West Sacramento City Council
December 6, 2023

Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
If approved, H.R. 3372 or other similar legislation would have significant negative impacts on the City’s road infrastructure, air quality, safety, and quality of life. Therefore, such legislation would have a direct negative nexus to the 2023 Strategic Plan items: Mobility & Connectivity; Core Services & Infrastructure; Climate & Energy Resiliency; City Facilities & Infrastructure Financing Strategy; Climate Action Plan Implementation; and, Core Services/Operations Functions Growth & Funding
Alternatives
Staff has summarized the Council’s primary alternatives below:

1. Approve an oppose position on H.R. 3372 and authorize extending the oppose position to any other federal legislation that would increase the maximum allowable length and weight of semi-trailer trucks on the nation's highway system, authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit the attached letter of support, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all actions necessary to support the legislation.

2. Approve an oppose position on H.R. 3372 and authorize extending the oppose position to any other federal legislation that would increase the maximum allowable length and weight of semi-trailer trucks on the nation's highway system, authorize the Mayor to sign and transmit the attached letter of support, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all actions necessary to support the legislation with directed modifications.

3. Decline to approve an oppose position on H.R. 3372 and any other federal legislation that would increase the maximum allowable length and weight of semi-trailer trucks on the nation's highway system.

Alternative 1 is staff’s recommended action. Staff is prepared to implement Alternative 2. Staff is not recommending Alternative 3 because H.R. 3372 and/or similar legislation would have negative ramifications for a number of the City Council’s Strategic Plan items and thus warrant City advocacy actions.

Coordination and Review
City Manager’s Office staff prepared this item in consultation with the City’s contract advocates at Holland & Knight.

Budget/Cost Impact
There is no direct budget or cost impact associated with this item. However, if approved, H.R. 3372 would likely have a negative impact on the City’s budget strategy.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Letter of opposition for H.R. 3372 or Potential Related Legislation

2. Full Text of H.R. 3372
238
December 7, 2023
The Honorable Doris O. Matsui
United States House of Representatives
2311 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congresswoman Matsui:

On behalf of the City of West Sacramento, I would like to express our opposition to H.R. 3372 as well as any other federal legislative proposals to increase the weight and length of semi-trailer trucks across our national highway system. Proposals to increase the maximum allowable weight from 80,000 to 91,000 pounds and the length of double trailers from 28’ to 33’ are uniquely troubling given the high degree of damage done to our streets by commercial trucks under today’s maximum weights.

As you know, West Sacramento sees a high volume of trucks going to and from our industrial areas, particularly along the corridor from Southport Parkway to Lake Washington/Industrial Boulevard and onto Harbor Boulevard. In addition to the traffic impacts associated with the sheer volume of these trucks, they contribute greatly to the degradation of our City’s streets. We also have had major issues with truck noise and engine idling. All of these impacts combine to have a significant effect on our residents’ quality of life.

While we fully acknowledge that such large trucks are a necessary component of goods movement and the shipping economy, we also believe it is necessary to balance the needs of commerce with the needs of our community, including public safety and infrastructure. We already face challenges in funding maintenance of our roads and federal proposals allowing heavier and longer trucks would make this even worse.

There are also severe public safety concerns associated with these proposals. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) identified an 11% higher crash rate when comparing multi-trailer configurations to singles. Specifically, vehicles hauling twin-33' trailers were found to have a 22-foot longer stopping distance. Additionally, in a limited state examination, USDOT found increased crash rates for heavier trucks ranging from 47% to 400%. These statistics are very troublesome for a city like West Sacramento that has done so much to try to create a more walkable and bike-friendly community.

For these reasons, West Sacramento is joining with the California League of Cities in urging you to continue to oppose H.R. 3372 as well as any legislation that would increase the maximum gross vehicle weight or length of combination vehicles operating on our roadways. Thank you for your attention to this letter; if you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or the City’s Government Affairs Manager, Doug Drozd, at [email protected] or (916) 617-5326 Sincerely,
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
City of West Sacramento
cc: The Honorable Laphonza Bulter, U.S Senate
The Honorable Alex Padilla, U.S. Senate 239
I
118TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 3372
To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a safety data collection program for certain 6-axle vehicles, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 16, 2023
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota (for himself and Mr. COSTA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish a safety data collection program for certain 6-axle vehicles, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SAFETY DATA COLLECTION PROGRAM FOR
4 CERTAIN 6-AXLE VEHICLES.
5 Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is
6 amended by adding at the end the following:
7 ‘‘(x) PILOT PROGRAM FOR SAFETY DATA COLLEC8 TION ON CERTAIN 6-AXLE VEHICLES.— VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
240
2 •HR 3372 IH
1 ‘‘(1) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—Not later than 30
2 days after the date of enactment of this subsection,
3 the Secretary shall establish a pilot program (re4 ferred to in this subsection as the ‘pilot program’) 5 under which States admitted by the Secretary under
6 paragraph (2) may allow covered 6-axle vehicles to
7 be operated on the Interstate System in the State.
8 ‘‘(2) ADMISSION TO PILOT PROGRAM.—
9 ‘‘(A) INITIAL APPLICATION.—Beginning on
10 the date that is 30 days after the date of enact11 ment of this subsection, a State seeking to par12 ticipate in the pilot program shall submit an 13 application to the Secretary in electronic form,
14 containing such administrative information as
15 the Secretary may require, including a certifi16 cation that the State has or will have the au17 thority pursuant to State law to implement the 18 pilot program.
19 ‘‘(B) ADMISSION.—The Secretary shall
20 admit to the pilot program, on a rolling basis,
21 States that submit a completed application
22 under subparagraph (A).
23 ‘‘(C) ELECTION TO NO LONGER PARTICI24 PATE.—If a State elects to no longer particiVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
241
3 •HR 3372 IH
1 pate in the pilot program, the State shall notify
2 the Secretary of such election.
3 ‘‘(3) MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION.—
4 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—To be eligible to par5 ticipate in the pilot program, a State shall 6 agree to implement the pilot program through
7 the issuance of permits per vehicle or group of
8 vehicles with respect to covered 6-axle vehicles.
9 ‘‘(B) PERMIT.—A permit described in sub10 paragraph (A) shall— 11 ‘‘(i) describe the Interstate System
12 routes that may be used while operating at
13 greater than 80,000 pounds gross vehicle
14 weight in a covered 6-axle vehicle; and
15 ‘‘(ii) require the permit holder to re16 port to the State, with respect to each cov17 ered 6-axle vehicle for which such permit 18 was issued—
19 ‘‘(I) each accident (as such term
20 is defined in section 390.5 of title 49,
21 Code of Federal Regulations, as in ef22 fect on the date of enactment of this 23 subsection) that occurred in the State
24 involving the covered 6-axle vehicle on
25 the Interstate System in the State;
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
242
4 •HR 3372 IH
1 ‘‘(II) the estimated gross vehicle
2 weight of each covered 6-axle vehicle
3 at the time of an accident described in
4 subclause (I); and
5 ‘‘(III) the estimated miles trav6 eled by the covered 6-axle vehicle on 7 the Interstate System in the State an8 nually.
9 ‘‘(C) SAFETY EQUIPMENT INCENTIVE.—
10 ‘‘(i) FEE REDUCTION.—With respect
11 to any fee associated with a permit under
12 this paragraph, the State may reduce the
13 fee otherwise applicable to a vehicle by 67
14 percent if the vehicle is equipped with an
15 automatic emergency braking system, in16 cluding such systems in use on the date of 17 enactment of this subsection.
18 ‘‘(ii) GROUP OF VEHICLES.—As ap19 plied to a permit for a group of vehicles, 20 the reduction under clause (i) shall only
21 apply with respect to individual vehicles in
22 the group that are equipped with an auto23 matic emergency breaking system, includ24 ing such systems in use on the date of en25 actment of this subsection.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
243
5 •HR 3372 IH
1 ‘‘(4) OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS NOT AF2 FECTED.—This subsection shall not restrict— 3 ‘‘(A) a vehicle that may operate under any
4 other provision of this section or another Fed5 eral law; or 6 ‘‘(B) a State’s authority with respect to a
7 vehicle that may operate under any other provi8 sion of this section or another Federal law. 9 ‘‘(5) NO HIGHWAY FUNDING REDUCTION.—Not10 withstanding subsection (a), funds apportioned to a 11 State under section 104 for any period may not be
12 reduced because the State authorizes the operation
13 of covered 6-axle vehicles within such State in ac14 cordance with this subsection. 15 ‘‘(6) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than the
16 first March 1 after the date of enactment of this
17 subsection, and annually thereafter, a State partici18 pating in the pilot program shall submit to the Sec19 retary with respect to the previous calendar year, a 20 report on—
21 ‘‘(A) the number of accidents (as such
22 term is defined in section 390.5 of title 49,
23 Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the
24 date of enactment of this subsection)) that oc25 curred on the Interstate System in the State inVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
244
6 •HR 3372 IH
1 volving a covered 6-axle vehicle for which a per2 mit was issued under the pilot program; 3 ‘‘(B) the estimated gross vehicle weight of
4 each such vehicle at the time of the accident in
5 the State described in subparagraph (A); and
6 ‘‘(C) the estimated miles traveled by such
7 vehicle on the Interstate System in the State.
8 ‘‘(7) TERMINATION OF PILOT PROGRAM.—
9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
10 subparagraph (B), the pilot program shall ter11 minate on the date that is 10 years after the 12 date of enactment of this subsection.
13 ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL APPLICATION; CONTINU14 ATION OF AUTHORITY.—For a period of 10 15 years beginning on the date described in sub16 paragraph (A), the Secretary may continue the 17 pilot program with respect to each State in the
18 program, upon the application of a State and
19 after consideration of—
20 ‘‘(i) the actual experience of the State
21 under the pilot program; and
22 ‘‘(ii) any documents or other material
23 submitted by the State in support of such
24 an application.

VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
245
7 •HR 3372 IH
1 ‘‘(8) COVERED 6-AXLE VEHICLE DEFINED.—In
2 this subsection, the term ‘covered 6-axle vehicle’
3 means a vehicle—
4 ‘‘(A) equipped with 6 or more axles;
5 ‘‘(B) for which the weight—
6 ‘‘(i) on any single axle of the vehicle
7 does not exceed 20,000 pounds, including
8 enforcement tolerances;
9 ‘‘(ii) on any tandem axle of the vehicle
10 does not exceed 34,000 pounds, including
11 enforcement tolerances; and
12 ‘‘(iii) on any group of three or more
13 axles of the vehicle does not exceed 45,000
14 pounds, including enforcement tolerances;
15 ‘‘(C) for which the gross weight does not
16 exceed the lesser of—
17 ‘‘(i) 91,000 pounds, including enforce18 ment tolerances; and 19 ‘‘(ii) the maximum permitted by the
20 bridge formula under subsection (a); and
21 ‘‘(D) that is not a longer combination vehi22 cle, as such term is defined in subsection 23 (d)(4).’’.

Æ
VerDate Sep 11 2014 00:57 May 31, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H3372.IH H3372 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
246

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2023 ITEM # 11
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF POLICE DEPARTMENT MILITARY

EQUIPMENT USE ANNUAL REPORT AFFIRMING RENEWAL OF
ORDINANCE 22-16
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Dawna Jones, Senior Analyst
Police Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to comply with current AB 481 regulations, which require that law enforcement agencies obtain approval from the applicable governing body for the funding, acquisition, collaboration or other use of “military equipment” as defined by Section 7070(c).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends the City Council:

1. Receive the Police Department military equipment use policy and annual report;

2. Accept public comments concerning the report; and

3. Affirm renewal of Ordinance 22-16.

BACKGROUND
Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), codified at Government Code (GC) Sections 7070 through 7075 (“AB 481”), requires a law enforcement agency to obtain approval from the applicable governing body prior to taking any action related to funding, acquisition, collaboration, or other use of “military equipment”, as that term is defined by Section 7070(c).

The West Sacramento Police Department (WSPD) currently has equipment, defined in AB 481 and codified in GC Sections 7070 through 7075 as “military equipment” in its reserves. Throughout history, up to and including the present, WSPD has found it necessary from time to time, to use this equipment in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, as well as that of WSPD officers, in the most efficient and communityconscious manner.

Specifically, the military equipment is used when WSPD officers face gunfire for prolonged incidents. Such ballistic equipment allows more opportunities to de-escalate the situation by, for instance, equipping tactical teams to resolve life threatening conditions in the safest way possible for all involved, including the community, the suspect, victims, bystanders and officers. Although some of the weaponry and other devices may be used infrequently, their availability expands the choices of non-lethal or less-lethal options for the large variety of dynamic and dangerous encounters faced in our city and profession. Limiting those choices without careful analysis could lead to decreasing options of relevant, contemporary interventions that can allow for deescalation, decrease the severity of violence and reduce harm overall.

To comply with AB 481, the Police Chief shall obtain City Council approval by way of an ordinance adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy (Policy) as defined in Section 7070(d), that delineates the authorized military equipment and its purpose and use, and associated fiscal impact, legal and procedural rules, and requisite training. Additionally, the Policy is to include mechanisms to ensure compliance with the Policy, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns, and how WSPD will ensure that each complaint, concern or question receives a timely response.

AB 481 allows the governing body to approve the funding, acquisition and use of military equipment within its jurisdiction, only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards outlined in GC 7071 as follows:

1. The military equipment as defined by California Government Code section 7070(c) identified in the Policy is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. 247
AB 481 Military Equipment Use
December 6, 2023

3. The current military equipment identified in the Policy and the purchasing of any future military equipment on the list of approved military equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the use policy that was in effect at the time.

On April 20, 2022, Police Department Staff presented for first reading Ordinance 22-16 and on May 18, 2022, subsequent to Staff’s presentation of a second reading, Ordinance 22-16 was adopted, approving Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy 709 and the use, acquisition, collaboration and seeking of funding for military equipment. The adoption of Ordinance 22-16 was based upon determinations consistent with the required standards for approval as outlined in GC7071. (See attachments 2 and 3).

ANALYSIS
The Police Department is currently seeking to comply with GC 7071, which requires the governing body at a regular Council meeting to annually review Ordinance 22-16 and vote on whether to renew the Ordinance.

Pursuant to GC 7072, a law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy shall submit to the governing body annually a “military equipment use report” for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body to include:

1. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.

2. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.

3. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.

4. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.

5. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.

6. If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment use report, whether each type of military equipment identified in the report has complied with the standards for approval. If the governing body determines that a type of military equipment identified in the annual military equipment use report has not complied with the standards for approval, the governing body shall either disapprove renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance. The Police Department’s annual Military Equipment Use Report to Council is included as Attachment 1 of this report.

Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report, WSPD is required to hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions regarding the annual military equipment report and WSPD’s funding, acquisition or use of military equipment. This presentation to the City Council satisfies the requirement for a community engagement meeting.

As per regulation, WSPD conducted an internal audit and determined that there have been no violations of the Military Equipment Use Policy.

The Department is requesting that Council approve a renewal of the authorization set forth under Ordinance 22- 16 pertaining to the use of military equipment.

Environmental Considerations
248
AB 481 Military Equipment Use
December 6, 2023

This action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is not an activity that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), 15378(a).)
Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
This item supports the City’s vision of taking actions to ensure residents, guests, and other community members feel safe and secure.

Alternatives
Council may choose to disapprove a renewal of the authorization set forth under Ordinance 22-16 for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the Police Department’s Military Equipment Use Policy 709.

Coordination and Review
This report was coordinated and reviewed by Police Department Staff.

Budget/Cost Impact
The proposed actions do not require funding to implement. Funding for relevant City and Department services will be budgeted annually.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2022 Annual Military Equipment Use Report

2. WSPD Policy Manual Policy 709

3. Ordinance 22-16

4. Government Code 7070 -7075
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2023 ITEM # 12
SUBJECT:

CONTINUED PUBLIC WORKSHOP REGARDING RETAIL CANNABIS SALES

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND EQUITY PILOT PROGRAM
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[X] Council [ ] Staff
[ ] Other
David W. Tilley, Principal Planner
Andrea Ouse, AICP, Director
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [X ] Direction [ ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to further facilitate City Council consideration and direction regarding proposed administrative procedures for retail cannabis applications and the equity pilot program.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Hear a presentation from staff regarding the proposed administrative procedures and equity pilot program for retail cannabis; and
2) Provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND
On February 15, 2023, the City Council conducted a public hearing on Ordinance 23-1, which established the framework for how the City will consider retail cannabis uses and microbusinesses. Development Agreements remain a requirement of the process; however, retailers and microbusinesses will also be required to obtain an annual cannabis license from the City. Ordinance 23-1 establishes a hybrid competitive selection and lottery process for retailers be employed to ensure that all qualified applicants have a fair chance at locating within the city.

The City Council also approved a retail cannabis overlay map. This establishes where the City would entertain storefront retail cannabis applications. Existing underlying zoning would remain unchanged, but the “Cannabis Overlay Zone” is not constrained by the boundaries of a commercial zoning district and provides the most optimal locations in the city for retail cannabis businesses. The Cannabis Overlay Zones are typically located in visible commercial and mixed-use areas and are not within 250 feet of “sensitive uses”, defined as:
1) Schools with a minimum of 100 students (18 years of age or younger) enrolled; 2) commercial daycare facilities; and
3) youth community centers.

Additional background on the City’s consideration of cannabis matters is provided in Attachment 1.

On September 27, the Council conducted a workshop on the proposed administrative procedures and equity program criteria. Councilmember discussion and feedback included:
 consideration of applicant demographics;
 allowing those Equity Cannabis Applicants not selected to move forward through the equity licensing process to apply for through the subsequent General Cannabis License process;  increasing the percentage of score weighting for the required Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity Plan, which was initially proposed to be 20% of the total;
 including women and minorities on the team tasked with evaluating and scoring the applications; and  removing the lottery process to select the initial Equity Cannabis applicants.

While this feedback was productive in providing staff with Councilmembers’ individual areas of interest and priorities, staff stated they would return with a few options focused on how the equity process would rollout and the breakdown/weighting of the various scoring criteria. 301
Retail Cannabis
December 6, 2023

ANALYSIS
Based on staff’s research, as well as Council and community feedback, the following summary table identifies key components of the retail cannabis program:

Social Equity Program General License Program
Retail Storefront (may include non-storefront
component): 1 Total number of
licenses Non-storefront Retail (delivery only): 1
No limit; based on capacity in approved
Cannabis Overlay Zones/market demand
Timing
Retail storefront must be open and
operational prior to commencing General
Cannabis License process
Application process to commence after storefront
Equity Cannabis business has opened
Locational
Criteria
Equity storefront must be located in approved
Cannabis Overlay Zones, but no minimum
distance from General Cannabis businesses
required1
250-foot minimum distance from sensitive uses;
500-foot minimum between storefronts on West
Capitol Ave.

