming. The EIR should more clearly present the current number of acres available for farming, the number acres of farmland the UWSP project would rezone to urban uses, the number of acres of land available for farming if the project is approved, and the number of acres of farmland (land available for farming) that would be lost if the project is approved.

- The UWSP EIR gives the inaccurate impression that 534 acres of the UWSP would remain as farmland.

That is not correct. The EIR must make a clear distinction between the acreage of land that can be farmed if the project is approved, and the acreage of agriculturally zoned open space land (buffer) that will not be used for farming.

- The EIR fails to identify that land in the UWSP area that would remain available for farming will be long and narrow, just 700 feet wide in some areas, bisected in 4 places by heavily trafficked project roads, and within 30-50 feet of UWSP urban activity conflicts, which together could make the remaining farmland impractical for any commercial farming. If that happened, it would mean the project would wipe out 100% of the farmland in that area – farmland County policy seeks to preserve.

- If County zoning has setback requirements between farming and urban activity, those setbacks should be clearly identified in the EIR. If the County does not have such setback requirements, the EIR team should contact an appropriate government agency or reputable nonprofit organization that has studied what setbacks should occur between farming and urban activity in order to avoid urban conflicts, and the findings of that research should be included in the EIR next to the proposed setback. The proposed setback of 30-50 feet, basically the width of a rural roadway, seems wholly inadequate.

- In considering impacts, the EIR fails to make clear that farmland provides multiple community benefits such as health benefits associated with open space, wildlife habitat, fresh food produced locally, as a food resource when there are disruptions to the food distribution system such as happened during the pandemic, and as a flood protection area between the Sacramento River and the Sacramento community.

Air Quality

- The EIR asserts, with no evidence, that the majority of employment related vehicle trips, and the pollution they create, will be to downtown Sacramento. It is wrong for the EIR to present VMT data as fact when it is not based on evidence. Focusing so much on VMT to downtown Sacramento serves to minimize air pollution generation data. The EIR should have considered VMT more realistically to multiple job centers.

While downtown Sacramento is a job center, Sacramento County has more jobs than downtown, as noted in the EIR. Yolo County and Placer County are also job centers.

- The EIR fails to adequately address that project related air pollution and its resulting serious health impacts, as well as project construction dust, could be more severe on Garden Highway because of the prevailing wind that blows toward Garden Highway. Again, this impact could be partially mitigated by establishing a minimum one-half mile setback between the UWSP project and any rural areas (i.e. Garden Highway), with the setback to include a minimum 100-foot-wide densely planted tree buffer of tall native evergreen trees at the western project boundary, with the setback established and the tree buffer installed before the first stage of project construction.

- The EIR fails to adequately address that project related air pollution and its resulting serious health impacts would directly impact children in UWSP area schools.

Biological Resources

- Sacramento County’s 2030 General Plan and Urban Services Boundary explicitly state the purposes of the plans, in part, are to preserve habitat and open space. The UWSP project would violate those County goals. The EIR fails to state those violations clearly and fails to clearly and honestly identify impacts from the UWSP violation of those goals.

- Sacramento County policy says planning and development of new growth areas should be consistent with Sacramento County-adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and other efforts to preserve and protect natural resources. The UWSP project would put urban activity in a habitat conservation corridor in violation of County policy. The UWSP is not currently consistent with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and the Metro Airpark Habitat Conservation Plan. The UWSP conflicts with habitat conservation plans and conflicts with County policy are not clearly identified in the EIR and should be explicitly stated.

- The EIR fails to discuss the UWSP project impacts to the Sacramento River riparian area by putting urban development so close to the Sacramento River and its unique biological resources, habitat, and provision of a habitat corridor.

- Sacramento County policy is to actively plan to protect, as open space, areas of natural resource value, which may include but are not limited to wetlands preserves, riparian corridors, woodlands, and floodplains associated with riparian drainages. The EIR fails to point out that the UWSP project area is in the Sacramento River corridor, less than 1,000 feet from the Sacramento River. The EIR says, “No wetlands preserves, riparian corridors or floodplains associated with riparian drainages are present in the UWSP area so none will be affected by the project’s development.” That is incorrect. The farmland soils, wildlife and other biological resources present within the UWSP area are associated with proximity to the river and are part of the Sacramento River corridor.

- The UWSP EIR falsely equates the County’s stated goals of habitat preservation with habitat mitigation.

The EIR says the project’s approach for habitat and biological resources present within the UWSP area is to provide compensatory mitigation. Mitigation is very different from the County’s goal of preservation.

Preservation means to keep as is, in place. Mitigation means to make a significant impact, such as loss of habitat, less severe. Making an environmental impact less severe still means there is an impact. The EIR should make clear the distinction between preservation and mitigation. The EIR should also make clear that even with compensatory mitigation, the UWSP project would still have a significant negative impact on existing area habitat and wildlife, and that loss would be permanent.

Hydrology and Water Quality

- Sacramento County policy is to actively plan to protect, as open space, areas of natural resource value, which may include but are not limited to riparian corridors and floodplains associated with riparian drainages. The EIR fails to point out that the UWSP project area is in the Sacramento River corridor, less than 1,000 feet from the Sacramento River. The EIR says, “No wetlands preserves, riparian corridors or floodplains associated with riparian drainages are present in the UWSP area so none will be affected by the project’s development.” That is incorrect. Farmland soils, wildlife and other biological resources, and tribal cultural resources present within the UWSP area are associated with proximity to the river and are part of the Sacramento River corridor. The EIR fails to provide this information.

- The EIR fails to identify that the proposed UWSP would put new urban development in the Sacramento River floodplain. In addition to exposing new populations to flooding, the impervious surfaces associated with urbanization increase flood risk beyond the project area. While the new Natomas levee is expected to provide 200-year flood protection from the Sacramento River, climate change increases the chance of extreme flooding. Recent flooding in Ashville, North Carolina is proof of that. Around the United States, communities are starting to reserve land near waterways to use as open space for flood protection. Current open space and farmland in the UWSP project area provides an additional level of community flood protection. The EIR fails to indicate that the proposed UWSP project would eliminate this community flood protection.

Land Use

Violations of County Plans and Policies

- Sacramento County’s 2030 General Plan was intended to promote the efficient use of land, encourage economic vitality and reduce urban sprawl and its impacts, preserve habitat and open space, and protect local farming. The Urban Services Boundary was intended to implement that vision and promote orderly growth within the County. The EIR fails to state that the UWSP project violates the County’s 2030 General Plan, County zoning, the Urban Services Boundary, the Urban Policy Area, and SACOG’s Blueprint for regional development. The EIR fails to clearly and honestly identify impacts from the UWSP violation of those goals and fails to identify impacts from proposed changes to County policies.

- The EIR falsely says, “the proposed UWSP would not conflict with Sacramento County’s Land Use Plans.” That is not true. The UWSP violates the County’s General Plan land use policies, as well as the Urban Services Boundary, the Urban Policy Area, and zoning policies. False statements do not belong in the EIR and should be removed.

- County policy says planning and development of new growth areas should be consistent with Sacramento County-adopted Habitat Conservation Plans and other plans and policies to preserve and protect natural resources within an existing community. The EIR then falsely says the UWSP proposes development that would be consistent with the County’s growth management policies. The UWSP project violates current County General Plan, Urban Services Boundary and Urban Policy Area growth management policies.

False statements must be removed from the EIR.

USB Violation

- The UWSP EIR does not present or discuss that Sacramento County has an Urban Services Boundary policy that says the County shall not expand the Urban Service Boundary unless there is inadequate vacant land within the USB to accommodate the projected 25-year demand for urban uses…” The EIR does not state clearly under Land Use that there is adequate vacancy inside the Urban Services Bounday for the number of housing units and commercial space the project proposes.

- The EIR offers no rationale for the County approving urban development outside the Urban Services Boundary.

- One of the goals of the Urban Services Boundary was to encourage infill development. Infill development advantages residents inside the new development and infill development adds vitality and benefits to the nearby community, maximizes the cost-efficiency of urban services such as transit, and reduces environmental impacts associated with urban sprawl. The EIR fails to discuss ways in which allowing development outside the Urban Services Boundary discourages infill development and disadvantages communities inside the Urban Services Boundary.

River Corridor Conflicts

- The UWSP project is within 1,000 feet of the Sacramento River. The UWSP’s location in the river corridor should be but is never mentioned in the EIR. River corridors are unique land areas in a community, providing rich habitat, habitat corridors, farmland, open space, important tribal cultural landscapes, and flood mitigation specifically associated with proximity to the river.

- River corridors are rare and valuable resources to residents of any community, and are particularly valued by residents throughout Sacramento County for the health benefits of open space as a respite from the urban environment, for the opportunity to see wildlife in their community, and for the benefits of locally grown food in soils enriched by centuries of river overflow. The loss of these river corridor benefits are not presented and discussed as impacts in the EIR and should be.

- Current Sacramento County policy has a goal to actively plan to protect, as open space, areas of natural resource value, which may include riparian corridors and floodplains associated with riparian drainages.

The EIR fails to point out that the UWSP project area is in the Sacramento River corridor, less than 1,000 feet from the Sacramento River. The EIR says, “No wetlands preserves, riparian corridors or floodplains associated with riparian drainages are present in the UWSP area so none will be affected by the project’s development.” That is incorrect. False statements should be removed from the EIR. The farmland soils, wildlife and other biological resources, and tribal cultural resources present within the UWSP area are associated with proximity to the river and are part of the Sacramento River corridor.

- The UWSP EIR fails to identify impacts from locating UWSP urban development in a river corridor.

- The EIR fails to identify that river corridor degradation can only partially be mitigated in other river corridor areas. Loss of habitat corridor, loss of existing open space health benefits to local residents, loss of farmland and farm produce for Sacramentans in their community, loss of existing river overflow flood protection, and loss of a tribal cultural landscape will not be mitigated.

- The policies of the County’s 2030 General Plan and the Urban Services Boundary protect a one-mile-wide river corridor, protecting river corridor habitat, farmland, tribal resources, and floodway overflow protection.

The EIR fails to state that the UWSP would destroy those protections.

New Urban-Rural Land Use Conflicts

- Other than changing the aesthetics and rural character of the area, the EIR fails to address impacts from putting urban development within 700 feet of rural residential zoning, changing the expectations for area rural residents choosing to live in a rural residential zone (this is true for Garden Highway rural residential homeowners and homeowners on UWSP area farmland).

-The EIR should and does not identify feasible mitigations that might reduce urban-rural conflicts for a project like UWSP near rural residential areas like Garden Highway, such as requiring that the 20–30-year UWSP project construction begin closest to existing urban uses (i.e. near El Centro road), reaching rural areas last (i.e. Garden Highway), and this impact could be partially mitigated by establishing a minimum one-half mile setback between the UWSP project and any rural residential areas (i.e. Garden Highway), with the setback to include a minimum 100-foot-wide densely planted tree buffer of tall native evergreen trees at the western project boundary, with the setback established and the tree buffer installed before the first stage of project construction.

- If County zoning has setback requirements between rural residential zoning and urban activity, those setbacks should be clearly identified in the EIR. If the County does not have such setback requirements, the EIR team should contact an appropriate government agency or reputable nonprofit organization that has studied what setbacks should occur between rural residential zoning and urban activity in order to avoid conflicts, and the findings of that research should be included in the EIR next to the proposed setbacks.

Noise

- The EIR fails to adequately address the impacts from a proposed stadium, which would be close to residences in and all around the UWSP project area, including Garden Highway. Stadium traffic, noise, and light do not belong in or near residential areas. Stadium noise can travel miles. County and City Code Enforcement offices and Sacramento stadium operators can confirm stadium conflicts with residential areas. Any stadium should be miles from any homes.

- The EIR fails to adequately address the impacts from amplified sound from the UWSP area, such as at the outdoor pavilion. Amplified sound should be prohibited in all residential areas. In the past, developers and the County have said that amplified sound can be regulated to minimize impacts. That has proven to be untrue. Over time, sound equipment and the location of speakers can change and noise makers like bull horns and portable sound systems can be introduced, resulting in uncontrolled noise that can travel more than 2 miles.

- The EIR fails to identify the health impacts of traffic noise, school and park noise, and amplified noise from the outdoor pavilion and stadium.

- The EIR fails to adequately address that project related noise, as well as project construction noise, could be serious impacts on Garden Highway residents because of the prevailing wind that carries sound toward Garden Highway.

Population and Housing

- The EIR should, and does not make clear that the UWSP has no commitment to a specific number or percentage of the type of housing Sacramento needs, including very affordable, affordable, missing middle duplexes and triplexes, senior housing and handicapped housing all located near transit.

- The EIR should and does not make clear that the UWSP has no commitment to including affordable housing as part of each housing development, so affordable housing is integrated in each phase of development, and not targeted for one area of the project, or built in the last phase of development in 20-30 years.

- The EIR should and does not make clear that the UWSP is unlikely to result in the development of any housing for at least 7 years (the projected time for construction of Phase 1). This project will not help with Sacramento’s urgent housing needs.

Public Services and Recreation

- The EIR fails to mention that County policy says the County shall not provide urban services beyond the Urban Policy Area (UPA), because it is the intent of the County to focus investment of public resources on revitalization efforts within existing communities. The EIR fails to mention that the UWSP project violates this policy, and the EIR fails to identify impacts from the UWSP’s violation of this policy.

- The EIR fails to indicate that the extension of public services to the project area is unanticipated and unplanned.

- The EIR fails to say the UWSP has no control over when some of the services and recreation areas would be available in the project area, which would, at least, increase vehicle trips to access services in other areas.

- The EIR fails to identify harms caused by the unplanned extension of public infrastructure and services to accommodate the UWSP outside the Urban Services Boundary and the Urban Policy Area, particularly the harms to the County’s efforts to focus investment of public resources on revitalization efforts within existing communities.

Transportation

- The project EIR says traffic safety is a key consideration. However, the EIR fails to adequately address the severe and dangerous impacts UWSP traffic would have on the Garden Highway roadway and existing Garden Highway roadway users. The EIR suggests the project could add 4,000 trips a day on Garden Highway. Garden Highway is a rural 2-lane, undivided, elevated roadway. Garden Highway is half the width it should be for traffic safety. It has blind curves, no shoulders and no guard rails. The greatest safety issue on Garden Highway, which the EIR fails to identify, is the mixed use of the road by personal vehicles, semitrucks, agricultural equipment, cars pulling boats, golf carts, individual and groups of cyclists, pedestrians, and wildlife, any of which can enter the roadway unexpectedly from farm roads, driveways, and the riverbank. Adding traffic to Garden Highway has life safety consequences which cannot be mitigated.

- The EIR fails to identify that a mitigation to serious Garden Highway traffic and other rural road safety impacts identified in the EIR is to reroute UWSP traffic to avoid and actively discourage UWSP traffic from using rural roads including Garden Highway.