Eligibility
Criteria
An individual (not an entity or company);
Household income <80% of AMI or reside in a
Disadvantaged Community2 in Yolo or
Sacramento Counties (at minimum 85%
percentile) for at least 5 years
Complete application packages will be subject to
review for evaluation and scoring
Step 1: Merit-based evaluation and scoring by
third party Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Step 1: Merit-based evaluation and scoring by
third party SME
Step 2: Create list of eligible licensees Step 2: Create list of eligible licensees Major
Milestones in
Selection
Process
Step 3: Panel Interview and final selection
via a forced ranking process
Step 3: Applicants scoring 90% or higher
participate in a lottery to establish priority
processing
Timing of Real
Property
Interest
Must have letter of intent or greater at time
application is evaluated by third party SME
Must have letter of intent or greater at time
application is evaluated by third party SME
Example of
Equity
Contribution
City may provide lease assistance after
selection to prevent licensee from losing
storefront space and/or spending capital
during permitting/TI/State license phases
Contributions to be included in the required DEI
plan and community investment plan; will be
scored on merits
Timeline for
ownership 5 years No minimum but annual review of cannabis license/DA will include audit Personal cannabis arrest or conviction in Yolo/Sacramento Counties between 1980-2016 would add a 5% weighting factor
Maximum one individual from each household will be verified as an equity applicant; City in-kind and/or direct financial assistance will not be provided to multiple equity applicants (e.g., one in West Sacramento, one in Sacramento) within the same household Additional
considerations
No individual may be identified in any capacity in more than one proposal Staff recommends that, for purposes of the Equity Cannabis Program, the applicants be current residents of a Disadvantaged Community as defined by CalEPA in Yolo or Sacramento Counties and demonstrate annual 1 If the Equity Cannabis business commences operation prior to the establishment of the General Licenses are issued, General Licensees will be subject to the pre-approved distance minimums from the Equity Cannabis business if it is located along West Capitol Avenue. However, if in the future another or relocated Equity Cannabis business seeks a location that is within the pre-approved distance minimums along West Capitol Avenue from a General Licensed storefront, the Equity Cannabis business is not subject to maintaining the minimum distance from the established storefront. 2 As defined by CalEPA’s SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map 302
Retail Cannabis
December 6, 2023

household income levels of a maximum 80% of the Annual Median Income (AMI) for both counties. These criteria are demonstrable, verifiable and objective.

At the September 27th workshop, the notion of the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) broad definition of equity was brought up. The DCC definition is predicated on the following:
 A past cannabis conviction or arrest;
 residence for at least 5 years between 1980 and 2016 in a California county with drug arrest rates that were higher than the state average during the same time period and in the top 25% nationally for unemployment and poverty; or
 have an immediate family member who was convicted or arrested for a cannabis-related crime prior to November 8, 2016.

Per the DCC, parts of West Sacramento meet these criteria (see Attachment 2: DCC Map). If the licensee has had arrests for certain other types of crimes in California3, he/she/they may be denied a state license by the DCC.

Under the DCC definition, a person can also qualify for a State equity cannabis license if the household income is no more than 60% of AMI. In West Sacramento, assuming a four-person household, that equates to $68,400/year ($114,000 is the median income for a four-person household in Yolo County). A considerable portion of the City may meet this criteria (see Attachment 3: 2023 Median Household Income Map).

The following is a summary of some benefits and potential disadvantages to the use of staff’s recommended equity criteria and the criteria currently used by the State DCC:

Pros Cons
Locally focused
Unknown how many people in Yolo
and Sacramento Counties would
qualify
Can provide greater geographic
specificity
Staff Recommended
Equity Criteria
DCC will accept City-defined Equity
Cannabis Applicants for State Equity
licenses
DCC Criteria State verification of eligibility Statewide eligibility pool; no local or regional significance
The Council also has the option to rely on the DCC’s definition of an equity applicant. The criterion is broader than staff’s recommended approach, as the DCC allows applicants to use past cannabis arrests of individuals and/or their immediate family members anywhere in California. Based on this and the information in the above table staff does not recommend employing the DCC equity definition.

Selection Process/Lottery
For the General Cannabis License application, staff recommends deploying a hybrid selection process that would consist of an initial merit-based review of applications followed by a lottery consisting of those applications that have scored at or above the minimum of 90%. More detail is available in Attachment 4, Administrative Procedures. Staff has developed the following scoring criteria, which includes increasing the weighting 3 Applicants with other types of criminal history may be denied a state cannabis license pursuant to Business & Professions Code §26057.

These include a violent felony conviction, as specified in subdivision (c) of §667.5 of the Penal Code; a serious felony conviction, as specified in subdivision (c) of §1192.7 of the Penal Code; a felony conviction involving fraud, deceit, or embezzlement; A felony conviction for hiring, employing, or using a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling, any controlled substance to a minor; or selling, offering to sell, furnishing, offering to furnish, administering, or giving any controlled substance to a minor; and, a felony conviction for drug trafficking with enhancements pursuant to §11370.4 or 11379.8 of the Health and Safety Code. 303
Retail Cannabis
December 6, 2023

associated with the evaluation of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Plan for General Cannabis License applications from 10% to 20%:

Section A. Business Plan (200 points or 6.7%)
Section B. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Plan (600 points or 20%)* Section C. Safety Plan (300 points or 10%)
Section D. Security Plan (300 points or 10%)
Section E - Qualifications of Owners (400 Points or 13.3%) For Equity Applicants Only, a narrative to address the following:

1. Description of the equity applicant’s background and impact from the War on Drugs.

2. Description of the equity applicant’s experience, training, and education completed to prepare for operating a successful and safe retail cannabis business in West Sacramento.

3. Business plan that details how the equity applicant intends to achieve success and sustain the business long-term.

Section F - Neighborhood Compatibility (400 Points 13.3%) Section G - Community Benefits and Investments Plan (500 Points or 16.7%) Section H - Proposed Location (real property interest not required at this stage) (300 Points or 10%) *This criterion would not apply to verified Equity Cannabis License applicants.

Staff recommends a maximum total of 3,000 points. The weighting of each factor can be adjusted depending on the Council’s priorities.

For the General Cannabis License applicants, an RFP process would require retail storefront and/or nonstorefront license prospects to receive a minimum of 2,700 points. Those that meet or exceed that point threshold would be placed on an eligibility list to enter the lottery. The lottery would set for a permitting priority list, where those selected in the lottery first would be eligible to proceed with a formal application for a Development Agreement. If approved by the City Council, a City Cannabis License that would be reviewed and approved administratively. This would likely occur in parallel with the State DCC licensing process.

Staff recommends the lottery option be retained for the General Cannabis License process. While the objective of establishing a priority permitting list through the outcome of the lottery is to ensure an orderly process for evaluating, negotiating, and permitting General Cannabis Licensees, there is no guarantee that those that are selected first will be able to open for business before others in the queue. The process of opening a business, especially one that requires significant property improvements and permitting, can include uncertainty and unanticipated delays. A lottery simply develops a baseline of expectations, providing the General Cannabis License Applicants with clearer opportunities to make business decisions as the permitting process commences.

Regarding the Equity Cannabis License process, there was interest expressed by Councilmembers to consider an interview as the final selection process. In response, staff recommends that Equity Cannabis Licensees that meet or exceed the 90%-point threshold be invited to participate in a panel interview. The panel would consist of:
 An individual with a level of expertise in economic or business development;  An individual with active involvement in social equity matters;  A cannabis regulator from a nearby jurisdiction;
 A staff member selected by the City Manager’s Office with input from Community Development.

The panel would select the top Equity Cannabis License applicant via a forced ranking process and post the intent to award.

Timing of General and Equity Cannabis Application Processes In response to Council direction, staff recommends delaying the release of the General Cannabis License Applications until the Equity Cannabis Storefront Retail and Non-Storefront Retail businesses are licensed, permitted and open. The intent of this staggered timing would be to allow the Equity Cannabis business owners an opportunity to establish a presence in the local cannabis retail market prior to potentially larger, wellcapitalized cannabis businesses capturing the market. With the uncertainties of a tenant space, availability and cost of equipment, development/refinement of a business and marketing plan, hiring of employees and provision of inventory, the Equity Cannabis Licensee will require significant start-up time and capital prior to opening for business. Allowing the Equity Cannabis Licensee with an opportunity to complete the process and open for business will give the licensee a significant advantage and head start in capturing the market share. In addition, this recommended sequence provides the General Cannabis License applicants with more information on timing and location of the first cannabis retail storefront in West Sacramento, which may influence business decisions. 304
Retail Cannabis
December 6, 2023

If the Council concurs with staff’s recommendations and process, staff will immediately commence procuring the services of a third-party SME to assist in the objective, neutral review and scoring of applications. If this requires procurement through an RFP, that process would commence once the final Administrative Procedures, guidance documents and application designs are finalized. Once the third-party SME has been procured, staff will develop and begin the launch of the application process for Equity Cannabis Licenses. If the third-party SME does not have to be selected through an RFP but is already contracted with the City for other projects (requiring a contract amendment), Staff anticipates launching the Equity Cannabis License application process in the first quarter of 2024.

As staff has learned through research, Council and community input, and best practices, the more successful models of Equity Cannabis programs have focused on adaptability and meeting the actual needs of the individual Equity Licensee, instead of limiting options for creative solutions. To that end, the City could develop a basic “menu” of possible technical, marketing and financial assistance to the chosen Equity Cannabis Licensees. Such considerations may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Tenancy in a City-owned or leased building;
 All support services offered by the forthcoming City-led small business assistance program;  Waiver of the Development Agreement application fee and potentially other City impact fees;  Financing of off-site infrastructure (via Measure N);  Future allocation of DCC grant funds awarded to the City (if received).

While this is not an all-inclusive list of possible options, staff would also connect the Equity Cannabis Licensees with contacts at the DCC. The DCC administers a variety of programs geared towards equity applicants and licensees.

Public Outreach
Staff has presented high level overviews to the Chamber of Commerce three times (including most recently on September 12) on the retail program and has also communicated informally with existing operators in other communities, potential retailers, and landlords. Staff consulted with DCC staff, the City of Sacramento, HdL, and the Asian Chamber of Commerce. Staff intends to conduct additional outreach on the equity pilot program prior to returning to Council for final approval.

Environmental Considerations
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, “CEQA”), the proposed amendments to the Titles 5 and 17 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code for retail cannabis sales and microbusinesses do not constitute a “project” within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3) or 15378 because there is no potential that the activity will result in a reasonably foreseeable indirect or direct physical change in the environment. The approval of a regulatory framework used for the selection of certain cannabis operators in the City would not alter the underlying land uses (such as other manufacturing, light industrial or retail uses) that are currently permitted in the subject zoning districts without a cannabis use component. Subsequent applications for a commercial cannabis use would be subject to individual review under CEQA.

Moreover, even if the development of the regulatory framework did comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.” There is also no reasonable possibility that the activity would have a significant environmental effect due to unusual circumstances. Here, the proposed ordinance and basic procedural criteria would allow for a limited number of commercial cannabis businesses, which would not cause any significant impacts apart from underlying land uses that are already permitted in the subject zoning districts.

In addition, Business and Professions Code Section 26055(h) provides that CEQA does not apply to the adoption of an ordinance, rule, or regulation that requires discretionary review and approval of permits, licenses, or other authorizations to engage in commercial cannabis activity, as long as each subsequent discretionary approval involves applicable CEQA review. Therefore, the development of an RFP process to obtain the relevant City Cannabis License does not warrant further environmental review.

Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission previously recommended approval of Ordinance 23-1. 305
Retail Cannabis
December 6, 2023

Strategic Plan Integration
Local Economic Development and Inclusive & Diverse are both strategic principles for 2023.

Alternatives
1) Conduct the workshop and provide direction to staff regarding the administrative procedures and equity pilot program.
2) Continue the item to a future date and request additional information be provided at that time.

Alternative 1 is staff’s recommendation. Staff does not recommend Alternative 2 as retail cannabis sales is a stated policy priority item for the City Council. Staff is prepared to effectuate Alternative 2 at the Council’s direction.

Coordination and Review
The content of this report has been coordinated with City cannabis consultant HdL, the Police Department, Fire Department, Economic Development & Housing Department, the City Attorney’s Office, and the City Manager’s Office.

Budget/Cost Impact
All costs associated with preparation of this report and any subsequent actions including City Attorney review will be borne by the General Fund. Some costs may ultimately be offset by a $235,000 grant award to the City by the DCC. Staff is currently awaiting the grant agreement and anticipates receiving the grant funds in the next few months.

ATTACHMENTS
1) West Sacramento Cannabis Background Information
2) DCC Map
3) 2023 Median Household Income Map
4) Administrative Procedures/Equity Program
306
ATTACHMENT 1
West Sacramento Cannabis Background Information
Since 2010, West Sacramento has had a citywide prohibition on all forms of retail sales of cannabis. During this era, retail cannabis dispensaries were largely unregulated at the state level.

In 2015, the California Legislature passed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MCRSA), with subsequent modifications in the 2016 and 2017 budget trailer legislation. The 2015 and 2016 MCRSA created a new regulatory structure for the licensing and enforcement of medical cannabis commercial uses, including cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and retail. On November 8, 2016, California voters approved Proposition 64, known as the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). AUMA legalized nonmedical cannabis use, possession, and cultivation by persons 21 years of age or older; the ballot measure passed in Yolo County with 60.5% of the vote (statewide it passed with 57.1%). It was also favored by 15 of the 17 voting precincts in West Sacramento at the time.

AUMA also created a regulatory framework for commercial nonmedical cannabis activities. With the majority vote passage, the provisions related to personal use, possession and cultivation of nonmedical cannabis went into effect on November 9, 2016. Commercial nonmedical cannabis activities also became legal on November 9, 2016. However, as neither the State licensing and regulatory framework nor the guidance provided to local governments had been developed at that time, the State had until January 1, 2018, to begin issuing licenses to commercial cannabis businesses. For context, there are currently over 25 State Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) licensing categories, with the major categories being defined as:
1) Cultivation: Including specialty cottage, specialty, small, medium, nursery and processor. 2) Manufacturing: Including volatile solvent manufacturing, non-volatile solvent manufacturing, infusion, packaging and labeling.
3) Distribution: Including distributor and “transport-only” distributor. 4) Testing laboratories.
5) Retail: Including storefront retailer and non-storefront retailer (delivery only). 6) Event licenses: Including event organizer (issued to the person) and temporary cannabis event (issued to the event).
7) Microbusinesses: cultivation up to 10,000 square feet, non-volatile extraction, distribution or transport-only, retail (storefront or non-storefront).

Beginning in late 2015, the City started its initial foray into the regulation of cannabis businesses by approving a series of municipal code amendments, development agreements (DA), and conditional use permits for wholesale cannabis uses (cultivation, testing labs, manufacturing, and distribution). A key provision in each development agreement has been a revenue contribution to the City of between 2.5 and 5% of annual gross receipts depending on the nature of the operation.

In the past six years, this has resulted in more than $1 million in City General Fund revenue. As of today, there are only two wholesale cannabis businesses in operation city-wide, with more possibly coming online in 2024.

At the Council’s strategic planning retreat in February 2021, staff presented an issue paper to consider retail cannabis sales and the Council placed the item on the 2021 policy agenda. At that time, the Council expressed an interest in exploring the potential for strategically expanding the opportunities for retail cannabis sales in West Sacramento to respond to market realities and augment City revenues.

At its February 2, 2022 meeting, the Council confirmed its openness to retail cannabis (storefront and non-storefront) and microbusinesses. The Council was generally supportive of staff’s proposed regulatory framework. The Council also confirmed that an equity component would be very important and did not specify a limit on the number of retail cannabis businesses. Given that a primary objective of the City’s foray into cannabis has been economic development, some Councilmembers expressed a desire to see storefront retail reinvigorate existing underperforming retail areas. Lastly, the Council expressed a preference that storefront retail businesses are not located within some proximity to schools and youth centers. 307
City of West Sacramento
Cannabis Program Background

Staff’s research suggests that the retail cannabis market has expanded substantially since retail sales became legal. According to data collected by Marijuana Business Daily, an industry publication, during the protracted shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, delivery services saw an unprecedented increase in customers, in some markets as high as 200% from 2019.

Some of this can be attributed to ease of access and the lack of mobility of the customer base.

However, recent data also shows that customers return to storefront retail outlets when pandemic restrictions ease. Surveys indicate that customers find the benefit a cannabis retail establishment provides is the interaction with a salesperson (known as a “budtender”) who is knowledgeable about the products. Overall, all retail cannabis sectors have shown growth but are still hamstrung by the black market. As of February 2022, more than 60% of California jurisdictions do not allow retail cannabis sales according to data on the Department of Cannabis Control’s website.

Typically, the market for cannabis retail businesses is the local community, rather than serving a regional or statewide market. Consequently, the number of retailers is somewhat proportional to the local population. Consumer demand for cannabis is assumed to be constant (albeit growing), regardless of the legality of the business operation or the number of retailers. It is reasonable to conclude that more retailers would mean fewer customers for each business and lower gross receipts. The tax revenue generated by cannabis retailers is generally a function of the size of the market rather than the number of retailers.

As noted in the City’s General Fund Sustainability Strategy approved by the City Council on November 21, 2021, the permitting of retail cannabis sales is one of the revenue enhancement policies that could augment General Fund capacity by $1-2 million per year. At this time, that revenue is received by the City of West Sacramento through contributions by businesses in conformance with individual Development Agreements entered into by the businesses and the City. The other means of revenue collection would be through a voter-approved tax. In 2016, Davis voters approved a tax of up to 10% of gross receipts on non-medical (recreational) cannabis businesses. During Fiscal Year 2021/2022, the City of Davis received $2,055,764 in revenue from qualifying cannabis businesses1.

Factors commonly discussed when considering retail cannabis uses Revenue
A significant issue for Council deliberation and direction to staff is the revenue contribution rate staff proposes to include in each DA. Cumulative taxes on retail cannabis can approach 30%, making it difficult for regulated cannabis businesses to compete with the entrenched black market.