- The EIR fails to identify that adding traffic to Garden Highway would change the physical safety characteristics and make recreational use of Garden Highway too dangerous for cyclists and for vehicle clubs such as antique car clubs and motorcycle groups, eliminating a valuable Sacramento recreational opportunity.

- The EIR fails to highlight that the UWSP would introduce freeway and rural roadway traffic hazards for Sacramentans for which the project applicant has no ability to compel or control mitigations. That could subject Sacramento roadway and freeway users to increased traffic safety hazards, potentially for many years.

- The EIR asserts, with no evidence, that most employment related vehicle trips will be to downtown Sacramento. It is wrong for the EIR to present VMT data as fact when it is not based on evidence.

Focusing so much on VMT to downtown Sacramento serves to minimize VMT. The EIR should have considered VMT more realistically to multiple job centers. While downtown Sacramento is a job center, Sacramento County has more jobs than downtown, as noted in the EIR. Yolo County and Placer County are also job centers.

- The EIR fails to consider traffic impacts on the surrounding area from the UWSP stadium, outdoor pavilion, or schools.

- The EIR fails to suggest traffic mitigations such as locating UWSP traffic generating uses (e.g. stadium, outdoor pavilion or schools) near major roadways and commercial uses to reduce traffic dangers, congestion, noise and air pollution in residential areas.

- The EIR fails to mention that County policy says the County shall not provide urban services, such as road improvements and transit, beyond the Urban Policy Area (UPA), because it is the intent of the County to focus investment of public resources on revitalization efforts within existing communities. The EIR fails to present the impacts from the UWSP violation of this policy and the impacts from the changes to this policy proposed by the project applicant.

- The EIR fails to identify impacts caused by the unplanned extension of public infrastructure and services, such as transit and roadway improvements, to accommodate the UWSP outside the Urban Services Boundary and the Urban Policy Area, particularly the harms to the County’s efforts to focus investment of public resources on revitalization efforts within existing communities.

Tribal Cultural Resources

- While the UWSP would have a holistic impact on the tribal cultural landscape, the EIR fails to identify priority sites for tribal resource protection within the UWSP area.

Utilities

- The EIR fails to state that the UWSP violates the County’s Urban Services Boundary policy which says that the County shall maintain an Urban Services Boundary (USB) that defines the long-range plans (beyond twenty-five years) for urbanization and extension of public infrastructure and services. The EIR fails to identify impacts associated with this violation and UWSP impacts associated with proposed changes to the County’s Urban Services Boundary policy.

- The EIR fails to mention that County policy says the County shall not provide urban services beyond the Urban Policy Area (UPA), because it is the intent of the County to focus investment of public resources on revitalization efforts within existing communities. The EIR fails to identify UWSP impacts associated with this violation and impacts associated with proposed changes to the County’s Urban Policy Area policy.

- The EIR fails to identify harms caused by the unplanned extension of public infrastructure and services, such as utility services, to accommodate the UWSP outside the Urban Services Boundary and the Urban Policy Area, particularly the harms to the County’s efforts to focus investment of public resources on revitalization within existing communities.

Other Resource Topics- Wildfire

- The EIR says the UWSP is outside an area where CalFire establishes fire hazard zones. Then the EIR makes the misleading statement that the project area is not in a fire hazard zone. It is wrong to say, and dishonest to leave the impression that the area has been assessed for fire hazard when it has not been assessed by CalFire or any other fire agency. The EIR should delete incorrect and misleading information and just say the area has not been assessed for wildfire risk and the wildfire risk is unknown.

- The EIR is also incorrect about area conditions that could contribute to a wildfire hazard. There is heavy wooded growth adjacent to the river, less than 1,000 feet from the project area, from Sacramento up into rural wildfire hazard areas in Butte County. There are also at different times of the year dried crops and hay bales on farmland on both the Yolo and Sacramento sides of the Sacramento river that could and have caught fire (hay bales can be seen in EIR photos). A wind driven fire could easily jump the river as it has jumped freeways. The 2017 Tubbs fire burned into the City of Santa Rosa where more than a dozen people lost their lives and more than 2500 homes and one Hilton Hotel were destroyed. Wildfire could happen in the project area.

Cumulative Impacts

- The UWSP projects a 20–30-year buildout. The EIR fails to address ongoing impacts from construction noise, dust, traffic, etc. on area residents over an extensive period of time during which time mitigations the project applicant does not control may not be available to diminish impacts on existing area residents and new project area residents.

Growth Inducement and Urban Decay

- The EIR fails to accurately identify the UWSP project as unplanned urban development. The UWSP is unplanned – not included or anticipated in the County’s General Plan, or the Urban Services Boundary, or the SACOG Blueprint for regional development or plans for transit, regional roadway improvements, utility services extensions, or air quality improvement.

- In violation of CEQA, the EIR entirely fails to include in this section the long list of changes the UWSP project would require to County plans, policies, codes, etc., and the growth inducement impacts of changing those County plans and policies and codes.

- Sacramento County’s 2030 General Plan and the County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB) explicitly state that one of their purposes is to reduce unplanned urban development and its impacts outside the Urban Services Boundary. The EIR fails to clearly state that the UWSP violates the County’s policies to prevent urban sprawl.

- The EIR fails to clearly identify all growth inducement impacts from the UWSP’s development outside the County’s Urban Services Boundary.

- The EIR falsely says, “the proposed UWSP is consistent with Sacramento County General Plan Policy LU-120, which is intended to reduce impacts of many different types – such as growth inducement, unacceptable operating conditions on roadways, poor air quality, and lack of appropriate infrastructure.” As stated in the EIR, the UWSP creates unacceptable operating conditions on roadways, poor air quality, currently lacks appropriate infrastructure, and in most cases the project applicant cannot compel, and does not control possible mitigations. False statements should be removed from the EIR.

- The EIR falsely claims the pressure for future development in the area would be reduced because of the need to show consistency with the County General Plan and to receive approval from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. Those impediments are not enough to stop the UWSP project applicant. Why would they stop other project applicants? The EIR does not say, and should say, that if the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors approves the project, other similar urban development projects may also be approved using the same criteria.

From: Harriet Steiner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2024 8:47 PM
To:

PER-CEQA <[email protected]>
Subject: Upper Westside Specific Plan and DEIR Comments I am a resident of Natomas and would like to make the following comments on the DEIR and the Upper Westside Project, in addition to the comments I made at the Planning Commission and at the CPAC.

First, to the best of my knowledge, the DEIR does not analyze the impact of conversion of agricultural lands and conservation lands by this project because it is located outside of the Urban Services Boundary. In addition , there are other projects that also want to develop that are located outside of the Urban Services Boundary , including Airport South Industrial and Grand Park.. All of these developments are inconsistent with existing and long established policies of the County, its general plan; the City of Sacramento and the Natomas Basin Plan. All of these projects need to be analyzed together for their cumulative impact on agriculture, wildlife conservation, the Pacific Flyway, air quality, flooding and traffic. None of these projects should proceed until a separate EIR on modification of the Urban Services Boundaries and the County’s General plan are analyzed and the the County has made a decision whether to proceed with any changes to the Urban Services Boundary and the General Plan. Taking any one of these projects separately will not disclose the full cumulative impacts of these projects and will result in piecemeal analysis that underestimates the impact of urbanization outside of the Urban Services Boundaries.

The DEIR also needs to analyze whether the factual bases for any of the findings in LU-127 can be made. If analyzed it is unlikely that the findings can be made and the Project(s) will then have, at a minimum , additional unavoidable significant adverse impacts that have not yet been disclosed. This analysis could warrant recirculation of the DEIR.

The DEIR should also analyze the impact of this Project on the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan and its ability to meet its goals and the goals of the HCP permits and the County’s Climate Action Plans. Further, the County has not met the goals of the 30 by 30 Executive Order. Conversion of the land within the Upper Westside project, alone and with the other proposed projects will increase conversion of land to urban uses, could result in urban sprawl, and premature conversion of agricultural lands while still leaving un or underdeveloped lands in the urban areas. Thses facts will result in more unavoidable impacts not yet disclosed in the DEIR.

To the extent that the Project proposes to mitigate the loss of over 2000 across of farmland with strips of land along the inner land side of the levee, this proposal has not been adequately 30 anayzed. The DEIR should analyze whether this land, in the after condition, can be feasibly and economically farmed. If not, then this mitigation land is not feasible and the applicants should be required to provide land that can be farmed. If not, then there should be an alternative plan for the lands and that alternative should be analyzed in the DEIR. In the alternative, the Project should be denied because of the conversion of agricultural lands not needed for the next 20 years of more for urban uses. (See SACOG land estimate for housing referenced above.)

The DEIR should analyze the impacts of flooding in the Natomas area if the Upper Westside lands are developed and paved. Sacramento has been lucky that it has not had a major flooding event since the 1986 and 1994 floods. However, regional floods will occur in the future. More that shoring up the levees in needed to be ready for the flooding that is surely coming. We should take climate change, the significant changes to the wildfire season and the lessons of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, among others, for the increased risk of back to back storms, to analyze and determine the flooding risks associated with urbanization of thousands of acres of farmland. Included in that analysis should be work on how saturated the lands within the Natomas Basin are now, their ability to absorb more drainage and the added risks to the developed areas.

The DEIR should also analyze the impact of development of the Upper Westside project in the County as opposed to the City. Existing policies call for development of urban lands in cities.

Here, in Natomas the City provides all urban services, is responsible to the existing roads, for flooding and utilities. If the County moves forward, all new services must be built and maintained, such as were and water services. The impacts of Upper West side will all be felt in the City and there is currently no plan to pay/mitigate the traffic, air quality, aesthetics and other impacts on the city and its residents. Further, annexation to the City should be required as it is inappropriate to have neighbors some in the City and others in this new county area having different obligations for maintenance and public services and structures. The DEIR should analyze and consider the impacts of having this large project developed in the County and should look at the impacts of other projects built in the county that are adjacent to urban lands in the City and whether the past difficulties or servicing urban areas that are surrounded by city lands can be avoided or mitigated.

Lastly, the DEIR should be revised to review the traffic impacts of this proposed project on the existing roads in Natomas and on the Garden Highway. It is my understanding that the Garden Highway cannot be widened and is already overburdened with traffic. Similarly the roads in the South Natomas, all of which are inside the city, need to be considered and the impacts mitigated. In addition, the interchange at El Camino already appears to be at capacity.

I-5 headed in both directions is often just gridlock. The Upper westside Project with a proposed a large shopping area, a community college and the housing will add significant traffic to this area that is already saturated with traffic. further, becuase this Project is not in the County or the City’s general Plans for development the traffic generated is not included in any modeling nor are there any plans to provide additional infrastructure to offset the traffic impacts. The DEIR should do a deeper analysis including all the surface streets and the freeways and determine what mitigation is possible. If there is no feasible mitigation the county should deny this project.

While i fully understand that we have an affordable housing crisis, this project does not address affordable housing. If housing is the justification for this project, then the housing needs to actually provide the housing needed. As noted by SACOG, the region currently has 2.5 times the land needed for the next 20 years of housing growth. Therefore just providing single family and high end rental housing is not needed and does not warrant approving this project.

Please respond to these comments along with the many other comments received in a revised EIR. Given the depth and breadth of the comments, the DEIR should be recirculated.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Harriet Steiner
2807 Rockaway Lane
Sacramento, CA 95835

www.ecosacramento.net
Post Office Box 1526 | Sacramento, CA 95812-1526
October 28, 2024
Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator
Department of Community Development
Division of Planning and Environmental Review
827 7th Street, Room 225, Sacramento, CA 95814
Sent via email: [email protected]
Emma Patten, Senior Planner
Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review
700 H St, Sacramento, CA 95814
Sent via email:
[email protected] (Letter and Attachments via Dropbox – due to size of Attachments) [email protected] (Letter only)
SUBJECT: Review/Comment on Upper Westside Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Newton and Ms. Patten:

Please accept these comments from the Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) on the Upper Westside Project draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

The Upper Westside Project Applicant has produced attractive materials promoting the project since at least 2019. The buzz words are there, but the foundations beneath the project are weak. • The EIR must be an informational document, not a sales brochure. The Applicant owns just 1.54 percent of the property, 31 of the 2,066 acres proposed for the project. It is difficult to discern the level of involvement of the balance of land owners. It is also difficult to see how owning only 1.54 percent of the property can expect to drive the re-zoning and annexation of such a large area. The DEIR does not say that an agreement with the other landowners has been developed. This project appears to be simple developer-driven speculation.
• Housing is a hot button issue in the City and the County. However, it is important to put the need for housing in context. The DEIR does not disclose that the County’s General Plan includes already approved and zoned housing units on greenfield sites that will not be fully built out until after the year 2100. It does not disclose that the land use scenario in SACOG’s draft 2025 Blueprint does not include the Upper Westside project area.
• The EIR must disclose the environmental impacts of the entire proposed Upper Westside project, as well as the cumulative impacts of it with the other proposed developments in the Natomas Basin – Grand Park (5,000 acres) and Airport South Industrial (475 acres). Instead, the DEIR picks and chooses what it 31 2 of 36

discloses. Individually and together, the projects would require changes to a number of foundational agreements and policies – the County’s General Plan, the County’s location of the Urban Service Boundary and Urban Policy Area, and the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan. These agreements are the result of painstaking compromise between the County, City, California Fish & Wildlife, and U.S.

Fish & Wildlife, to guide and control development in the Natomas Basin.

The Upper Westside would make the work of the Natomas Basin Conservancy infinitely more difficult due to the loss of agricultural land in close proximity to Fisherman’s Lake. The three projects together would spell the failure of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

• The DEIR says the Westside project would have to rely on the City of Sacramento for water and sewer services and infrastructure. However, it does not disclose that the City has an agreement with State and federal wildlife agencies to not develop outside of its Permit area. Questions remain over how emergency services, police, fire, medical as well as park maintenance and recreation programs will be provided, as build-out proceeds over many years. How would infrastructure be built out if property owners are not part of the project and will services be available to non-participating land owners? Would the project area be annexed by the City to facilitate the extension of utilities?

• We do not understand why this project is allowed to proceed. Why has the County not stopped it as it teeters on multiple foundational weaknesses? Why is the County entertaining the idea of building a community the size of Galt or El Cerrito, (25,000 people), next to the Sacramento River, with only four exit roads in case of an evacuation?

• This project is not Smart Growth, it is rampant speculation. It is not needed given the excess existing housing entitlements in the Sacramento region, and in Sacramento County. The project does not provide extraordinary benefits and should not merit a change to the County’s Urban Services Boundary.

• Please see our comments in the pages below and note that our attorney, Patrick Soluri, will submit comments on our behalf separately.