Regionally rates range between 4 and 15% with most being approximately 5%. The City of Sacramento’s cannabis tax is at 4% and is the closest city to West Sacramento where retail cannabis is allowed. Staff recommends that the revenue contribution rate on retail in West Sacramento remain competitive in the region in the range of 4-6%.

Security
A commonly stated perception among communities considering the regulation and licensing of storefront retail cannabis businesses is that the provision of these businesses would result in security and public safety risks, as there can be large amounts of cash and high-value product on-site. While cannabis companies are increasingly gaining access to traditional banking and the services such institutions provide, it remains illegal under Federal law to manufacture, distribute, or dispense cannabis. As such, legal cannabis businesses under State law have difficulty accessing federally guaranteed banking and credit services. 1 City of Davis OpenGov Financial Transparency Tool
308
309
310
1 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

RETAIL CANNABIS APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
Application Period
OPENS – TBD
CLOSES – TBD

STOREFRONT RETAIL
“Storefront Retail” and “Non-storefront/Delivery Only” shall have the same meaning as that contained in Section 26070(a)(1) of the California Business and Professions Code.

CONTACT
If you have any questions or would like an update on the status of your application, please contact the Community Development Department at 916.617.4645.

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Information regarding the application process can be found on the City’s website at cityofwestsacramento.org and includes the following:
 Application Procedures and Guidelines
 Review Criteria
 City of West Sacramento Municipal Code
Title 5 (Business Licenses and
Regulations)
 City of West Sacramento Municipal Code
Title 17 (Zoning)
 Financial Responsibility, Indemnity and
Consent to Inspection Terms Agreement
 Background Check Portal Link
 Retail Cannabis Application
 Ownership Acknowledgement Form
To be eligible for further consideration by the City, final applications must be submitted to the Community Development Department by the applicable deadline. There will be no exceptions. These Retail Cannabis Application Procedures and Guidelines and Review Criteria (hereafter referred to as “Procedures”) constitute the initial application process and are adopted pursuant to the West Sacramento Municipal Code (WSMC) Titles 5 and 17.

Applicants are advised to monitor the City’s webpage for any additional information, FAQs, or updates. It is the applicant’s responsibility to stay informed of this information.

AMENDMENTS TO THE APPLICATION
Applicants will not be allowed to make amendments to their application or to supplement their application, except as otherwise specifically permitted in these procedures, or posted on the City’s website as a clarification update, or as authorized in writing by the City Manager or his/her designee.

During Phase 1 of the review process, City staff and/or a third-party consultant will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the applications for completeness and will reject any application that is missing a major component (for example, a Security Plan), notifying the applicant(s) by email that they have been disqualified.

For those applications that are missing essential information the primary contact will be notified if the application is found to be missing minor requirements (for example, signatures/dates on 311
2 forms, proof of payment receipts, scanned pages in one of the scoring criteria documents, or incorrect formatting or organization of files). If this is the case, the Applicant may be granted five working days from the date of the being informed of an incomplete application to submit the required supplemental information. Applicants should immediately acknowledge receipt of having submitted an incomplete application.

Applicants may not submit any additional information other than what was requested to cure the incompleteness. Finally, an applicant will be notified if their application is incomplete or if there is any other reason for which they will not be moving forward in the application process.

LIMITATIONS ON MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
Applicants possessing an ownership interest of ten percent (10%), or more, in a retail, microbusiness, or other cannabis business in West Sacramento shall be limited to submitting only one retail application during this initial process. To ensure compliance with the ownership interest concerns every owner on the application that meets the criteria defined in the Business & Professions Code will be required to complete the Ownership Acknowledgement form which is provided on the City’s website. However, there will be no limitations on any other permit type which are permitted in the City, (i.e., cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and testing labs).

CITY’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The City reserves the right to reject any and/or all applications, with or without cause or reason.

The City may modify, postpone, or cancel the request for applications without liability, obligation, or commitment to any person, party, firm, or organization. In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any applicant applying in order to conduct a complete review of the application or an investigation into the truthfulness of the statements set forth in the application or provided at any stage of the application process and if it is not fully responsive to this request.
312
3 STANDARD APPLICATION PROCESS
This application process is adopted pursuant to WSMC Section 5.28.040. Applicants must review the information regarding the application process and which documents are required. Before applying, applicants should verify that the application in its entirety to ensure that it is complete and accurate.

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Applications must respond to all requirements outlined in the “Retail Cannabis Application Procedures & Guidelines.” Applicants must submit all required application materials together in one complete comprehensive package via email, DropBox link or equivalent, etc. No paper copies will be accepted.

The application package must include all the following documents with original digital signature(s) for each document.

1. Application;

2. Financial Responsibility, Indemnity
and Consent to Inspection Terms
Agreement;

3. Agreement on Limitations of City’s
Liability and Indemnification;

4. Application fee and Background Check
fee(s);

5. Owner Acknowledgment Agreement

SUBMITTAL DEADLINE
Applications must be received by the Community Development Department by 4:00 pm on TBD.

Late applications will not be accepted. Furthermore, an application risks being rejected for the following reasons:

1. It is not responsive to the Retail Cannabis Application Procedures and Guidelines.

2. The proposed location of the retail cannabis business does not comply with State law, WSMC Title 5, and/or WSMC Title 17.

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK
Each Owner as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 26001 must undergo a criminal history background check to demonstrate they do not provide “good cause” for denial per WSMC Section 5.28.050(d). Owners who do not meet the criminal history eligibility requirements of this Section will be disqualified.

In addition, each successful applicant will be asked to submit to a Live Scan as part of the background check as determined by the Chief of Police. Prior to being issued a permit the Applicant’s primary contact will be notified with the instructions on how to schedule the Live Scan appointment.

FEES
All applicants will be required to submit a monetary deposit of $TBD. This amount will be charged against time spent by City staff and/or third-party consultant in reviewing applications and administrating the application process. Applicants are advised that they may be required to pay additional amounts as required for the sole purpose of the City’s completion of the application review process. For the successful applicants there will also be a Live Scan Fee of $TBD prior to obtaining the Cannabis License or at a time determined by the Police Chief. Application fees are non-refundable once the City has begun reviewing the application. 313
4 APPLICATION REVIEW, SCORING, AND APPROVAL PROCESS
PHASE 1: DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Applications will be reviewed for completeness and compliance to meet the minimum submittal requirements. The determination of eligibility will be based on the criteria outlined in these procedures and as described in Appendix A. However, the criteria will be evaluated and scored with the process adopted in these procedures in accordance with WSMC Section 5.28.050.

PHASE 2: APPLICATION EVALUATION AND REVIEW (3,000 points) During Phase II, the City and/or third-party consultant will review and score each application using a merit-based system. At a minimum the top ten (10) applicants who score a minimum of 90% or higher (2,700 points) in Phase II may be eligible to advance to Phase III. However, the City may at its sole discretion select more than ten (10) applicants based on the quantity and the overall quality of applications the City receives. Notice of the results of Phase II will be provided in writing to the primary contact listed on the application. Should more than one application be proposed at the same location or within buffer requirements, the City at its sole discretion may employ a chance-based lottery to select an applicant.

See APPENDIX A for a description of the evaluation criteria:
 Section A. Business Plan (200 points)
 Section B. Labor, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Plan (600 points)*  Section C. Safety Plan (300 points)
 Section D. Security Plan (300 points)
 Section E - Qualifications of Owners (400 Points)
 Section F - Neighborhood Compatibility (400 Points)
 Section G - Community Benefits and Investments Plan (500 Points)  Section H - Proposed Location (300 Points)
*Not applicable to equity applicants.

NOTE: Being selected for further consideration does not constitute a land use entitlement and does not waive or remove the requirements of applying for and receiving permits for all construction including but not limited to electrical, plumbing, fire, a development agreement, Community Development Department permits or reviews, and any other permits, licenses, or reviews as deemed necessary by the relevant departments or governmental entities in charge of said permits. It also does not guarantee that the plans submitted via the application process meet the standards or requirements in WSMC Titles 5, 15, or 17 and any other permit requirements from other City departments and external agencies.
314
5 APPENDIX A: REVIEW CRITERIA FOR STOREFRONT RETAIL AND NONSTOREFRONT/DELIVERY ONLY The City is a public agency subject to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). In the event a request for information under the CPRA seeks disclosure of application materials marked by Applicant as “Confidential Information,” the City will make reasonable efforts to provide notice to Applicant prior to such disclosure to allow Applicant to seek a protective order, injunctive relief, or other appropriate remedy. If Applicant contends any designated application materials are exempt from the CPRA and wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required, at its own cost, liability, and expense to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court having jurisdiction over the matter at least two (2) days before City’s deadline to respond to the CPRA request. If Applicant fails to obtain such a remedy before the deadline for the City’s response to the CPRA request, the City will disclose the requested information and shall not be liable or responsible for such disclosure.

SECTION A: BUSINESS PLAN (200 points)

1. Finances – A budget for construction, operations, maintenance, compensation of employees, equipment, property lease, security equipment and staff, City fees, state fees, utility costs, product purchases and other anticipated contingency costs. The budget must demonstrate sufficient capital in place to pay startup costs and at least three months of operating costs, as well as a description of the sources and uses of funds. a. Proof of capitalization, in the form of documentation of cash or other liquid assets on hand, Letters of Credit or other equivalent assets which can be verified by the City. b. A pro forma for at least three years of operations.
c. A schedule for beginning operation, including a narrative outlining any proposed construction and improvements and a timeline for completion.

2. Daily Operations - The Business Plan should describe the day-to-day operations which meet industry best practices for the type of cannabis business you are applying. The Plan should include the following at a minimum:
a. Describe customer check-in procedures.
b. Identify location and procedures for receiving deliveries during business hours. c. Identify the name of the Point-of-sale system to be used and the number of Point-of-Sale locations.
d. Estimate the number of customers to be served per hour/day. e. Describe the proposed product line to be sold and estimate the percentage of sales of flower and manufactured products.
f. If proposed, describe delivery service procedures, number of vehicles and product security during transportation.
g. How the Cannabis Business will conform to local and state laws. See WSMC Titles 5 and 17 as they pertain to retail establishments in the City of West Sacramento. h. How cannabis and cannabis products will be tracked and monitored to prevent diversion. Describe the Point-of-Sale system to be used and how it will interact with the state’s mandated track and trace system.
315
6 SECTION B: EQUITY, DIVERSITY & INCLUSION PLAN (600 points)*

1. The application should describe to what extent the cannabis business will adhere to heightened pay and benefits standards and practices, including recognition of the collective bargaining rights of employees.

2. Identify number of employees at initial opening and the maximum number of employees when the business is at full capacity.

3. Describe any diversity and inclusion programs that will be developed as part of the business model which embraces a rich and diverse work force with a diverse set of perspectives, work and life experiences, as well as religious and cultural differences that provide equal opportunities for employee development.

4. Identify all positions and their responsibilities.

5. Describe compensation to and opportunities for continuing education and training for employees.

6. Describe whether the cannabis business is committed to offering employees a Living Wage.

7. Briefly describe benefits provided to employees such as health care, vacation, and medical leave, to the degree they are offered as part of employment.

8. Describe to the extent to which the cannabis business will be a locally owned enterprise and the owner(s) reside within the County of Yolo. In order to qualify for this criterion, an owner must have lived in the County of Yolo for at least one year prior to July 1, 2023. *Not applicable for equity applicants.

SECTION C: SAFETY PLAN (300 points)

1. The detailed Safety Plan shall be prepared by a qualified party licensed in the State of California.

2. This plan will describe all fire prevention and suppression measures, fire extinguisher locations, evacuation routes and alarm systems the facility will have in place.

3. Describe all accident and incident reporting procedures.

4. Describe the waste management locations and procedures.

SECTION D: SECURITY PLAN (300 points)

1. The security plan shall be prepared by a professional security consultant. This can be done with in-house staff or a consultant, but it must clearly demonstrate that it meets the professional standards requested to receive the appropriate points for each criterion in this section.

A. The plan should demonstrate how the cannabis business wishes to develop the floor plan and address other security issues on the property.

2. Premises Diagram: In addition to the site plans submitted for the Proposed Location (in Section H of Appendix A), a separate Premises Diagram must be included in this Security Plan section (Section D) of the application. The diagram must meet the requirements of the Bureau of Cannabis Control CCR Title 16, Division 42, §5006 Premises Diagram.

A. The diagram shall show the boundaries of the property and the proposed location to be licensed, showing all boundaries, dimensions, entrances and 316
7 exits, interior partitions, walls, rooms, windows, and doorways, and shall include a brief statement or description of the principal activity to be conducted therein.

B. The diagram shall show and identify commercial cannabis activities that will take place in each area of the premises and identify all limited-access areas.

C. The diagram shall show where all cameras are located and assign a number to each camera for identification purposes.

D. The diagram should be accurate, dimensioned and to-scale (minimum scale of 1/4”).

E. If the proposed location consists of only a portion of a property, the diagram must be labeled indicating which part of the property will be used for the licensed premises and what activities will be used for the remaining property.

3. Description of operational security, including but not limited to general security for access/visitor control, inventory control and cash handling procedures.

4. Description of perimeter security, on-site security guards, lighting, and parking.

5. Identify transportation techniques and security procedures.

6. Description of employee training and general security policies.

SECTION E: QUALIFICATION OF OWNERS (400 points)

1. Experience – Demonstrate the business owner’s experience in owning, managing, and operating a cannabis business. For purposes of this section, owner shall mean the State definition of owner in the State Business and Professions Code Section 26001 and all persons, companies, and entities that will be directing, controlling, and/or managing the day-to-day operations of the business. Evidence that prior experience was from legally permitted activities.

2. Cannabis Industry Knowledge – Demonstrate overall knowledge of the cannabis industry (as demonstrated throughout the screening application), including identification of how industry best practices and State regulations have been incorporated in existing/prior legal businesses outside the City of West Sacramento.

3. Ownership Team – Describe the involvement of the ownership team in day-to-day operation of the business. Owner is defined based upon the State definition of owner, see Business and Professions Code Section 26001.

SECTION F: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY PLAN (400 points)

1. Describe how the business will proactively address and respond to complaints related to noise, light, odor, and vehicle and pedestrian traffic.

2. Describe how the business will be managed to avoid becoming a nuisance or having impacts on its neighbors and the surrounding community.

3. Describe odor mitigation practices:
a. Identify potential sources of odor.
b. Describe odor control devices and techniques employed to ensure that odors from cannabis are not detectable beyond the licensed premises. c. Describe all proposed staff training and system maintenance plans.

4. Describe the waste management plan. The plan shall include waste disposal locations, security measures, methods of rendering all waste unusable and unrecognizable, and the vendor in charge of disposal.

5. The application should include the following information about the proposed location:
a. Physical address and a detailed description of the proposed location, including the overall property, building, and interior floor plan.
317
8 b. Description of all known nearby State and local sensitive use areas. The cannabis business must have the appropriate zoning and meet all the locational requirements as described in WS Title 17.
c. List any nearby well-traveled paths to schools and describe how the cannabis business will proactively protect the youth on these paths from exposure to the cannabis business.
d. Describe how the business will proactively take steps about community concerns to protect the youth generally from the impacts of the cannabis business. e. Proof of ownership, lease agreement, or a Letter of Intent to Lease.

Vicinity map.
f. Photographs of existing site and buildings.
g. Evidence that the location has access to public transportation for employees or customers.
h. Evidence that the location has access to public transportation for employees or customers.

SECTION G: COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PLAN (500 points)
The cannabis business should describe the benefits the business will provide to the local community, for example by directly aiding, participating in, or funding the work of local non- profits, community-based organizations, civic organizations, or social services organizations. Benefits may be in the form of volunteer services, monetary donations, financial support of City-sponsored activities or organizations, in-kind donations to the City or other charitable organizations and/or any other economic incentives to the City which will help achieve the strategic policy goals of the City Council in entertaining retail cannabis businesses in the City of West Sacramento.

SECTION H: PROPOSED LOCATION (300 points)
In addition to the location related details required in the Security Plan section of this application, the application shall include a thorough narrative description of the proposed location, including but not limited to the overall site, existing and/or proposed building(s), parking spaces, driveways, pedestrian sidewalks/rights-of-way, and neighboring businesses on the parcel. Description of floor plans and interior design are not a requirement of this section. In addition to the narrative description of the proposed locations, Applicants shall also include the following items.

1. The proposed site for a retail cannabis application must have the appropriate zoning and meet all the locational requirements as described in WSMC Title 17.

2. The application shall include unedited digital photographs of the front (street facing) side of the building. In the event the proposed location is undeveloped land, photographs shall depict the property from all vantage points of the property.

3. The application must include a site diagram depicting all details described in the narrative description of the proposed location. The diagram required for this section need not include a description of any building interior, floor plan or security detail. 318
9 APPLICATION REVIEW, SCORING, AND APPROVAL PROCESS
(EQUITY APPLICATIONS)
Application Period
OPENS – TBD
CLOSES – TBD
These Procedure Guidelines apply solely to Equity Applicants.

SOCIAL EQUITY
An “equity applicant” shall be defined per Appendix B of these guidelines.

CONTACT
If you have any questions or would like an update on the status of your application, please contact the Community Development Department at 916.617.4645

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Information regarding retail cannabis applications can be found on the City’s website at www.cityofwestsacramento.org and includes the following:
 Application Procedures Guidelines and Review Criteria  City of West Sacramento Municipal Code (WSMC) Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations
 City of West Sacramento Municipal Code (WSMC) Title 17 (Zoning)  Financial Responsibility, Indemnity and Consent to Inspection Terms Agreement Background Check Portal Link
 Ownership Acknowledgement Form
To be considered for a retail cannabis business as an equity applicant., final applications must be submitted to the Community Development Department by the applicable deadline. There will be no exceptions. These Procedure Guidelines and Review Criteria (hereafter referred to as “Procedures.” constitute the application process and are adopted pursuant to the West Sacramento Municipal Code (WSMC) Titles 5 and Title 17.

Applicants should monitor the City’s webpage for any additional information, FAQs, or updates.

It is the responsibility of the Applicant to stay informed of this information. 319
10 SOCIAL EQUITY APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY
Pursuant to the City Council’s social equity objectives for retail cannabis businesses, applicants who are applying under as an equity applicant must first be evaluated to verify their eligibility in accordance with the City’s eligibility criteria (see Appendix B) before any substantive review of their application can occur. Equity applicants must identify themselves as such at the outset on the retail cannabis license application. If an applicant is deemed not eligible for an Equity application then he/she/they will be given the option to submit an application as a Standard Applicant or withdraw from the process when notified by the City staff.