Sincerely,

Susan Herre AIA AICP
President of the Board of Directors

3 of 36

Contents
1) Key Information missing in the DEIR ..................................................................................................................4 2) Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary ...................................................................................................4 3) Conflicts with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) .............................................................7 4) Other impacts that Should be Classified as Significant and Unavoidable ....................................................... 19 5) Significant Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to Less than Significant ........................................................... 20 6) Cumulative Setting inadequately described/disclosed/analyzed ................................................................... 25 7) Geology, Soils, and Paleontology Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................................. 26 8) Lack of Water Supply Assessment ................................................................................................................... 27 9) Water Management and Drainage Capacity ................................................................................................... 27 10) Public Services ............................................................................................................................................. 28 11) Inconsistency with City General Plan .......................................................................................................... 28 12) Inconsistency with County General Plan ..................................................................................................... 29 13) Inconsistency with Regional Planning for Growth ...................................................................................... 30 14) Growth Inducement and Urban Decay ........................................................................................................ 32 15) Alternatives Analysis is Misleading and Deficient ....................................................................................... 33 16) Upper Westside conflicts with State Environmental Initiative ................................................................... 35 17) Attachments ................................................................................................................................................ 36

4 of 36

1) Key Information missing in the DEIR

The DEIR omits considerations that should be key to the County in its decision-making:
a) Impacts on provisions of the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, and on Natomas Basin and other mitigation properties, are not identified nor analyzed; b) The requirement that the project obtain incidental take permits to reduce impacts to less than significant is not included;
c) Location and policy significance of the County of Sacramento Urban Services Boundary, and associated land use policies, are ignored; also, there is no discussion of the implications for the Urban Services Boundary and Urban Policy Area, and future development in the Natomas Basin, if the project is approved;
d) Analysis of impacts on water quality from storm water drainage from the project area, and cumulative impact from development upstream from the project, is not provided; e) National Annual Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 standard has changed but this is not acknowledged.

2) Sacramento County Urban Services Boundary

The Upper Westside project would be located outside of Sacramento County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB), yet the DEIR does not address the fact
that it encroaches beyond the boundary of
the USB. If the Upper Westside project is
approved, apart from the direct impacts to
farmland and habitat, it would set a
precedent for other development projects in
Natomas to encroach beyond the USB.

The DEIR does not address:
a) the importance of the USB as a land use
planning act of regional significance;
b) the USB as the “ultimate boundary of the
urban area” in the unincorporated
County, based upon jurisdictional, natural
and environmental constraints to urban
growth;
c) the precedent-setting impact of the
Upper Westside project encroachment on
the USB for other development projects,
both in Natomas and east Sacramento
County;
d) the requirements of County General Plan
Policy LU-127 for changing the USB;
e) the two other proposed projects that are
outside the USB

Refer to the map at right, FIGURE 1 to see the USB as a blue dotted line, and the other proposed projects that are outside the USB, the Airport South Industrial (475 acres for warehouse space) and Grand Park (5,000 acres for residential/commercial).

5 of 36

The County General Plan includes an Urban Services Boundary, agricultural protection policies and other commitments to maintain the project area in agriculture. These policies in turn underpin regional planning for climate change, air quality, transportation, land use and other urban infrastructure. Permitting urbanization in an area designated by the County General Plan and regional plans as agriculture has profound impacts on the entire region.

The map at right, FIGURE 2,
shows the area included within
the USB – about 449 square mile
area. This area is about ten times
the size of Paris and Washington
D.C, and four times the size of the
City of Sacramento.

The exact boundary line of the
USB was shaped by river
watersheds, creeks, the Delta,
and FEMA-designated flood
areas; by the history of fires and
future fire risk; and by the need
to preserve important farmland
and to protect habitat for
threatened plant and animal
species. It was also shaped by the
edges of existing urbanized areas
and cities, and Sacramento
International Airport.

Consider what it means to break
through the Urban Services
Boundary (USB):

This boundary, established in 1993, is defined in the Sacramento County General Plan as the “ultimate boundary of the urban area” in the unincorporated County, based upon jurisdictional, natural and environmental constraints to urban growth; intended to be a permanent growth boundary not subject to modification except under extraordinary circumstances.”

6 of 36

Consider the County’s General Plan Policy LU-127 strictures for projects proposing to expand the USB in FIGURE 3 below.

Given the impacts of this project on the region and the Natomas community, the Upper Westside project does not meet the listed requirements, nor does it merit a finding of extraordinary benefits and opportunities by 4/5ths of the Board of Supervisors.

7 of 36

3) Conflicts with the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP)

The proposed Upper Westside project conflicts with the NBHCP. Biological resources are inadequately assessed with faulty mitigation measures that do not reduce impacts to less than significant.

a) The DEIR falsely claims that the project does not conflict with the NBHCP. The DEIR claims that any conflicts with the 2003 NBHCP and the Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (MAPHCP) which adopted the NBHCP are less than significant impacts. (ES-55)

DEIR MM “BR-14: Conflict With Natomas Basin HCP and Metro Air Park HCP. The Natomas Basin HCP and Metro Air Park HCP are adopted conservation plans with respective plan areas that cover portions of the Natomas Basin. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-9 would avoid and minimize impacts to covered species in the Natomas Basin HCP and Metro Air Park HCP and have been designed to avoid conflicts with the strategies and provisions of the respective HCPs. Given these considerations, the proposed UWSP and required offsite improvements would not conflict with the provisions of existing adopted HCPs, and the overall impact would be less than significant.”

As explained more fully below, the EIR’s analysis fails as an informational document with respect to this impact by conspicuously omitting critical information required to understand the project’s individual and cumulative impacts. Further, the EIR’s finding of less than significant impact is not supported by substantial evidence. The impacts on the HCPs are significant, and evaluation and mitigation for these impacts require compliance with the terms of the NBHCP regarding development in the Basin.

i) The Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan was created as a basinwide HCP in response to the federal Army Corp of Engineers flood control permit which permitted construction of flood control infrastructure that enabled 17,500 acres of new urban development within designated NBHCP Permit Areas (City, Sutter County, MetroAirPark) in the Basin with basinwide impacts on habitat and endangered species. The basinwide plan was required as a condition of those permits by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corps permit #199200719, pg 4, undated, (ATTACHMENT 1) 1 states:

“l. The permit applicant shall not begin construction on the pumping station along the East Main Drain or otherwise complete the proposed project by providing 100-year flood protection for the lower American Basin until the Service first issues an incidental take permit and associated implementing agreement pursuant to Section 10(a) (1) (b) of the Act to the City and County of Sacramento, Sutter County and any other parties necessary to guarantee the successful implementation of a habitat conservation plan for the giant garter snake resident in the American Basin. This plan shall be compatible with and a component of the multispecies habitat management plan otherwise required by the Department of the Army as a condition of permit authorization. The Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated March 11, 1994 is expressly incorporated as a condition of this permit.”

That 1994 USFWS Biological Opinion, March 11, 1994, pg. 5 (ATTACHMENT 2)2, expressly conditions the USFWS approval of the flood control project on a "multispecies habitat management plan for

1 Attachment 1: 1994 Permit Number 199200719 U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT.SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922
2 Attachment 2: March 11, 1994, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Revised Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project (PN 199200719) in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California 8 of 36

the 55,000 acre lower American Basin" (i.e. Natomas Basin in Sacramento and Sutter counties) and issuance of Incidental Take Permit from USFWS and 2081 Permit from CDFW.

While the County of Sacramento did not participate in the HCP process and was not included in the Incidental Take Permit, approval of the Upper Westside project would interfere with these permits.

The CDFW’s NOP comment letter, pg. 13, made this point with clarity, explaining that the Project “marks an apparent departure by the County” from the Joint Vision MOU that “has been critical to the integrity of the NBHCP.” The County must now come into compliance to avoid violation of the terms of the Army Corps of Engineers permits for flood control in the Natomas Basin. A previous private development in the unincorporated area of the County, Metro AirPark, agreed to comply with the NBHCP, and therefore the Metro AirPark HCP was approved by the wildlife agencies and included within the 17,500-acre Permit Areas.

ii) The NBHCP includes clear guidance as to how development outside the NBHCP and MAPHCP permit areas, totaling 17,500 acres, must be assessed and permitted by the Federal and State wildlife agencies, which agencies can deny permits.

The Implementing Agreement (“IA”) (ATTACHMENT 3)3 for the 2003 NBHCP requires that:
"in the event that future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development and/or possible suspension or revocation of [Permit] in the event that the City or Sutter violates such limitations. " (IA 3.1 (a))."

The DEIR fails to disclose this document and does not identify the impact of the Upper Westside project on the future implementation and viability of this agreement. Nor does it include acknowledgement of the need for mitigation that will be required to come into compliance with this process for consideration. The DEIR fails to require as mitigation the CDFW take authorization required.

iii) The California Department of Fish and Wildlife NOP Comment letter, November 6, 2020, at page 11, states:
"A robust analysis of whether, in what way, and to what extent the Project may affect future implementation and the continued viability of the NBHCP and MAPHCP in the Natomas Basin is essential to the County’s informed review of the Project.”

“CDFW appreciates the Project proponent and the County’s previous commitment to prepare a related effects analysis as part of the County’s review of the Project. The analysis will provide critical information essential to a meaningful understanding of the Project’s regional setting. That, in turn, will also help ensure the EIR’s environmental analysis is robust and includes all the potentially significant effects on fish and wildlife that may be caused by the Project."

In fact, there is no effects analysis in the DEIR as described by CDFW’s letter. Also in CDFW’s November 6, 2020 letter, page 12, CDFW recommends that the EIR address, specific to the effects analysis, the following:

3 Attachment 3: 2003 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN 9 of 36

“· Persistence of NBHCP and MAP HCP Covered Species in the Natomas Basin · Impacts to established reserve land managed by the Natomas Basin Conservancy (TNBC) · Reduction of available reserve land in the Natomas Basin under the NBHCP and MAPHCP (with appropriate buffers and setbacks as detailed in the NBHCP) · Reduction of ability for TNBC to establish or enhance Covered Species range and habitats in the southern Natomas Basin
· Continued viability of the land uses in the Natomas Basin as detailed in the NBHCP and MAPHCP · Financial impacts to TNBC and fee payers under the NBHCP and MAPHCP, including the recent action by TNBC Board of Directors and the Sacramento City Council to address related ongoing financial challenges of continuing to implement the required conservation strategy in the Natomas Basin, and
· Cumulative impact of the Project, in combination with other development in the Natomas Basin approved since 2003 that is outside of the City of Sacramento and Sutter County’s permitted area under the NBHCP (e.g., levee improvements by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and the Greenbriar project). A visual representation of the mounting pressure on the continued viability of the NBHCP is shown in Figure 1.”

Figure 1 is on page 17 of the CDFW letter and is titled Figure 1. Comparison of proposed land uses in the Natomas Basin (2020 & NBHCP signing in 2003). It reflects 2020 data and should be updated in your analysis to 2024.

The 17,500-acre permit area for the NBHCP is about 50 percent built out, mostly by City of Sacramento and MetroAirpark, with Permitted development in Sutter County’s 7,467-acre Permit Area mostly unbuilt but subject to an adopted Specific Plan expected to start construction soon. The DEIR must consider the impacts on the species of all existing and permitted future development (i.e. Sutter Permit Area), as well as the proposed Upper Westside project, on the covered species and the implementation of the NBHCP. The DEIR does not provide this information.

iv) Federal Court Decision Finds Any Additional Development in the Basin Outside NBHCP Permit Area is a Significant Impact.

The USFWS Biological Opinion for the 2003 NBHCP, June 24, 2003, pp 11-12 (ATTACHMENT 4)4; the 2003 NBHCP pp. I-3; I-5,6; I-7,8; the 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement (IA) §3.1(a) and

3.1.2(c); and the decision of Judge David Levy in National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Civ-S-04- 0579 DFL JFM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2005) pg. 30 (ATTACHMENT 5)5, clearly state that any additional development in the Basin outside the 17,500 acre permit areas of the NBHCP would constitute a significant departure from the operating conservation plan and thus a significant impact on the NBHCP and the Natomas Basin populations of the species protected by the NBHCP.

4 Attachment 4: June 24, 2003 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Intra-Service Biological and Conference 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 Natoma s Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California.
5 Attachment 5: National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Civ-S-04-0579 DFL JFM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2005) 10 of 36

The project must apply and receive an Incidental Take Permit from the USFWS and a 2081 permit from CDFW, which these agencies may approve or deny, in order to justify a finding of no significant impact on the NBHCP. Yet the DEIR asserts without evidence that the Upper Westside project would have no significant impact on the NBHCP or MAPHCP.

As stated above, the NBHCP was prepared to satisfy a condition of an U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit, with the program implementation under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CA Dept of Fish and Wildlife, City of Sacramento, and the County of Sutter. Any project in the Basin must meet the same criteria since the flood control provided as a result of the permit is Basin wide.

As stated in NWF v. Norton, ibid p. 28, any additional development in the Basin is a federal project requiring a federal permit. NWF v Norton, ibid. p. 28, states that "through the implementation agreement, the City has committed to ensuring that additional development does not occur in the Basin without federal review. . . any further development will necessarily be a federal action because further federal approval will be required under any scenario that could impair the efficacy of the NBHCP." (emphasis added)

NWF v. Norton affirms that the USFWS relied upon the remaining agricultural areas in the Natomas Basin to provide species protection benefits to issue the incidental take permits for City and Sutter County development in the Natomas Basin. On page 10, the decision references USFWS Biological Opinion (BioOp) to affirm that the NBHCP depends upon several key factors to ensure viability of the Giant Garter Snake population including:

"(3) the maintenance of connectivity between reserve lands; and (4) the continued existence of 16,000 acres of GGS habitat that will remain in the Basin after development;”

Likewise NWF v. Norton quotes the USFWS Biological Opinion (BioOp) that the proposed action [NBHCP] will not jeopardize the survival of the Central Valley population of the Swainson's Hawk or the species as a whole because “in part" (2) approximately 13,000 acres of foraging habitat will not be affected." (NWF v Norton, ibid, p. 11.) On p.12, the court references the USFWS BioOp that harm to Swainson's Hawk will be low because "substantial foraging habitat will exist in the Basin even after the planned development."

These elements are critical to the conservation strategy and would be affected by the Upper Westside project development since the project removes 2000 acres of foraging habitat in the Swainson's Hawk Zone of the NBHCP. Yet the DEIR does not address these important impacts of the project.

Further, "The court notes. . . that the Service and those seeking an ITP in the future will face an uphill battle if they attempt to argue that additional development in the Basin beyond 17,500 acres will not result in jeopardy. The NBHCP, BiOp, EIR/EIS, and Findings and Recommendations are all predicated on the assumption that development in the Basin will be limited to 17,500 acres and that the remaining lands will remain in agricultural use." (NWF v Norton, ibid, p 30, footnote 13)

v) The City may not participate in development beyond the NBHCP Permit Area permitted under the NBHCP, yet the Upper Westside project, located in the County’s jurisdiction outside the City, expects to use City sewer services and water rights and services; and project proponents reportedly have stated an intent to annex to the City after the County approves the development. 11 of 36

The UWSP conflicts with City obligations under 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement not to approve development beyond the City’s NBHCP Permit Area. City’s development in the Basin is subject to the 2003 NBHCP, and its Implementation Agreement, an agreement signed by the City, Sutter County and the Federal and State Wildlife Agencies. The 2003 NBHCP Implementation Agreement ("IA") §3.1.1 provides that "CITY agrees not to approve more than 8,050 acres of Authorized Development and to ensure that all Authorized Development is confined to CITY's Permit Area as depicted on Exhibit B. . . ." (see NBHCP IA, Exhibit B).

The City also agreed in the NBHCP that "in the event that future urban development should occur, prior to approval of any related rezoning or prezoning, such future urban development shall trigger a reevaluation of the Plan and Permits, a new effects analysis, potential amendments and/or revisions to the Plan and Permits, a separate conservation strategy and issuance of Incidental Take Permits to the permittee for that additional development and/or possible suspension or revocation of [Permit] in the event that the City or Sutter violates such limitations." ((IA 3.1 (a))."

The DEIR states that City water provision impact would be less than significant on pages ES-125 and ES-129:

“Water Treatment. The City of Sacramento would provide water to development allowed under the proposed UWSP. The City owns and operates two water diversion and treatment facilities: the Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant on the Sacramento River and the Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant on the American River. Enough excess treatment capacity exists at these two facilities to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP, and thus no additional water treatment capacity would need to be constructed to accommodate the increase in water demand anticipated under the proposed UWSP. This impact would be less than significant.”

“UT-2: Result in a Project Water Demand That Cannot Be Met by Supply. The City of Sacramento would provide water to development allowed under the proposed UWSP. The City of Sacramento would have adequate planned water supply to serve development allowed under the proposed UWSP during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years. This impact would be less than significant.”

The DEIR at page 2-43 states:

“SacSewer would provide wastewater collection and treatment service to land uses allowed under the proposed UWSP. Wastewater generated within the UWSP area would be conveyed through local sewer systems to the regional interceptor system for treatment at the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in Elk Grove. As discussed above, the proposed UWSP would require SacSewer annexation.”

In fact, provision of water and sewer services by the City to new development outside the Permit area directly violates its obligations to state and federal governments included in the Implementation Agreement for the NBHCP cited above. (IA 3.1.1). These are significant impacts not identified or mitigated in the DEIR.

vi) The Project would urbanize part of the NBHCP Swainson's Hawk Zone (SHZ), obliterating its conservation value, which is a key element of the NBHCP Conservation Strategy for Swainson's Hawks in the Natomas Basin.
12 of 36

CDFW’s NOP comment letter, page 13, (Nov. 6, 2020, in DEIR Appendix heading “Notice of Preparation”) noted that "high value foraging habitat present in a majority of the Project area could contribute to foraging ability for hundreds of Swainson’s hawks in the Natomas Basin, as well as those using surrounding nests in Yolo and east and south Sacramento County, and Swainson’s hawk migrating through the Project area. (CDFW 2020). This highlights the Natomas Basin’s unique contribution in providing valuable nesting and foraging habitat, both of which are essential for the species’ life history. As such, a thorough evaluation in the EIR of the Project’s impacts to both nesting and foraging habitat as independent factors will be crucial, considering the value of the Natomas Basin for the species."

The November 6, 2020 NOP comment letter by CDFW, page 14, also stated regarding analysis of the SHZ:

"Much of the Project area is mapped within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone (SHZ), which the NBHCP describes as the area within one mile of the Sacramento River in the Natomas Basin. The SHZ was derived from the high density of Swainson’s hawk nests within this area and scientific evidence for the value of the habitat (NBHCP 2003). The NBHCP recognizes the importance of the SHZ to this species and the viability of their plan which resulted in substantial effort from the City of Sacramento and Sutter County to replan development outside of this area. Replanning efforts in the SHZ have been vital to preserve the area’s ecological value and the overall goals of the NBHCP, despite the associated economic and political opportunity costs. Although the County is not party to the NBHCP, CDFW recommends the County considers the Project’s 1) biological impact in an ecologically valuable area and 2) the effect that Project development in the SHZ will have on the continued implementation and viability of the NBHCP, as well as the MAP HCP.”

“As such, robust analysis of the Project’s potentially significant effects on Swainson’s hawk will be a critical part of the development of the EIR. With the Project in the SHZ, there could be several potentially significant effects to the species, both in the project- specific and cumulative context.

Creating a feasible mitigation approach should be an early and focal part of the EIR development given the high utilization of the area by the species.” CDFW, ibid, pg. 14.

“While typical projects often focus on initial surveys, this Project is in a particularly unique area where extensive surveys and biological resource mapping has already been completed. The most recent surveys indicated that 14 Swainson’s hawk nests are present within the Project area or within a 0.5-mile radius that Project activities may impact (TNBC 2019, CDFW 2020). Due to the density of known nest sites, CDFW recommends the EIR analyze the individual nesting and foraging behavior patterns associated with each known nest pair and propose avoidance, minimization and mitigation that specifically addresses those patterns, rather than simply acknowledging presence. CDFW also recommends the EIR analyze the Project’s regional impacts to the species, both to the overall persistence of Swainson’s hawk within the Natomas Basin and indirect impacts to individual Swainson’s hawk that may depend on the Project area’s foraging habitat. Data from such studies can more effectively inform a mitigation strategy that complies with CESA." CDFW, ibid pg. 14.

The DEIR does not provide these analyses of the impacts of the project on nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the project area.

13 of 36

The Swainson's Hawk Zone protects the Swainson’s Hawk population which nests along the Sacramento River from urban disturbance and is of particular value as foraging habitat for reproduction of Swainson’s Hawks because of its proximity to Swainson’s Hawks’ nests in tall riparian trees along the river. The success of the NBHCP in mitigating for the impacts of development on the Swainson’s Hawk within the NBHCP Permit Areas (City, Sutter County, Metro Air Park) depends in large part on excluding urban uses within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone and acquiring permanent preserve lands within the Swainson’s Hawk zone. "The NBHCP's primary strategies to mitigate impacts to Swainson’s hawks caused by Authorized Development are to avoid development within the Swainson’s Hawk Zone" . . . " and to acquire upland habitat as Mitigation Lands inside the Swainson’s Hawk Zone. . . " (NBHCP, IV-28-29. See also NBHCP pp. V-9, -10; V-20; VII-19; -20; NBHCP IA p. 4, §3.1.2; 2003 USFWS Biological Opinion p. 36.) Accordingly, the proposed project directly conflicts with and interferes with the NBHCP conservation strategy for Swainson's Hawks.

The DEIR fails to disclose what percentage of the area of the Swainson's Hawk Zone the project will convert to urban uses or in other ways render the land unavailable or unsuitable for Swainson's Hawk foraging habitat.

This impact needs to be disclosed. What will be the estimated impact on the Basin's Swainson's Hawk population reproductive capacity? How much will the project reduce the population of Swainson's Hawks in the Basin? The DEIR does not disclose the nesting territories within the project area, within one mile of the Upper Westside project area, within two miles of the project area and within five miles of the project area. What has been the typical productivity of those nesting sites over the last 20 years?

vii) The NBHCP permit area remains partly in habitat and undeveloped at this time so the impact of already permitted but unbuilt development on the performance of the NBHCP in protecting the species is not known.

Over half of the 17,500-acre NBHCP permit area remains in agricultural land as Sutter County is just now beginning to build in its Permit area. The NBHCP has not been fully tested as a conservation program for the species in the Basin. Yet the DEIR fails to fully consider how the already declining Swainson's Hawk population in Natomas will survive with the additional development of the Upper Westside project.

What is the likelihood that the increased reduction in habitat created by Upper Westside will result in the failure of the NBHCP and the reduction in range of the Swainson's Hawk and Giant Garter Snake in California?

b) Surveys for Giant Garter Snake and Swainson’s Hawk presence and habitat were incomplete.

Species surveys by Applicant’s biologist (Bargas) for presence and habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and Giant Garter Snake were limited to 568.7 acres of the 2,066-acre project site, which is incomplete. See DEIR Appendix, Supplemental Biological Resources Assessment by Helix, §§3.2.4, 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.2, pp 20, 21.

The DEIR fails to disclose impacts on key protected species in the project area.

14 of 36

c) Impacts on the Swainson's Hawk

The DEIR claims that "With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-2a and BR-7a, the impact on Swainson’s hawk nesting habitat would be less than significant." This claim is contrary to recent monitoring data, conflicts with the NBHCP which protects Swainson’s Hawk population in the Basin, and cannot be supported by the evidence in the EIR biological resources analysis which is inadequate and covers only a small part of the Upper Westside Specific Plan project area.

Recent monitoring data indicate a downward trend in reproduction in the Basin, and as pointed out earlier, the project interferes with the NBHCP which mitigates impacts within the Basin to less than significant for development already approved and permitted in the Basin. That build out is not complete and impacts of full build out of permitted development are not now known.

Even without build out of all the Swainson’s Hawk habitat permitted in the Basin, the species is showing negative impacts. Monitoring data from Natomas Basin Conservancy show that "the number of young produced per occupied territory, per active nest, and per successful nest all now exhibit a statistically significant downward trend over the entire monitoring period (1999-2023. . . ." (p. 4.5, ICF. 2024.

Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report: 2023 Annual Survey Results. July. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF, Sacramento, CA) (ATTACHMENT 6)6.

SWH nesting productivity has dropped over the last decade. “Since the first precipitous drop in 2011, reproductive metrics have exhibited a high degree of annual variation, suggesting instability in the population.” (ICF, ibid., p. 4.5)

"The nesting of the Swainson’s Hawk population in Natomas is concentrated in the project area. “Swainson’s hawks continued to nest primarily in the southern portion and along the far western and northern edges of the Basin in 2023. The nest sites are predominantly located along the Sacramento River and within approximately 1 mile of the river.” (ICF, Ibid., p. 4.5)

The removal of 2,000 acres of foraging habitat from an area directly serving nesting Swainson's Hawks can only further exacerbate that downward trend. The DEIR acknowledges this:

"Conversion of agricultural land to developed/landscaped land in the UWSP area would also potentially result in the loss of nesting territories, displacement of nesting pairs, reduction in reproductive potential, or decreased survival rates, particularly for Swainson’s hawk nesting within 1 mile of the UWSP area, but also for Swainson’s hawk nesting outside of the UWSP area. A telemetry study of Swainson’s hawk nesting in the Natomas Basin found that adult Swainson’s hawk travel distances of up to 6 miles from the nest to forage throughout the breeding season (Fleishman et al. 2016). Plate BR-4 shows suitable Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat within 10 miles of the Natomas Basin. The impact associated with the loss of foraging habitat would be potentially significant." (DEIR pg. 7-58).

Further exacerbating the downward trend is the seemingly arbitrary ten-mile radius for replacement habitat in the proposed mitigation program. Based on the above, ten miles appears too distant for

6 Attachment 6: ICF. 2024. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biological Effectiveness Mon itoring Report:
2023 Annual Survey Results. July. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by ICF, Sacramento, CA).
15 of 36

effective replacement habitat. How was ten miles selected? What is the availability and the quality of foraging habitat within 6 miles of the project area? Isn't six miles the more appropriate radius for assessment of the impact of the project on the foraging habitat available to the nesting pairs in or near the project location?

While the DEIR references the existence of the Natomas Basin Conservancy monitoring surveys of Swainson's Hawk nesting in the Basin, it fails to correctly identify the typical and historical reproductive capacity of these nesting sites. Instead it uses the Bargas surveys in just two recent low nesting success years to identify the number of territories and young fledged (DEIR p. 7-57), an historically low number, limited to only a portion of the plan area. This is an incorrect approach. The environmental document needs to identify the total nesting territories within 6 miles of the project as documented by the NBC over the last decade.

Removal of 2,000 acres of foraging habitat in close proximity to a number of nesting territories is very likely to have a substantial negative impact on reproduction for those nesting territories. The DEIR fails to fully disclose the likely impact and does not mitigate to less than significant.

SWH Mitigation Proposed in the DEIR Is Inadequate and Does Not Mitigate Impacts to Less than Significant:

The proposed mitigation does not identify the requirement that the project obtain a §2081 permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or an explanation for why such permit would not be required. This is an informational deficiency. The project cannot reduce its impacts on Swainson’s Hawks to less than significant absent a §2081 permit from California Department of Fish and Game.

Given the existence of a state and federally approved habitat conservation plan to conserve the Swainson’s Hawk population in the Natomas Basin, and the conflict between the Upper Westside project and this plan, the project is obligated to obtain a §2081 permit to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation is described (DEIR pp. 7-60-61) as:

"BR-7b Compensate for Permanent Impacts on Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Compensation for the permanent loss of foraging habitat shall be determined for each development phase. The applicant for each development phase shall retain a Qualified Biologist to verify, map, and quantify (acres) foraging habitat (including annual grasses and forbs, field crops, grain and hay, partially irrigated crops, and truck crops), that would be permanently impacted by the current development phase.”

“Prior to the approval of either grading permits or building permits, whichever is first, project applicants for each construction phase shall compensate for permanent loss of foraging habitat through the preservation of foraging habitat. This compensatory mitigation shall be at a ratio of at least 1:1 (mitigation habitat to permanently lost habitat). Mitigation sites shall be located outside, and within 10 miles of, the Natomas Basin.”

"This mitigation may be provided through purchase of credits from a CDFW-approved conservation bank, or through protection of habitat, including acquisition of a conservation easement and funding long-term administration, monitoring, and enforcement of the easement”.

16 of 36

“Mitigation provided through acquisition of a conservation easement must satisfy the following requirements”:
 “The mitigation site(s) shall be subject to consultation with CDFW and approved by the County.  “The form and content of the easement shall be acceptable to the County and CDFW, prohibit activities that substantially impair or diminish the land’s suitability as Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat, and protect any existing water rights necessary to maintain foraging habitat in agricultural production.
 “An endowment in an amount, form, and structure acceptable to the County and CDFW shall be established for administering, monitoring, and enforcing the conservation easement."

This mitigation program has a number of severe defects and fails to comply with CEQA:

i) Deferral of mitigation guarantees to a future stage is not consistent with CEQA. The EIR fails to provide sufficient information to indicate that mitigation will be effective. Further, piecemeal determination of mitigation requirements within the proposed Upper Westside project area is not consistent with CEQA or with the basinwide habitat conservation plan that the wildlife agencies have agreed to for the Natomas Basin and have found necessary to avoid significant impacts to protected species.

ii) The DEIR fails to identify suitable, available mitigation land. It appears to rely on unidentified land in Yolo County, but Yolo County Ordinance Chapter 10, “Habitat Mitigation Ordinance” (ATTACHMENT 7)7 requires a discretionary use permit for mitigation projects exceeding 40 acres intended to mitigate for projects occurring outside of Yolo County. Yolo County may or may not approve a Sacramento County mitigation project in Yolo. Reliance on Yolo County for mitigation land is speculative and infeasible unless Yolo County issues a permit for an Upper Westside mitigation project.

iii) The DEIR requires only "consultation" with CDFW on the mitigation site on a development phase by development phase basis. In this critical location, where CDFW has already adopted a basin wide conservation plan, the CDFW must have approval on location as well as the endowment and conservation operator for all mitigation properties. The appropriate way to mitigate in this location is to accomplish an amendment to the NBHCP or to obtain state and federal approval for a separate HCP, as was done by Metro Airpark. Less than that cannot reduce impacts to less than significant.

d) Giant Garter Snake Impacts Not Mitigated to Less than Significant; Mitigation Program Inadequate.