AMENDMENTS TO THE EQUITY APPLICATION
Applicants will not be allowed to make amendments to their application or to supplement their application, except as otherwise specifically permitted in these procedures, or posted on the City’s website as a clarification update, or as authorized in writing by the City Manager or his/her designee.

During Phase IB, City staff and the Consultant will conduct a preliminary evaluation of the applications for completeness and will reject any application that is missing a major component (for example, a Security Plan), notifying the applicant by email that they have been disqualified.

For those Applications which are missing essential information the primary contact will be notified by email if their application is found to be missing minor requirements (for example, signatures/dates on forms, proof of payment receipts, scanned pages in one of the scoring criteria documents, or incorrect formatting or organization of files). If this is the case, the Applicant may be granted five days from the date of the email to submit the required supplemental information.

Should you receive an email from the City we ask that you confirm receipt of it immediately. If the City does not get confirmation from your primary contact within two days, it may, but is not required to, make an attempt to notify the primary contact by phone in case the email went into the recipient’s spam folder unnoticed. However, please note should this be the case you will not be provided additional time to complete the curing process so make sure you monitor your incoming or spam email carefully. Furthermore, you may not submit any additional information other than what was requested to cure the minor requirements. Finally, an applicant will be notified if their application is incomplete or if there is any other reason for which they will not be moving forward in the application process.

LIMITATIONS ON MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS
Applicants possessing an ownership interest of ten percent (10%), or more, in a retail, microbusiness, or vertically integrated cannabis permit application shall be limited to submitting only one application which includes retail during this initial process regardless. In order to ensure compliance with the ownership interest concerns every owner on the application which meets the criteria listed in Business and Professions Code Section 26001 will be required to complete the Ownership Acknowledgement form which is provided on the City’s website. However, there will be no limitations on any other permit type which are permitted in the City, (i.e., cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and testing labs).

CITY’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
The City reserves the right to reject any and/or all applications, with or without cause or reason.

The City may modify, postpone, or cancel the request for a retail cannabis application without liability, obligation, or commitment to any person, party, firm, or organization. In addition, the City reserves the right to request and obtain additional information from any applicant applying in order 320
11 to conduct a complete review of the application or an investigation into the truthfulness of the statements set forth in the application or provided at any stage of the application process and if it is not fully responsive to this request for an application. 321
12 APPLICATION PROCESS
This application process is adopted pursuant to WSMC Section 5.28.040. Review the information regarding the application process and which documents you will need. Before submitting your application, review your application in its entirety to ensure that it is complete and accurate.

Review the information regarding the retail cannabis application process for on the City’s webpage.

APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Applications must respond to all requirements outlined in the “Retail Cannabis Application Procedures & Guidelines.” Equity Applicants must submit all required application materials together in one complete comprehensive application package via email, Dropbox link or equivalent, etc. No paper copies will be accepted.

The application package must include all the following documents with original digital signatures for each document.

1. Retail Cannabis Business Application;

2. Financial Responsibility, Indemnity and Consent to Inspection Terms Agreement;

3. Agreement on Limitations of City’s Liability and Indemnification to City;

4. Application fee and Background Check fee(s); and

5. Owner Acknowledgment Agreement

SUBMITTAL DEADLINE
Social Equity Applications have two (2) deadlines. As follows:

1. Phase 1A: TBD

2. Phase 1B: TBD
The following table outlines submittal requirements per Phase:

Phase 1A Retail Cannabis Application (Equity Only) to be used for eligibility review.

Phase 1B Phase 1B-Items:

1. Retail Cannabis Application; (This item is required for Phase 1A and 1B)

2. Financial Responsibility, Indemnity and Consent to Inspection Terms Agreement;

3. Agreement on Limitations of City’s Liability and Indemnification to City;

4. Application fee and Background Check fee(s); and

5. Owner Acknowledgment Agreement
Furthermore, an application risks being rejected for the following reasons:

1. It is not responsive to this retail cannabis application solicitation and the Procedure Guidelines for a retail cannabis license.

2. The proposed location of the retail cannabis business does not comply with State law, WSMC Title 5, and/or WSMC Title 17.
322
13 CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK
Each Owner as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 26001 must undergo a criminal history background check to demonstrate they do not provide “good cause” for denial per WSMC 5.28.050(d). Owners who do not meet the criminal history eligibility requirements of this Section will be disqualified. The background form can be found on the City’s website.

In addition, each successful applicant will be asked to submit to a Live Scan as part of the background check as determined by the Chief of Police. Prior to being issued a permit the Applicant’s primary contact will be notified by email with the instructions on how to schedule the Live Scan appointment.

The initial background check fee for each owner shall be $XX. This process will be required to meet the minimum threshold qualifications pursuant to WSMC Section 5.28.050(d). The results of the background check must be included with the initial retail cannabis application (Phase I).

FEES
All applicants will be required to submit a fee of $TBD. This amount will be charged against time spent by City staff and the Consultant in reviewing applications and administrating the application process. Applicants are advised that they may be required to pay additional amounts as required for the sole purpose of the City’s completion of the application review process. However, there will also be a separate $NN fee for the Background Check. For the successful Applicants there will also be a Live Scan Fee of $TBD prior to obtaining the Cannabis Business Permit or at a time determined by the Police Chief.
323
14 APPLICATION REVIEW, SCORING, AND APPROVAL

PROCESS
PHASE 1A: EQUITY REGISTRATION AND ELIGIBILTY
Upon receiving a complete retail cannabis application under the equity program, City staff will review the materials to determine eligibility under the City’s established criteria in accordance with Appendix B of these procedures. Applicants may apply for storefront retail, non-storefront retail/delivery only, or microbusinesses. Applicants will be notified as soon as possible if they do not qualify under the Equity criteria and will be given the option to apply under the Standard application process respectfully or withdraw from the process.

PHASE 1B: DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Applications will be reviewed for completeness and compliance to meet the minimum submittal requirements. The determination of eligibility will be based on the criteria outlined in these procedures and as described in Appendix A. However, the criteria will be evaluated and scored with the process adopted in these procedures in accordance with WSMC Chapter 5.28 and a s may be amended in writing for clarification to application submittal questions which will be posted in the FAQ section of the Cannabis Information webpage and shall go into full effect immediately upon being posted on the website.

PHASE II: APPLICATION EVALUATION AND REVIEW (1,800 points) During Phase II, the City and/or third-party consultant will review and score each application using a merit- based system. At a minimum one applicant who scores a minimum of 90% or higher (1620 points) in Phase II may be eligible to advance to Phase III. If more than one equity applicant meets the minimum score the City may employ the lottery to select who advances. Notice of the results of Phase II will be provided in writing via email to the primary contact listed on the application.

See APPENDIX A for a description of the evaluation criteria:
 Section A. Business Plan (400 points)
 Section B. Safety Plan (300 points)
 Section C. Security Plan (300 points)
 Section D. Qualifications of Owners (400 points)
 Section E. Neighborhood Compatibility (400 points)

1. Description of the equity applicant’s background and impact from the War on Drugs.

2. Description of the equity applicant’s experience, training, and education completed to prepare for operating a successful and safe retail cannabis business in West Sacramento.

3. Business plan that details how the equity applicant intends to achieve success and sustain the business long-term.
324
15 APPENDIX B

EQUITY PILOT PROGRAM
The City of West Sacramento City Council has directed that an equity pilot program be established that addresses disparities in the cannabis industry by prioritizing the victims of the war on drugs and minimizing barriers of entry into the industry. The first step in creating such a process is the establishment of the Equity Permit Application Eligibility.

The City will actively seek and promote applicants from communities disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, and promote racial, ethnic, and gender diversity when issuing licenses for retail cannabis related activities, including mentoring potential applicants and prioritizing applications from applicants who are members of communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of cannabis prohibition.

The City will develop an incubator program to encourage equity applicants to apply for licensure and to provide direct support in the form of counseling services, education, small business coaching, financial planning and compliance assistance.

The EPP establishes a two-tier market structure that seeks to avoid large well-resourced entities from consuming so much market share that equity applicants would be effectively barred from entry into the market. This allows for more opportunities for social equity applicants to apply for licenses. The adult-use microbusiness, cooperative, and delivery license types are all examples of low barrier-to-entry licenses, however the EPP prioritizes ownership and employment opportunities for storefront retail but may apply to non-storefront/delivery only. Licenses issued under the EPP program cannot be transferred or sold within the first three years of issuance, except to another qualified equity applicant with approval from the City Council.

All non-equity licensees will be required as part of the application process, to develop and implement a social responsibility framework, which is designed to contribute to communities disproportionally harmed by cannabis prohibition and to annually report this progress to the City Council. Adherence to this requirement, is a condition of annual license renewal.

EPP Eligibility Criteria:

1. Reside in a disadvantaged community in Yolo or Sacramento Counties at the 85% or higher percentile per the latest version of CalEnviroScreen.

2. Household income ≤80% of Yolo County median income figures.

Additionally, if the owner has had a cannabis arrest in California while residing in West Sacramento, a 5% weighting factor may be applied.