The DEIR identifies a weak and unjustified mitigation program for impacts on the Giant Garter Snake, a federal and state listed threatened species covered by the NBHCP. In particular, the proposed options for a mitigation program outside the Natomas Basin are not compliant with CEQA in that they are speculative, deferred, and inadequate to mitigate for Upper Westside project impacts to the Giant Garter Snake.

The NBHCP defines the conservation strategy for the Giant Garter Snake in the Natomas Basin.

However, the proposed Upper Westside project prohibits mitigation within the Natomas Basin, and states that GGS mitigation shall be somewhere in the American Basin. The American Basin is an historic flood basin running along the east side of the Feather and Sacramento Rivers from Oroville southward

7 Attachment 7: Yolo County Ordinance Chapter 10, “Habitat Mitigation Ordinance” 17 of 36

to the American River, which includes the Natomas Basin. The 2017 USFWS Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, page II-8, shows the majority of known GGS recorded locations as being in Natomas Basin, some of which have not been occupied for some years and some of which have been urbanized and no longer provide habitat.

The proposed mitigation is not consistent with the NBHCP conservation strategy; in fact, it undermines and contradicts the provisions of the NBHCP regarding how additional development in the Basin should mitigate for its impacts. Specifically:

i) the location of mitigation is not identified;
ii) the requirements and availability of suitable conservation management in perpetuity are not identified;
iii) the suitability of the habitat is not specified, including water availability, water chemistry and security of availability;
iv) locating outside the Basin but within the American Basin means locating in an area lacking linked conservation lands already under protection;
v) the mitigation does not support the existing conservation strategy for Giant Garter Snake; vi) piecemeal mitigation is far inferior to a comprehensive conservation strategy; vii) there is no explanation as to how the mitigation supports the Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan; viii) the mitigation plan relies on availability of a CDFW approved Giant Garter Snake mitigation bank in the American Basin which does not exist.

The Giant Garter Snake in the Natomas Basin has suffered decline over the last 25 years of habitat loss, and urban disturbance. The Natomas Basin Conservancy monitoring reports document this problem.

According to the NBC Biological Effectiveness Monitoring (ICF 2023: Figure 3-14) the probability of capture of giant garter snakes in HCP reserves steadily declined from 2011 through 2022. No giant garter snakes have been captured in the Fisherman’s Lake Reserve since 2017 (Ibid., Table 3-10).

The DEIR fails to disclose and address the very real prospect that further development in the Basin could result in the reduction of the range of Giant Garter Snake in the American Basin by precluding options to expand and improve the southern portion (south of I-5) of conserved lands managed for Giant Garter Snake. The DEIR provides no explanation how the mitigation for this project would avert this possibility.

What is needed is strengthening of the habitat values and protections in the Fisherman's Lake preserve area and the connectivity in the Basin. Instead it is more likely that this project will further degrade the Fisherman's Lake preserve area by bringing more people, vehicles and disturbance to the Fisherman's Lake area with its existing GGS habitat preserves. The development likely will preclude the area from ever serving conservation of the Giant Garter Snake, despite millions of dollars of investment in habitat creation and protection by the NBHCP and SAFCA habitat mitigation preserves. The project proponents in this DEIR offer almost nothing to offset this devastating impact on past conservation efforts and the permanent protection of a federally endangered species.

There are nine GGS populations in the Central Valley, in relatively small isolated patches of habitat separated by highly altered landscapes. Studies of genetic differentiation among Central Valley GGS populations have shown significant genetic differentiation between populations of GGS east of the Sacramento River (American, Sutter, and Butte Basins) and the few GGS West of the Sacramento River. The majority of GGS records have been in the Natomas Basin, which has already been impacted by urbanization under the NBHCP and would be further reduced by the Upper Westside project. (Wood, et al, “Defining Population Structure And Genetic Signatures Of Decline In The Giant Gartersnake 18 of 36

(Thamnophis gigas)” Conservation Genetics (April 11, 2015) p. 10 (ATTACHMENT 8)8. There is the real possibility that further reduction of GGS in the American Basin resulting from this project individually, in combination with future development in the Basin authorized under NBHCP, could cumulatively reduce the American Basin GGS population to less than viable, potentially leading to a jeopardy determination by USFWS and CDFW, which would halt development under existing permits in Sutter County and City of Sacramento.

The DEIR fails to consider that the current inadequacy of the Giant Garter Snake protections in the Fisherman's Lake preserve must be understood and corrected before any further disturbance and degradation of the habitat in the area can be permitted.

e) Mitigation Program Is Speculative, Deferred, Unenforceable, Infeasible, Not Compliant with CEQA

The DEIR must demonstrate that the impacts of the project on protected wildlife are mitigated to less than significant. The DEIR presents no evidence to support that finding. The mitigation program described for impacted species does not meet the requirements of CEQA:

i) it fails to commit to any deadlines for compliance with mitigation requirements; there is no correlation between destruction of habitat and actual acquisition or protection of compensatory habitat. Mitigation must be acquired and protection guaranteed before the habitat is removed, which is currently a requirement of the NBHCP.
ii) it fails to identify the amount of habitat to be removed and the amount of habitat to be conserved to mitigate for that loss. The public and wildlife agencies have not had the opportunity to assess whether the amount of mitigation land would be adequate to compensate for the loss because it is not disclosed.
iii) it fails to identify where mitigation will be achieved, with what guarantees that the habitat is occupied by GGS and capable of sustaining a GGS population in perpetuity. The 2017 Giant Garter Snake Recovery Plan, pg II-8, shows the preponderance of GGS sightings in the American Basin to be in the Natomas Basin. No conservation planning has been done in the rest of the American Basin. GGS planning has been ongoing in the Natomas Basin for almost 30 years under the NBHCP, and the species is declining. The project adds to the factors leading to decline and does nothing to strengthen and bolster conservation efforts where it counts, in the Natomas Basin. iv) it defers ultimate mitigation commitments to a potential future permit process with the wildlife agencies, outside the CEQA process and at an open-ended unspecified future date. Instead, the project should have created its mitigation program in consultation with the wildlife agencies and included it in the CEQA document for public review and comment.

The DEIR says that mitigation options for Giant Garter Snake include purchase of credits from a CDFW- and USFWS-approved conservation bank but no such bank exists in the American Basin Recovery Unit; i) mitigation options for Giant Garter Snake include payment to an “existing in-lieu fee program” which does not exist; an in-lieu fee program is not a guarantee for habitat protection at the specified mitigation ratios of 1 to 1 or, for rice field mitigation, 2 to 1, and does not meet the requirements of CEQA that mitigation be fully enforceable and feasible. Fees are not habitat conserved.

8 Attachment 8: Wood, et al, “Defining Population Structure And Genetic Signatures Of Decline In The Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas)” Conservation Genetics (April 11, 2015) 19 of 36

ii) mitigation options for Giant Garter Snake include "Creation, restoration, or enhancement, and preservation and management of suitable aquatic and associated upland habitat for giant garter snake" by a non-existent entity.
iii) mitigation options for Giant Garter Snake include "Preservation and management of existing giant garter snake habitat through acquisition of fee-title or a conservation easement and funding for long-term management of giant garter snake habitat at a site" by a non-existent entity.

This piecemeal mitigation program is inappropriate due to the designation of the entire basin as part of a multispecies state and federal habitat conservation plan in which all the agricultural land in the basin is designated as habitat due to unique and historical factors underlying species occupancy.

A project by project mitigation assessment and mitigation program – as described in the DEIR -- is entirely inappropriate for a specific plan that will enable development in an area supporting threatened species through a multi species conservation plan.

The NBHCP relies on an interconnected reserve system within an agricultural landscape. Please refer to the biological opinions referred to above. The DEIR mitigation program disregards this critical context and proposes both out of basin mitigation that is not guaranteed to be available and species by species mitigation measures that are not consistent with the state and federal requirements for multispecies conservation planning to protect wildlife in the Natomas Basin.

Refer to FIGURE 1 (above). This map shows the Upper Westside project and the two other proposed projects, all outside USB; Source: ECOS. This map also shows the mitigation properties (green squiggles) in the Natomas Basin, forming an interconnected system of wildlife preserves managed via agreements with the state and federal wildlife agency permits. It also shows the Permitted development areas (hatched).

4) Other impacts that Should be Classified as Significant and Unavoidable

Impacts to biological resources and geology should be classified as “significant and unavoidable” in the DEIR.

Instead the DEIR minimizes the irreparable impact that the Upper Westside project would have on them.

20 of 36

5) Significant Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to Less than Significant

ECOS finds it disturbing that there are so many significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Upper Westside Project that CANNOT be mitigated. Aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, and transportation all matter to the quality of the environment and our quality of life.

ECOS believes there are other impacts as well, including biological resources, the impact on the Natomas Basin Conservancy, and of course, cumulative impacts of developing over 8,000 acres of prime farmland, if Upper Westside, Airport South Industrial, and Grand Park go forward.

a) Aesthetics
To the residents of Sacramento, being close to and seeing farmland, migrating birds, habitat and open space is one of our area's most cherished traits. Sacramentans list open space as the top reason they like living here.

“Natural spaces, trails, and community assets make the Sacramento region special. In the 2023 poll (and the polls dating back to 2017), people most value the natural places in our region, including parks, trails, waterfronts, and open space.” — 2023 Valley Vision Livability Poll

Many residents of the Natomas Basin live in Natomas because they value seeing fields of sun flowers, rows of corn and pumpkin patches. They like walking in open spaces where they can see migrating birds.

They also appreciate the local farm stands which sell local produce. Aesthetics are important to many in the Natomas community.

b) Agricultural Resources
The loss of agricultural land in the “Farm to Fork Capital” is ironic. Once farmland is lost, it’s lost for good. Agricultural land is so important to the area’s economy, and the world. When you are lucky enough to have the combination of good soil, water and weather, you have a role to preserve that land and produce food to a world struggling with hunger. Other areas have faced crop failure and famine due to drought, floods, war and climate change. We’d also lose the opportunity to sequester carbon, recharge ground water, and cool the climate.

Role of Locally Important Farmland. [Page 5-21] There are 429 acres of farmland of local importance in the project area. The analysis needs to clearly state that farmland of local importance as defined by and for Sacramento County, includes agricultural land that is no longer irrigated that would otherwise be included prime or statewide in significance if it were irrigated. [get proper wording from Conservation Dept]

Inconsistency with Policy AG-2. [Page 5-19] The Project is inconsistent with Policy AG-2 pertaining to the acceptance of applications outside the USB which would develop on prime ag lands. The County has already violated this policy by accepting the application for this project. One could argue that the whole process of approving this project, including this EIR, has been inconsistent with County policy from the get-go.

Agricultural Buffer Adequacy. [Page 5-19] The project would designate an agricultural buffer to the west of the developed area. There are several problems with this designation:

21 of 36

i) Despite the inclusion of a 30-50-foot open space strip, (a buffer for the buffer), a hedgerow and a fence, the buffer between development and the agricultural buffer will not eliminate noise, pesticide application and other impacts on neighbors and the resultant pressure for limitations on agricultural operations in the agricultural buffer.
ii) There is nothing in the DEIR suggesting that adequate maintenance of the buffer for the buffer be required and funded.
iii) None of the parcels included in that buffer are owned by the applicants, and it cannot be assumed that the owners of the buffer parcels will support that designation in the long term. Project development will inflate land prices in the agricultural buffer and lead to requests for residential development. Countless examples from around the country attest to the fact that this is inevitable rather than speculative.
iv) The only guarantee of permanent protection of the agricultural buffer from more intensive development is to acquire permanent agricultural easements for the buffer parcels. Even if the project is approved with such a condition, it is likely that the project developers will request its subsequent removal, claiming that the buffer landowners were not willing to sell the easements. In the interest of a complete and acceptable DEIR, easement mitigation and its limitations should be included in the analysis.

The DEIR notes that the proposed mitigation measure to acquire in-kind agricultural resource protection at a 1:1 ratio does not adequately mitigate the loss of quality farmland. The measure would be significantly strengthened by requiring mitigation within the Natomas Basin, mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio, and more specificity at what point in the approval process mitigation will be determined to be adequate. Moreover, given the County’s own definition of farmland of local importance, the mitigation should not allow the County to set aside the requirement for farmland of local importance.

Removal of this farmland also increases the likelihood that the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) will fail. The NBHCP is designed to promote the continuation of agriculture within the 53,341- acre Natomas Basin, and the development of the ASIP acreage would increase the likelihood of failure for NBHCP’s strategy to limit development in the basin. (See discussion of NBHCP impacts).

c) Air Quality
Sacramento has long been challenged with poor air quality due to our geography, climate, and auto- centric design. Despite those challenges, we must meet federal requirements or face the loss of federal funding. The cost here is too great to ignore.

i) The DEIR finds a significant and unavoidable conflict with state and federally adopted regional clean air plans but fails to explain the consequences for the County and the Sacramento region, particularly with respect to loss of federal funding for lack of compliance with the Clean Air Act’s conformity clause.
ii) (p. 15) The statement is made, under "Local Air Quality Monitoring", that the Woodland-Gibson Road monitoring site is the closest to the project site, at approximately 10 miles. This is not correct as the SMAQMD Bercut Drive monitoring station, which records NO2, is only about 3 miles from the center of the project. Correspondingly, the CARB 13th & T Street monitoring station is approximately 4 miles from the center of the project and is much closer than the Davis-UCD Campus station referenced in the Analysis. These errors should be corrected and Table 4 (Air Quality Data Summary) should be revised accordingly.
iii) In February, US EPA tightened the PM2.5 air quality standard nationwide (from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter), which means that our region is no longer in attainment of this federally mandated 22 of 36

standard. SMAQMD will need to come up with a new attainment plan, which would be made more difficult by U WS development.
iv) (p.63) "Full buildout of the project area would include operations of fast-food and sit-down restaurants...". The analysis fails to identify charbroilers in fast-food restaurants as significant sources of condensable PM2.5. The DEIR needs to be expanded to quantify anticipated PM2.5 emissions and impacts from these charbroilers.
v) The DEIR fails to include analyses of battery storage units as mitigation for operation of standby electrical generators, and of afterburners as controls for PM2.5 on fast-food charbroilers.

d) Noise
Upper Westside Specific Plan DEIR Comment draft, Noise Element (Section 15) excessively relies on deferred and speculative mitigation measures that basically require future project applicants to perform studies regarding what can be accomplished. This may make sense when individual applicants come before the County, but when over 1500 acres will include numerous, large projects and their components to be built over decades, in unknown configurations, over existing conditions that will vary from year to year, deferred and speculative global mitigation measures for the entire Upper Westside project do not serve the goals of the County as set forth in its General Plan Noise Element on page 9.

The establishment of a school stadium, hospitals, or new roadways, for instance, will increase the noise levels at existing surrounding properties and affect their desirability or market value, lessening the economic value of the Upper Westside project itself.

When environmental impacts are significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires identifying a “range of alternatives” as necessary to permit a reasoned choice and sets forth some broad parameters regarding these alternatives. The EIR must include “feasible” alternatives that foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.

The General Plan establishes that setbacks and site design can be primary mitigation measures.

Accepting deferred and speculative mitigation measures lessens the ability of the County to adhere to its own goals and violates CEQA.

The DEIR doesn’t establish any alternatives for significant or potentially significant noise, and instead it relies on the results of studies to be conducted in the future, and fails under CEQA by doing so. Specific instances of deferred and speculative noise mitigation measures in the DEIR are as follows:

i) NOI-1, general construction noise. Project applicants for any new construction must prepare a Master Construction Noise Reduction Plan that limits daytime construction noise to 10 dBA or less over existing ambient noise in noise-sensitive land areas.

The Master Plan shall consider as mitigation measures scheduling limitations, site perimeter barriers of specific materials, best equipment placement, equipment noise local barriers, temporary power sources, exhaust mufflers, restricting truck idling, locating loud construction tools (such as pile driving) away from property lines, using alternative methods of pile driving, and creating a noise liaison and construction noise notification system for residents within 500 feet. Other measures may be needed; for example, large scale construction may need to be curtailed to reduce noise impacts to less than significant.

23 of 36

These measures are potentially noise controlling, but as stated there is no guarantee what specific measures will accomplish, nor whether they are practically feasible and economical.

It is difficult to understand why this overarching measure is considered mitigated to less than significant. It is a “plan to plan” to mitigate, not a mitigation plan. The County must create a real plan for noise mitigation or admit in the DEIR that impacts from noise are significant both during construction and for the project in operation.

ii) NOI-3, increased traffic noise at existing sensitive receptors. The DEIR finds this noise significant and unavoidable. In an attempt to reduce noise, a study is required examining feasible traffic speed reductions and the value of noise barriers. The DEIR admits that lowering vehicle speed would require collaboration with Sacramento County DOT and may not be useful, and that noise barriers are cost prohibitive.

It also requires laying down rubberized asphalt. The Federal Highway Administration, as admitted by the DEIR, does not recognize special wearing roadways because they wear down with use and their noise reducing properties degrade. Given the scale of contemplated increased traffic and noise, the ineffectiveness of the two potential mitigation measures is not acceptable. Other alternatives should be identified and considered.

iii) NOI-4, increased stationary noise from plan components at existing receptors.

The DEIR adequately addresses noise impacts from HVAC equipment, car washes, parking lots, and delivery docks. It inadequately addresses noise impacts from school parking lots, high school sports fields and stadiums, and a pavilion area in a proposed park. The DEIR requires acoustical studies before building any of these components and defers to controls that will later be adopted. This is speculative and deferred.

Importantly, the DEIR indicates that nighttime crowds at local stadiums will create significant noise.

The DEIR incorrectly identifies the maximum nighttime noise permitted under the GP. The level is 50 dB/70 dB, not 55 dB/75 dB. Mitigating to a level below 50/70 dB is more difficult than mitigating to 55/75 dB. Desirable noise limits are 30 dB or less; this extends dissipation to 600 feet from the sound source.

The DEIR does not cite the decibel level of a school stadium. The average level is about 95 dBA, with maximums over 115 dBA. If this is considered a large stationary source of noise and not a line source, the noise dissipates 6 decibels every 50 feet. A level of 95 dB will dissipate to 50 dB at approximately 500 feet. This can only be reasonably achieved by locating the stadium and its parking lot over 500 feet away from a noise sensitive receptor, such as a residence. The DEIR does not address whether this reasonable alternative is feasible or not.

The DEIR also identifies amplified events at a proposed park pavilion and analyzes the impact to be the same as that of a stadium. It also would have a significant and unavoidable impact.

iv) NOI-7, increase in stationary noise from plan components at proposed sensitive receptors including NOI-7a, commercial parking noise; NOI-7b, truck delivery noise; NOI-7c, commercial HVAC. These noise sources are identified as potentially significant. The DEIR requires an acoustical study to identify noise controls that would mitigate parking noise. It identifies a distance barrier between truck delivery unloading areas and residential boundaries, but if this is not possible, then the noise 24 of 36

shall be mitigated by reliance on a noise impact study. Noise from other commercial noises is to be mitigated by ensuring applicants use equipment that conforms to General Plan limits, but also requires an acoustical study to evaluate potential noise generated by mechanical equipment.

Studies do not mitigate environmental impacts. This is not a mitigation plan.

Other types of stationary noise include: NOI-7d, employment highway parking noise; NOI-7e, truck delivery noise along employment highways; NOI-7f drive through restaurant noise; NOI-7g, car wash; NOI-7h, school parking noise; NOI-7i, school playground noise; NOI-7j, sports school stadium noise; NOI-7k, park activity noise. An acoustical study is all that is initially required to mitigate noise along employment highways near existing noise-sensitive receptors. Truck delivery unloading areas that cannot be located 150 feet from residential areas must be mitigated by a noise impact study.

HVAC noise along employment highways is mitigated just as with HVAC and other mechanical noise along commercial highways, i.e., by distance barriers and an acoustical study as part of subsequent application review.

These are deferred measures that can only be speculated to mitigate these noise sources. Studies do not mitigate environmental impacts.

Drive through restaurants will either be located beyond a distance barrier, or an acoustical study will be prepared to evaluate available noise controls. Car wash noise must be addressed by acoustical study to identify feasible noise controls. Similarly, school parking noise will be addressed by an acoustical study identifying noise controls such as distance barriers. School playground noise will be mitigated by setbacks.

As in mitigation identified under NOI-4b, school stadium noise is potentially significant and unavoidable, but noise controls must be identified. Again, applicants must submit acoustical studies.

Acoustical studies or something similar will be used to mitigate in seven of the above potentially significant, and significant and unavoidable noise levels. Studying everything is laudable, but these studies are likely to be flawed given the deferred and speculative nature of these components.

e) Population and Housing
Policies and a plan to ensure build-out of affordable housing and “missing middle housing” are not included in the DEIR. They are deferred to the release of a separate Affordable Housing Strategy. By contrast, the DEIR (pg. 2-28) identifies the mega-houses on Leona Circle, like the one shown in the photo below, as prototypes for the project’s 1-acre lots.
.

f) Transportation - There is no transit to the proposed project area at this time. Refer to the 350 Sacramento’s comment letter.

25 of 36

6) Cumulative Setting inadequately described/disclosed/analyzed

Chapter 4.0, Introduction to the Analysis, Page 4.0-4 states:

"the cumulative setting for the proposed project is generally considered to be a summary of projections contained in the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan and the Sacramento County General Plan."

The cumulative setting is not fully disclosed. It is not clear what is included.

It should include the proposed Airport South Industrial and Grand Park projects in Unincorporated Sacramento County in the Natomas Basin.

It should include the traffic impacts of semi-trucks that will use I-5 and its side roads by the truck charging stations at the Watt EV project and the Airport South Industrial warehouse project. When traffic is backed up on I-5, overflow traffic will divert to El Centro Rd.

It should include the buildout of South Sutter County, the Sutter Pointe Specific Plan, which has been approved and has permits from US Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

It is essential to disclose and evaluate cumulative impacts to the Natomas Basin, including to the NBHCP, as well as impacts to agriculture, air quality, transportation, traffic congestion, flooding, evacuation plans, and wildlife habitat.

26 of 36

7) Geology, Soils, and Paleontology Impacts and Mitigation

Impacts were inadequately assessed. Impact evaluation and mitigation plans are deferred to future individual projects.

a) “Less than significant” classifications for impacts relating to seismic-related ground failure, soil erosion, unstable soil, and expansive soils are contingent upon site evaluations that have not yet been conducted. Impacts GEO-1–5 are classified as “less than significant” with the condition that construction requires compliance with the California Building Code (CBC), the County code, and the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Additionally, impact GEO-6 indicates that a classification of “potentially significant” impacts relating to paleontological resources would be reduced to “less than significant” impacts based on the involvement of a project paleontologist. Deferred evaluation of the condition of sites and the necessary protocols that would be necessary to ensure code-compliant construction may significantly impact project affordability and regional impacts on the land.

b) The Upper Westside development would likely cause subsidence of the project area and exacerbate risks for natural hazards like flooding. The weight load of construction can have significant impacts on subsidence of an area. A recent study9 demonstrates consistently higher rates and amounts of subsidence in areas where the ground has been loaded by urban development. Considering the proposed project area has experienced “moderate to high land subsidence in the past,” (DEIR, 11-15) and considering that area consists largely of expansive soils that shrink and expand dynamically, then development-related subsidence should be expected. In addition to the structural hazards that progressive subsidence poses, further depression of the already low-lying land would increase the intensity and range of flooding in and surrounding the proposed project area.

The EIR must establish standards and protocols to ensure that Upper Westside project designs will fully mitigate the increased subsidence and flooding that construction will cause in the region. Additionally, the EIR should ensure that project proposals evaluate their contribution to regional subsidence and flooding and ensure that existing structures in the surrounding areas will not be compromised as a result of new construction-related subsidence.

c) Questions about construction design costs and doubts surrounding project buildout:

While safe, code-compliant designs would certainly mitigate the risks that the proposed project area’s natural structure poses for construction, the selected method of risk-aversion/preparedness may significantly alter the land itself. Additionally, these methods may be incredibly costly, as the soil type, flood plain status, and proximity to the Hunting Creek-Berryessa fault system would require significant safety precautions in design. How costly would development of CBC- and County-compliant structures be, compared to development in already zoned vacant land within the USB? How do these costs affect the affordability of the housing constructed? Is it financially feasible to construct this infrastructure on a phase by phase basis? Typically, infrastructure is financed over the plan area to reduce individual project costs and to achieve economies of scale.

9 Bateson, L., Novellino, A., Hussain, E., Arnhardt, R., Nguyen, H.K., 2023. Urban development induced subsid ence in deltaic environments: A case study in Hanoi, Vietnam. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 125.

27 of 36

8) Lack of Water Supply Assessment

The UWSP DEIR does not include the required water supply assessment (WSA) and, instead, requests the approval of a WSA for the 1,532-acre Development Area as an entitlement. Without the WSA, the DEIR fails to prove that the City accounted for the Project’s water demands and will provide for the area’s water needs. The EIR’s request for entitlement of a WSA, combined with the claim that the City’s urban water management plan (UWMP) accounted for the Project’s water demand, as made by the applicant’s legal counsel, is misleading and confusing. Moreover, this deferred compliance with CEQA requirements avoids providing information to the public and decision makers.

Please refer to Attorney Patrick Soluri’s comments on the DEIR’s failure to include a lawful WSA.

9) Water Management and Drainage Capacity

The cumulative analysis of the drainage impacts presumes that all potential projects will be required to have sufficient detention capacity to eliminate “down-drainage” impacts and, given that, concludes that the cumulative impacts with respect to drainage issues would be less than significant (pg 22-42). But questions remain:

a) Would the stormwater drainage for other developments in the drainage basin be routed to the same pump station that pumps drainage water into the Sacramento River as that proposed for the Upper Westside project?

b) In the area of the proposed Upper Westside project, are the drainage systems/basins designed to hold all the water from a 200-year event without any pumping into the Sacramento River? And for how many days? What about a 500-year event?

c) Are other existing and planned development’s drainage systems designed to hold all water from a 200- year event without pumping into the Sacramento River? A 500-year event?

d) What if the pumps that pump water over the levee into the Sacramento River fail, or enough of those pumps fail, so that the ability to pump water out of the basin into the Sacramento River is substantially limited for an x amount of time? What if the Sacramento River is running too high to allow pumping water out of the Natomas Basin into the River?

e) The build-out plan for Upper Westside is phased. Logically, and for safety, the water management and drainage infrastructure for the entire project should be built during the first phase. It cannot be piece- mealed as different land owners decide to join the project. There are accumulating risks to the residents of the Natomas Basin as increasing amounts of open space are paved. The area of Upper Westside is important for holding run off and for water recharge in the Natomas Basin. Levees and drainage systems have the potential to fail, and that potential increases with the increasing impacts of climate change and extreme weather. Adding 25,000 more residents and acres of pavement to a floodplain is an increasingly risky proposition.

28 of 36

10) Public Services

Questions remain over who will provide emergency services, police, fire, medical as well as park maintenance and recreation programs. As build out is proposed to occur over a long period of time, how will these services be provided and how will infrastructure be built out?

a) Police Protection
DEIR states that the Sacramento County Sheriff will service the project area, but all reports from Garden Highway and area residents are that response time is very slow or nonexistent, even for serious traffic accidents. This area is far removed from the majority of unincorporated population of North Highlands and Foothill Farms that are served by the North quadrant, and sheriffs are rarely seen west of the City limits. The County must identify its plan and funding source for service to a new community of 25,000.

b) Fire Protection
If fire and emergency medical response is planned to be provided by the City of Sacramento under contract with the Natomas Fire Protection District, please identify the funding source and evidence that the city of Sacramento will not be subsidizing another unincorporated area of 25,000 and reducing services to city residents and businesses. Mutual aid requirements would require city response to police and fire in a community outside the city limits. The County must demonstrate that the City of Sacramento has agreed to provide fire and emergency medical services to the Upper Westside project area.

c) Public Schools
A representative of the Natomas Unified School District which includes this area, stated at the October 21, 2024 County Planning Commission meeting, that the funds generated by the project are inadequate to build the schools specified within the Upper Westside project plan. The County must explain how educational facilities will be funded for construction, operation, and maintenance.

d) Parks and Recreation
DEIR states that there is no park district serving the Upper Westside project area, and the Sacramento County Regional Parks department does not build or maintain local parks as shown in the Upper Westside plan.

Parks are identified and touted in the Upper Westside plan but no information about who will build these parks and how they will be maintained is provided. The County must identify what entity will build the parks, who will maintain them, manage recreation programs, and how they will be funded.

The DEIR identifies the benefits of the nearby Sacramento River Parkway, however, it only exists on paper in this area. The access and trails run from Discovery Park to south Sacramento. Given the Upper Westside project’s plans for 25,000 more residents, a significant contribution to extend the Parkway would be appropriate. The County must state what the contribution of the Upper Westside project will be to the Sacramento River Parkway.

11) Inconsistency with City General Plan

The proposed Upper Westside project would rely on the City of Sacramento for water and sewer services, despite its location in Sacramento County. This contradicts the City’s General Plan’s policies.

29 of 36

12) Inconsistency with County General Plan

Items in the DEIR that conflict with the County General Plan include:

a) Agricultural Land Use - The Land Use Diagram (map), FIGURE 4 below, of the County’s General Plan, updated in 2017, shows agricultural use at the proposed project site.

b) Urban Services Boundary
- The proposed project
would change the USB
which was established in
the Land Use Element of
the County’s General
Plan, updated as recently
as 2022, as “the ultimate
boundary of the urban
area.”

c) Requirements for
changing the USB - The
requirements of County’s
General Plan Policy LU-
127 are not addressed.

Refer to Section 2
Sacramento County
Urban Services Boundary
of this letter.

d) Agricultural land
protection policies are
not adhered to.

e) Housing - The County’s
General Plan calls for
affordable housing, the
DEIR merely provides for developing a strategy for affordable housing.

f) Noise - See d) Noise in Section 6, Significant Impacts that Cannot Be Mitigated to Less than Significant, of this letter.

See letter from Attorney Patrick Soluri for additional comments.

30 of 36

13) Inconsistency with Regional Planning for Growth

The proposed Upper Westside project is inconsistent with SACOG’s current Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) and the selected land use scenario of the draft 2025 Blueprint, as well as the Air Quality Plan.

Inconsistencies with SACOG’s draft 2025 Blueprint:

On November 4, 2020, SACOG commented on the Notice of Preparation of the Upper Westside DEIR, stating “implementation of the Blueprint vision depends greatly on the efforts of cities and counties through local plans and projects. . . [and] the Upper Westside project and the project area itself are not anticipated for development in either the MTP/SCS or the Blueprint.”

This is still true today. SACOG’s selected land use scenario for the draft 2025 Blueprint, dated April 2024, does not include the Upper Westside, or the other proposed developments in the Natomas Basin, the Airport South Industrial and Grand Park projects. The 2025 Blueprint projects no housing units built for the three projects between now and 2050, as shown in FIGURE 5 below.

FIGURE 5: Excerpt from SACOG’s Attachment A, Discussion Land Use Scenario, April 2024 Source: SACOG https://www.sacog.org/planning/2025-blueprint/blueprint-land-use

31 of 36

In November of 2020, SACOG went on to say “The Upper Westside project . . . raises important policy questions for the region’s implementation of the Blueprint. For example, the capacity for growth in existing entitled lands far exceeds expected demand over the next twenty years: collectively, the region’s jurisdictions have entitled, or are in the process of entitling 2.5 times the region’s projected need for the next 20 years. More than half of that capacity—387,000 units—is in greenfield areas that are on the edge of existing development.”

This means there is far more entitled acreage for new homes than the market will bear. The EIR needs to disclose the excess capacity of housing units in Sacramento region and in Sacramento County.

For Sacramento County, the draft 2025 Blueprint does include six developments on greenfield sites with a total capacity of nearly 37,000 housing units. These units are already part of the County’s general plan and are either under construction or in planning/design.

Between now and 2050, only 11,600 housing units are projected to be built. And using the rate of build-out projected for the 2020-2050 period, none of these developments will fully build out by 2050. One development may complete in 2066, and two may in 2079. The remaining three won’t fully build out until the next century.

There is no housing need for Upper Westside.

Refer to FIGURE 6 below.

32 of 36

14) Growth Inducement and Urban Decay

DEIR Chapter 23 provides an analysis of growth inducing impacts. The analysis must include the most significant growth inducing impact, that is, the increase in the value of the land in the Natomas Basin.

Increased land values will encourage speculation on agricultural land by development interests, and make it more difficult for the Natomas Basin Conservancy to afford mitigation land (acquire the necessary conservation easements to meet the requirements of the NBHCP.)

The DEIR minimizes the impact that the Upper Westside project would have on growth inducement within and around the project area, stating that, “as the USB and UPA would not be extended to include the adjacent 534-acre Ag Buffer, the pressure to develop properties to the west of the development area would be reduced as any future development in this area would need to show consistency with General Plan Policy LU-120 and seek discretionary approval from the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.” (DEIR 23-2).

In this statement, the DEIR does not acknowledge the precedent-setting nature of the approval of the Upper Westside on the other two proposed developments -- Grand Park and Airport South Industrial – and related increases to land values and alterations to the USB and UPA, prompting more property owners in the Sacramento portion of the Natomas Basin to seek plan and zoning changes to allow conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. Upper Westside would provide the precedent, rationale, and justification for the approval of subsequent projects that convert agricultural land to urban uses. The DEIR avoids identifying and analyzing this impact.

33 of 36

15) Alternatives Analysis is Misleading and Deficient

The critical point of the alternatives analysis is whether there is an alternative location within Sacramento County jurisdiction that could accommodate the project and that would have reduced significant impacts.

The alternatives analysis in the DEIR does not adequately address this question by improperly eliminating unincorporated areas of the County that are suitable for similarly scaled development.

There are two major flaws in the Analysis of Project Alternatives:

First, the project objectives are designed to rule out alternative sites that don’t meet the objectives – there are 18 very specific project objectives, at least two of which are specific to the project’s location:

• Objective 5: Provide residential housing within five miles of the existing job centers of downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, as well as in close proximity to newly developing or proposed job centers.
• Objective 10: Make efficient use of development opportunity as the project site is bordered on three sides by existing or planned urban development.

These objectives are self-serving. Taken together, they rule out any other area of suitable size that would meet those objectives.

Second, the document argues that “the applicants only control 292 acres of the UWSP area and an offsite alternative would not be feasible as the project applicants do not control any other properties within Sacramento County.” This is another completely self-serving objective. Whether the applicant controls other lands that would afford a suitable alternative site is irrelevant. In addition, the “project applicants” only control 14 percent of the project area, and so it is difficult to see how the DEIR can rely on this factor to exclude consideration of offsite alternatives.

The alternative analysis does briefly address the possibility of alternative sites within the County that could accommodate a new planned community, but in a limited way, and only with respect to northwest Sacramento County:

“…while other large vacant properties located adjacent to the City of Sacramento in northwest Sacramento County could feasibly achieve many of the project objectives, those lands are not available as planning applications for these lands have already been filed with the City of Sacramento and with the County of Sacramento. Furthermore, while other large vacant properties are available in other portions of the county that could feasibly achieve many of the project objectives, none are located along a major transportation corridor within proximity of existing job centers in downtown Sacramento and West Sacramento, as well as near newly developing or proposed job centers, which is an objective of the proposed UWSP.” [DEIR, pages 3-4,5]

The only reference to other alternative sites in the County that could accommodate a new planned community is in the context of the California State CEQA Guidelines, and the need for addressing them is blithely dismissed without substantive evidence:

“Only those locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered. If no feasible alternative locations exist, the agency must disclose the reasons for this 34 of 36

conclusion. (Section 15126.6[f][2][B].) In this case, alternative sites would entail either the same or new significant environmental effects as those that would occur within the UWSP area. For example, development of the proposed UWSP on any suitable alternative site in or around the County may not avoid or substantially lessen the project’s air quality or greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts, as those impacts would occur no matter where the development is located and could be worse if located farther away from a major transportation corridor or in areas with existing unacceptable traffic levels. Moreover, an alternative site that is not adjacent to already developed lands would likely result in greater aesthetic and utilities impacts than those that would occur within the UWSP area.” [DEIR, page 3-4]

The County is considering three large new community development projects along the Jackson Highway Corridor. Although they may have greater air quality or greenhouse gas impacts, there are other areas of impact that would be reduced: they are within the planned growth area and would be less growth inducing, they are more consistent with existing County and regional plans, they do not involve prime agricultural land loss, they would not adversely impact a Habitat Conservation Plan, and they are in an area with likely fewer archaeological resources. A comparison of these impacts needs to be provided in the alternatives analysis for this project

Relevant CEQA Requirements:

• (f) Rule of reason. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason" that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.
• (1) Feasibility. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; see Save Our Residential Environment v. City of West Hollywood (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1745, 1753, fn. 1).

• (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6 (Lexis Advance through Register 2024, No. 37, September 13, 2024).)

The Alternatives Analysis has been closely linked to the self-serving objectives of the project, objectives that are designed to exclude all other alternatives. The section should have been written from the perspective of significant impacts that cannot be mitigated - and how alternative sites would have fewer significant impacts.

Refer also to Attorney Patrick Soluri’s comment letter on this topic.

35 of 36

16) Upper Westside conflicts with State Environmental Initiative

Inconsistency with Nature Based Solutions. Nature-based solutions (NBS) is a California State program established to harness the power of nature to build California’s resilience to future climate-driven extremes, protect communities from the climate crisis, and remove carbon from our atmosphere. California State leaders recognize that expanding NBS is essential to meeting California’s core climate goals.

In October 2020, Governor Newsom issued the Nature-Based Solutions Executive Order N-82-20, advancing biodiversity conservation as an administration priority and elevating the role of nature in the fight against climate change. As part of this Executive Order, California committed to the goal of conserving 30 percent of our lands and coastal waters by 2030. The initiative is called 30x30.

The Sierra Club has identified four land areas which are critical to accomplishing our Sacramento region’s contribution to 30x30. The Natomas Basin is one of these areas.

The Sacramento Region has only conserved seven percent of its land and must conserve an additional 900,000+ acres to meet State planning goals. We are far behind other major metropolitan areas in California. For example, the Bay Area is near thirty percent. The conservation of accessible open lands, and specifically the conservation of lands in Natomas, would readily expand the total protected areas in the Sacramento Region to 19%.

Development of farmland in Natomas removes a key opportunity in Sacramento County to conserve natural and working lands to fulfill this commitment.

The area on which the Upper Westside is proposed is predominantly in agriculture that also serves as habitat for endangered species and a vital ecosystem for carbon sequestration. Development of this land would further encourage speculation of adjacent open lands for development, move us ever further from achieving State goals. The impact related to the goals of 30x30 is not addressed in the DEIR.

36 of 36

17) Attachments

Attachment 1: 1994 Permit Number 199200719 U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT.SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922

Attachment 2: March 11, 1994, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act Consultation on the Revised Natomas Area Flood Control Improvement Project (PN 199200719) in Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California

Attachment 3: 2003 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT FOR THE NATOMAS BASIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

Attachment 4: June 24, 2003 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Intra-Service Biological and Conference 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.

Attachment 5: National Wildlife Federation v. Norton, Civ-S-04-0579 DFL JFM (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2005)

Attachment 6: ICF. 2024. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan Area Biological Effectiveness Monitoring Report: 2023 Annual Survey Results. July. Prepared for the Natomas Basin Conservancy, Sacramento, CA.

Prepared by ICF, Sacramento, CA).

Attachment 7: Yolo County Ordinance Chapter 10, “Habitat Mitigation Ordinance”

Attachment 8: Wood, et al, “Defining Population Structure And Genetic Signatures Of Decline In The Giant Gartersnake (Thamnophis gigas)” Conservation Genetics (April 11, 2015)

From: [email protected]
To: Clerk of the Board Public Email
Cc: SupervisorSerna
Subject: Upper Westside Development
Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 10:42:06 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL: If unknown sender, do not click links/attachments.

If you have concerns about this email, please report it via the Phish Alert button.

October 21, 2024
To: Sacramento County Planning Commissioners ([email protected]) From: Christine Olsen, Garden Highway, Sacramento County Subject: Upper Westside Development Plan
Hundreds of Sacramento residents, interest groups, experts, and government agencies have come together repeatedly, over many years, and spent thousands of hours in workshops and hearings to tell the County we don’t want sprawl. We want planned growth that makes life better for everyone. The Upper Westside development is urban sprawl.

Sacramento County’s 2030 General Plan was designed to promote the efficient use of land, encourage economic vitality and reduce urban sprawl and its impacts, preserve habitat and open space, and protect local farming. The Urban Services Boundary was intended to implement that vision and promote orderly growth within the County. The Upper Westside project unnecessarily violates those County plans as well as the Urban Policy Area, County zoning and other County codes, SACOG’s Blueprint for regional development, and agreed upon habit conservation plans.

On behalf of all the Sacramento County residents who worked to ensure the countywide benefits of planned growth, you are urged to pause consideration of any projects outside the Urban Services Boundary and hold public hearings on whether the Urban Services Boundary should be expanded. If one project is approved beyond the Urban Services Boundary, other developments will surely follow, and the Urban Services Boundary will no longer function as intended to preserve open space, habitat and prime farmland, or to encourage infill development. Changing the Urban Services Boundary will have irreparable negative impacts on the County’s environment, and on Sacramento County residents far beyond the Upper Westside project.

Getting planning right ensures a community we love to live in and a community that works for everyone. The Upper Westside project is the spawl we all want to avoid. The County made a commitment to the people of Sacramento that the County would not expand the Urban Service Boundary unless there was inadequate vacant land within the USB to accommodate the demand for urban uses. There is, today, more than ample land within the Urban Services Boundary for the number of housing units and the amount of commercial space the Upper Westside Project proposes.

Allowing development outside the Urban Services Boundary harms the Sacramento community outside and inside the Urban Services Boundary. An important achievement of infill development is that it not only advantages residents inside the new development, it adds vitality and benefits to the nearby community, maximizes the cost-efficiency of urban services such as transit, and reduces environmental impacts associated with urban sprawl.

The Upper Westside applicant may have no interest in infill development and that is their prerogative, but their proposed project outside the Urban Services Boundary is unnecessary and harmful far beyond the project area.

If the County does permit development outside the Urban Services Boundary, please at least protect a minimum one-mile-wide river corridor. River corridors are unique and highly 32 valued by Sacramentans for recreation, for open space that provides a respite from urban environments, for wildlife and unique wildlife habitats and corridors, for prime farmland, for flood protection buffers, and as important tribal cultural landscapes.

With regard to the Upper Westside EIR, the EIR is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected. EIR’s are intended, by law, to present the public and decisionmakers with factual, evidence-based information about a project’s potential impacts. The Upper Westside EIR identifies changes the project applicant is seeking to the County’s 2030 General Plan, County zoning, to the Urban Services Boundary, and to the Urban Policy Area, among others. Then, throughout the EIR, the EIR makes false claims that the project does not conflict with County land use policies. For example, under Agricultural Resources, the EIR says, “the proposed UWSP would not conflict with existing agricultural use and zoning,” That is profoundly untrue. The project site is mostly zoned and used for agriculture and would be rezoned for urban uses. The project may totally wipe out local farming because the remaining 400 acres that could be used for farming is a long narrow space (some just 700 feet wide), and just 30 to 50 feet from urban conflicts, which may make the remaining farmland impractical for commercial farming. The EIR says the proposed project would not conflict with existing habitat conservation plans. That is also untrue as detailed by the Environmental Council of Sacramento. Under Land Use, the EIR says, “the proposed UWSP would not conflict with Sacramento County’s Land Use Plans,” despite the long list of County land use plans, policies and codes that the project seeks to change. Under Growth Inducement impacts, no rationale is presented for approving urban development outside the Urban Services Boundary and the EIR completely fails to address the growth inducement impacts due to the project applicant’s requested changes to County plans, policies and codes. Developers have a right to spin the truth in their communication with Planning Commissioners and County Supervisors, but deceit and spin has no place in an EIR.

More detailed EIR comments will be submitted to the County. Here I want to highlight serious impacts the project would have on Garden Highway, where I live. The proposed project would come within 700 feet of Garden Highway. The EIR suggests the Upper Westside project could add 4,000 vehicle trips a day to Garden Highway. Intersection improvements on Garden Highway are discussed in the EIR, but there is no discussion of traffic safety impacts on the Garden Highway roadway. Garden Highway is a rural 2-lane, undivided and elevated roadway. Garden Highway is half the width it should be for traffic safety. It has blind curves, no shoulders and no guard rails. The greatest traffic safety issue on Garden Highway is the mixed use of the roadway by personal vehicles, semitrucks, agricultural equipment, cars pulling boats, golf carts, individual and groups of cyclists, pedestrians, and wildlife, any of which can enter the roadway unexpectedly from farm roads, driveways, and the riverbank. Adding traffic to Garden Highway has life safety consequences and should be rejected as unnecessary and too dangerous.

The EIR does not identify or suggest mitigations that might reduce urban-rural conflicts for a project like Upper Westside and a rural residential area such as Garden Highway. The project proposes a stadium close to residences all around the project, including Garden Highway. Stadium traffic, noise, and light do not belong in or near residential areas.

Stadium noise can travel miles. County and City Code Enforcement offices and Sacramento stadium operators can confirm stadium conflicts with residential areas. Traffic and noise generating land uses, such as schools and an outdoor pavilion, should be located close to major roadways and commercial uses to reduce all residential impacts.

Amplified sound should be prohibited in all residential areas. In the past, developers and the County have determined that amplified sound can be regulated to minimize impacts.

That has proven to be untrue. Over time, sound equipment and the location of speakers can change and noise makers like bull horns can be introduced, resulting in uncontrolled noise that can easily travel more than 2 miles (based on real life experience). The EIR fails to address impacts from putting urban development within 700 feet of rural residential zoning on Garden Highway and fails to identify mitigations such as requiring that project construction begin closest to existing urban uses, reaching rural areas last.

The EIR says nighttime lighting is an impact, but fails to address the harmful impacts of nighttime lighting on human health and on wildlife, including migratory birds using the Pacific Flyway. And the EIR fails to identify possible light mitigations, such as establishing a minimum one-half mile setback between the project and any rural areas (i.e. Garden Highway), with the setback to include a minimum 100-foot-wide densely planted tree buffer of tall native evergreen trees at the western project boundary, with the setback established and the tree buffer installed at the beginning of project construction.

The proposed Upper West project is unnecessary and harmful. The EIR fails to honestly present impacts from changing County plans, policies and codes. The EIR highlights an unacceptably long list of significant, harmful and unavoidable impacts countywide that cannot be mitigated, including unplanned growth, urbanization of a rural area and a river corridor, increased costs for taxpayers and ratepayers because of the unplanned extension of urban services, increased traffic and roadway hazards, increased air pollution, loss of wildlife, loss of habitat, loss of productive farmland, and the permanent loss of an important landscape for indigenous communities of Sacramento County.

For the benefit of current and future Sacramento County residents, the County should reject all development outside the Urban Services Boundary, including the Upper Westside project.

What is the point of urban development if a project like Upper Westside can violate so many County plans and policies and still be approved.

From: Melissa Brown
To: Clerk of the Board Public Email; SupervisorSerna
Cc: Don Fraulob; Patrick Tully; GHCA Board
Subject: Opposition to Upper Westside Plan
Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 11:07:28 AM
EXTERNAL EMAIL: If unknown sender, do not click links/attachments.

If you have concerns about this email, please report it via the Phish Alert button.

Greetings,
Please accept this communication in opposition to the Upper Westside Plan. As a residents and homeowners of the Garden Highway for over 35 years, I have witnessed the gradual degradation of our neighborhood as a result of the levee project. The destruction of habitat is quite apparent. And already, the increased traffic has resulted in accidents, killing of wildlife and pets. This is before the proposed massive increase in population, traffic, pollution, and pressure on public safety that will result from the Westside Plan. Moreover, the project’s 20-30 year buildout schedule creates unacceptable noise, dust, air pollution and general area disruption over decades.The EIR fails to consider how current and future residents will be provided with safe mitigation during the decades of construction.

The following are specific comments that we ask you to address.

1. Public hearings on expanding the Urban Services Boundary are necessary. This project is outside the Urban Services Boundary. Before considering any development outside the Urban Services Boundary, the County should pause development applications outside the Urban Services Boundary and hold hearings on whether the Urban Services Boundary should be expanded.and consider the significant negative impacts on the environment and Sacramento County residents far beyond the Upper Westside project area.

2. This project's urban sprawl is unacceptable. . The County’s 2030 General Plan, County zoning, the Urban Services Boundary, the Urban Policy Area, and SACOG’s Blueprint for regional development all seek to avoid. The land use strategies and policies of the Sacramento County 2030 General Plan were designed to promote the efficient use of land, encourage economic vitality and reduce urban sprawl and its impacts, preserve habitat and open space, and protect local farming. The Urban Services Boundary was intended to implement that vision and promote orderly growth within the County. The proposed project violates the County’s 2030 General Plan, County zoning, the Urban Services Boundary, the Urban Policy Area, and SACOG’s Blueprint for regional development.There is no rationale is presented in the EIR, for approving this project outside the Urban Services Boundary.

3. This project harms the entire Sacramento community because of the loss of open space, and habitat and their associated recreational benefits; the loss of farmland; a significant increase in roadway dangers because of increased traffic on rural roads and increased congestion and conflicts at freeway on and off ramps which may not be able to be mitigated for some time; and a significant increase in area air pollution which has health consequences for the entire Sacramento area. The EIR fails to recognize that the project reduces Sacramento recreational opportunities, because increased traffic in the project area, would make it unsafe for individual cyclists and cycling clubs, as well as motorcycle clubs and antique or specialty car clubs that use Garden Highway for recreation.

4. The EIR falsely claims that the project does not violate habitat conservation plans. We agree with the Environmental Council of Sacramento that the proposed project does violate approved habitat 33 conservation plans and would lead to the permanent destruction of open space, habitat and wildlife.

5. The EIR fails to identify that river corridors are rare and valuable resources to residents of any community, and are particularly valued by Sacramento County residents for recreation, open space, wildlife, and local farmland. The proposed project introduces permanent harms by urbanizing a river corridor, putting urban activity within about 700 feet of Garden Highway and the river. River corridors need to be protected for current and future area residents.

6. The proposed project changes the existing one-mile river corridor protection buffer to 700 feet.

Years ago, during County hearings on the Urban Services Boundary, many residents argued for a miles wide protection buffer for the Sacramento River corridor to protect recreation, open space, habitat and local farmland. The County settled on a one-mile buffer. This project would reduce that buffer to a wholly inadequate 700 feet in some areas, up to a maximum of one-half mile.

7. The proposed project would result in the significant and permanent loss of open space, habitat, already diminished local farmland, and floodplain protections. Once these community resources are gone, they are gone forever.

8. Mitigation for loss of farmland, wildlife and wildlife habitat would most likely occur beyond the Sacramento area, depriving Sacramento County residents of those benefits. The project applicant says loss of farmland, wildlife, and wildlife habitat would be mitigated outside the Natomas Basin. People in Sacramento value and find benefit in farmland, wildlife, and the open space that serves as wildlife habitat. The EIR fails to identify the communitywide loss of farmland, wildlife and wildlife habitat resources as community assets. If the project is approved farmland and wildlife mitigations should be required within the Natomas basin where those resources would continue to benefit community residents.

9. The EIR fails to identify that the proposed project could result in a total loss of project area farmland. Most of the project area is currently farmland that would be converted to urban uses. In the past 10 years Sacramento has lost more than 14,000 acres of farmland. This project could result in the permanent loss of another 1500 acres or more of high-value, productive local farmland. The project applicant says 534 acres of farmland would remain, but about 130 acres of that is intended as buffer land that will not be useable for farming. The remaining 400 acres of farmland is a long narrow space (some just 700 feet wide), and just 30 to 50 feet from potential urban conflicts, which may make the remaining farmland impractical to use for commercial farming.

The recent pandemic made clear that farmland is important community infrastructure. The EIR fails to address the loss of area farmland as a community food resource when there are disruptions to the food distribution system.

10. The EIR fails to identify that the proposed project could reduce existing floodplain protection.

Around the United States, communities are starting to reserve land near waterways to use as open space for flood protection This project puts housing in a floodplain close to the river. While the new Natomas levee is expected to provide 200-year flood protection, climate change increases the chance of extreme flooding. Recent flooding in Asheville, North Carolina is proof of that. Current open space and farmland near the river provides urban areas with an additional level of flood protection. The proposed project would eliminate this protection.

11. This project has an unacceptably long list of significant and unavoidable impacts, many that are harmful, permanent, and cannot be mitigated, including unplanned growth, urbanization of a rural area, increased traffic and roadway hazards, increased air pollution, increased noise, loss of wildlife, loss of habitat, loss of productive farmland, and the permanent loss of an important landscape for indigenous communities of Sacramento County.

20. The project significantly and unacceptably increases air pollution, possibly exceeding thresholds of significance for everyone, and posing serious health risks, including an increased risk of cancer. In addition, operation of the proposed project would significantly conflict with and obstruct implementation of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District air quality improvement efforts.

13. Sacramento does need affordable housing, but the EIR fails to note that this project makes no commitment to a specific number of very affordable, affordable, and missing middle housing (duplexes, etc.) units or a specific percentage of affordable housing units. In addition, the buildout of this project will take 20-30 years, and the first phase will take 7 years. So, there would not be housing from this project for many years. If the project is approved it should have specific affordable housing requirements, with a high percentage of affordable housing units in each housing development.

14. The EIR fails to adequately address the severe and dangerous impacts project traffic would have on Garden Highway and existing Garden Highway users. The EIR suggests the project could add 4,000 trips a day to Garden Highway. Garden Highway is a rural 2-lane, undivided road. Garden Highway is an elevated roadway on top of a levee, so widening is not feasible. Garden Highway is half the width it should be for traffic safety. It has blind curves, no shoulders and no guard rails. The project EIR emphasized concerns about traffic safety, including hazardous conditions at Garden Highway intersections. However, the EIR fully failed to address the greatest safety issue on Garden Highway, which is the mixed use of the road by personal vehicles, semitrucks, agricultural equipment, cars pulling boats, golf carts, individual and groups of cyclists, pedestrians, and wildlife, any of which can enter the roadway unexpectedly from farm roads, driveways, and the riverbank. Adding traffic to Garden Highway is unacceptably dangerous. If the project is approved, a new traffic circulation plan should be required and agreed to by the Garden Highway Community Association, that discourages project vehicle traffic on Garden Highway.

15. The EIR fails to adequately address the impacts from a proposed stadium, which would be close to residences all around the project, including Garden Highway. Stadium traffic, noise, and light do not belong in/near residential areas. Stadium noise can travel miles . County and City Code Enforcement
offices and Sacramento stadium operators can confirm stadium conflicts with residential areas. Any stadium should be miles from any residences. We already experience amplified noise, travelling miles with concert events such as Aftershock and the CHP Firing Range across the river in West Sacramento.

If the project is approved, no amplified sound should be permitted (except at school sites for emergencies).

The EIR notes that nighttime lighting would have a permanent impact on the area. But the EIR fails to adequately address the harmful impacts of nighttime lighting on human health and on wildlife, including migratory birds using the Pacific Flyway. The EIR fails to provide adequate light mitigations for humans and wildlife. If the project is approved, there should be a minimum one-half mile buffer between the project and Garden Highway that includes a minimum 100 foot wide densely planted tree buffer adjacent to the project. The tree buffer must include tall native evergreen trees planted at the beginning of project construction.

16. The EIR fails to adequately address that project related air pollution and its resulting serious health impacts, as well as construction dust, could be more severe on Garden Highway because of the prevailing wind that blows toward Garden Highway.

We trust you will carefully consider the negative impact this project will have on our community and reject efforts to greenlight the project until these and other issues are resolved. Those of us in the community are living through the years long levee improvement project which has had significant and negative impact on our well-being. The Westside project adds decades to the disruption of our lives and environment.

Sincerely,
Don Fraulon and Melissa Brown
2517 Garden Highway
Sacramento, CA 95822
October 28, 2024
S
acramento County
Department of Community Development
Planning and Environmental Review Division
Attention: Emma Patten, Senior Planner
827 7th Street, Room 225
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re
: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Upper Westside Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2020100069, County Control Number PLNP2018-00284) D
ear Emma Patten:

S
utter County has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Upper Westside Specific Plan (UWSP) project (PLNP2018-00284) and provides the following comments:

1. A
s a signatory to the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP), Sutter County has serious concerns regarding this project and its potential to jeopardize the validity of the NBHCP.

Under the NBHCP and Incidental Take Permit (ITP), Sutter County and the City of Sacramento were permitted a designated amount of development within the Natomas Basin in exchange for compliance with the NBHCP and ITP to allow for preservation of habitat lands for threatened and endangered species. The Severability section of the NBHCP states that if one of the plan's participants has its permits revoked for failure to comply with the NBHCP, the essential effect to the implementation of the NBHCP is that less Authorized Development is covered by the plan.

2. T
he DEIR identifies the consistency of the UWSP mitigation measures with the provisions of the NBHCP and Metro Air Park Habitat Conservation Plan (MAPHCP), but does not fully evaluate nor consider the various conflicts the development itself and implementation of these mitigation measures would have with the related ITPs and Implementation Agreements (IA) for both HCPs, which is a significant and avoidable oversight that should be fully evaluated prior to approval of any environmental documents and mitigation measure for this proposal.

3. The app
roval of the development of this property within the Natomas Basin would constitute a significant departure from the NBHCP's Operating Conservation Plan and could trigger a re- evaluation of the NBHCP. As a signatory to the NBHCP, this is unacceptable to Sutter County, since approval of this project places the integrity of the NBHCP in jeopardy and could impact Sutter County's ability to develop within its own permitted development area.

4. As discussed in the document, the project applicants only control 292 acres or 14 percent of the UWSP area but are proposing a significant shift of 1,532 acres from agriculture/farmland to 9,356 units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial, retail, and office uses. How does Sacramento County intend to hold the larger non- participating property owners of the 1130 Civic Center Boulevard, Suite A • Yuba City, CA 95993 • (530) 822-7400 www.suttercounty.org

SUTTER COUNTY

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Building Inspection Code Enforcement Planning Admin & Finance Environmental Health/CUPA Engineering/Water Resources Road Maintenance 34 DEIR for the Upper Westside Specific Plan (SC No. 2020100069 / PLNP2018-00284) October 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

Sacramento City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Sacramento City Council
December 2, 2025