Eligible Equity Applicants: Participants may receive the following (but not limited to):
 Tenancy in a city-owned or leased building
 All support services offered under the forthcoming City-led small business assistance program
 Waiver of the Development Agreement application fee and potentially other City impact fees
 Financing of off-site infrastructure (via Measure N)
 Future allocation of DCC grant funds awarded to the City (if received) 325

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2023 ITEM #13
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 24-3 REGARDING BLACKPINE 440 WEST, LLC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:

Katie Yancey, Community Investment Manager
Economic Development and Housing
[ ] Commission [ ] Staff
[X] Other
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this item is to facilitate the City Council's consideration of a proposed Development Agreement between Blackpine 440 West, LLC and the City of West Sacramento for a 106-unit single-family residential project that includes a public neighborhood park and related infrastructure improvements at 412-430 6th Street and 425 and 640-702 E Street in the Washington District.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the Council:

1. Receive a presentation by staff and take public comment;

2. Waive first reading and read by title and number only, Ordinance 24-3 (Attachment 1) approving the Development Agreement between Blackpine 440 West, LLC and the City of West Sacramento (City) for a 106-unit single-family residential project that includes a public neighborhood park and related infrastructure improvements at 412-430 6th Street and 425 and 640-702 E Street in the Washington District (“Project”); and

3. Inform the audience that the public hearing for the BlackPine 440 West, LLC Development Agreement and that the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 24-3 is scheduled for January 17, 2024.

BACKGROUND
In 2006, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Subdivision Map for the Four 40 West project, known at the time as the Alura Project, located on a 1.05-acre site at 412, 416, & 420 6th Street in Washington (See Attachment 2 – Location Map). Since the approval of the original map, the project has received multiple approvals for map modifications and extensions, as well as Development Agreement and extension approvals to support the Project’s continued progress and to account for impacts to the Project’s financing and schedule due to COVID. The current DA with Blackpine 440 West, LLC is set to expire this month.

On July 15, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the Tentative Subdivision Map 5211, the requested modifications to Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 4936, the requested Planned Development Permit, the requested Conditional Use Permit, and design review subject to the conditions and findings for the Project. The Project anticipates the construction of 106 market-rate townhomes on the site. It would add for sale units to an area dominated by rental housing, primarily from apartment units. Blackpine 440 West, LLC (“Developer”) has experience constructing this type of product, having previously completed The Creamery and Crocker Village projects in Sacramento.

The Project is subject to design review pursuant to the current Washington Specific Plan and the Project’s design review package was considered as part of the entitlements under review by the Planning Commission at the July 15, 2021, meeting. Per the approved design, the Project will utilize varying materials such as brick veneer, stucco, metal, and Hardie panel to create a diverse façade. Roof lines will vary in height to add to the visual appeal by avoiding a monolithic appearance. Seventeen units are proposed to be “front loaded” (meaning, garages would face the street along the front elevation), while the remaining 89 units are proposed to be “alley loaded” (vehicles accessing garage spaces from a rear alley). Fully landscaped meandering walkways allow access to the fronts of the alley loaded parcels. A public park was shown on the conceptual site plan in the design review packet at the corner of 6th and E Streets. The conceptual site plan also included a private dog park and garden area along the northern perimeter of the site.

On August 16, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 23-65 approving the Final Maps of Subdivision 5211 and Subdivision 4936 (“Final Map”) along with their approval of an associated Subdivision Improvement 326
Blackpine 440 West, LLC Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 24-3 December 6, 2023

Agreement (SIA) and a private road agreement. The SIA obligates the Developer to complete all required improvements necessary to serve the property. The required improvements include public and private roadways, water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage improvements located within the boundary of the Final Map. Securities have been provided per City Ordinance and State Law to secure the obligations set forth in the SIA’s. The Private Road Agreement is required because of the private roadways within the subdivision, which contain public water and sewer improvements. This agreement indemnifies the City against claims which may arise out of the City maintenance of those public utilities as well as emergency and waste collection vehicles.

ANALYSIS
Based on the previous actions already taken by Council and the Planning Commission for the Project, staff is proposing a new, simplified and stand-alone Development Agreement (DA) between the Developer and the City (Exhibit A to Attachment 1) rather than amending the previous DA, which included redundant actions. The new proposed DA acknowledges and incorporates by reference all of the previous actions taken by the Planning Commission and Council described earlier, including but not limited to:
 Exhibit A is the Final Map;
 Exhibit B is the Design Review packet;
 Exhibit C is the Project’s Conditions of Approval;
 Exhibit D is the Planned Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit; and  Exhibit E is the SIA.

Because of the extensive work completed to date and approvals already received by Council and the Planning Commission, the terms of the proposed DA need only address a limited number of topics, which are summarized below:
 Impact Fees: The proposed DA vests the Developer in the current reduced impact fee program in the Washington District that was adopted by the City Council via Resolution 22-84 on September 22, 2022, for a period of five years from the effective date of the DA with a possible two-year extension. Applicable pages from the City’s Book of Fees are provided in the proposed DA as Exhibit I.

 New Neighborhood Park: The proposed DA obligates the Developer to construct a ±0.43-acre public park at the northwest corner of 6th and E Streets. Although the park site parcel, Lot H, was created with the Final Map, the associated SIA that Council approved did not include a requirement for the Developer to construct a public park. This park is referenced as the Heritage Green Pocket Park in Washington Realized and the adopted 2018 Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The proposed DA obligates the Developer to enter into an Option Agreement to sell the land and park improvements to the City, once completed. The Option Agreement sets the purchase price at $735,565 for a term of seven years and is included as a stand-alone agreement in the proposed DA as Exhibit F. The proposed DA obligates the Developer to construct the approved park improvements identified in Exhibit G in the proposed DA within twenty-four (24) months from the effective date of the DA. The estimated cost of the park improvements is $601,550. The Developer is eligible for reimbursement of these costs pursuant to terms of the Park Improvements Reimbursement Agreement which is also provided in the DA as Exhibit G. Lastly, the Developer will be obligated to participate in a mechanism, such as a new Community Facilities District, to help fund future operations and maintenance of the park.  Enhanced Frontage Improvements on E Street: The Project’s Conditions of Approval (COA) are incorporated by reference in the proposed DA as Exhibit C. Project Specific Condition #44 obligates the Developer to construct landscape and streetscape frontage on E Street, between 6th and 8th streets, to match street improvement designs included in the Washington Realized Sustainable Community Strategy. The contents of this strategy document are being incorporated into the Washington Specific Plan update which is anticipated to be adopted in 2024. The Developer consented to these future standards as part of their COAs with a request that the City reimburse the Developer for the deferential cost of meeting those higher requirements. The Developer is obligated to construct the enhanced frontage improvements, as shown on the plans and specifications of the Final Map, a copy of which is on file with the Community Development Department. Per the SIA, incorporated by reference in the proposed DA as Exhibit E, the Developer is obligated to construct the enhanced frontage improvements before December 31, 2024. A diagram showing the improvements eligible for reimbursements is attached to the Frontage Improvements Reimbursement Agreement provided in the proposed DA as Exhibit H.

The estimated cost for the enhanced frontage improvements is $144,955. 327
Blackpine 440 West, LLC Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 24-3 December 6, 2023

The City Council has, with previous budget actions, appropriated adequate funds to cover the acquisition of the land and reimbursement of the Developer’s park improvement and enhanced frontage improvement costs. Those budget allocations are referenced specifically by fund in the Park Improvements Reimbursement Agreement and the Frontage Improvements Reimbursement Agreement.

To approve the DA, the City Council must be able to make the required findings (see Attachment 3). After completing their analysis, staff believes that all required findings have been met.

Environmental Considerations
On November 16, 2016, the City Council certified the General Plan 2035 Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR was prepared specifically to allow maximum streamlined review of subsequent projects that are found to be consistent with General Plan 2035 in terms of land use, density, etc. Staff prepared a technical memorandum to fully analyze any potential impacts associated with the Four 40 West project that would be beyond what was contained in the EIR. Based on the analysis presented in the technical memorandum, the proposed project is within the scope of the EIR prepared for the General Plan 2035, and no new or substantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no new environmental document is required, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15168(c)(2).

See the Technical Memorandum (Attachment 4) and the Notice of Determination (Attachment 5) for additional information.

Commission Recommendation
On November 16, 2023, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 23-5PC, which made required findings and recommended that the City Council adopt Ordinance 24-3 approving a Development Agreement with Blackpine 440 West, LLC for a future housing development located at 412-430 6th Street and 425 and 640-702 E Street in the Washington District.

Strategic Plan Integration
The recommended item supports the Council’s 2019 Strategic Plan Goal of, “West Sacramento: Preferred place to live, work, learn, and play” and an “Alive riverfront and downtown” by providing a diverse range of housing choices within the Washington District. The recommended action also furthers the goals of the Council’s 2020 Strategic Plan Policy Agenda item, “Housing Production Strategy.” Alternatives
The Council’s primary alternatives to the recommended action include:

1. Continue the item to a future date; or

2. Propose modified terms of the DA.

These alternatives are not recommended as they would delay the Project. The current DA with Blackpine 440 West LLC is set to expire this month. The Final Map for the Project has been recorded and the new proposed DA is the final step needed to move forward and construct the Project, including a much-needed new public park.

Coordination and Review
This report was written and reviewed in coordination with the Community Development Department, the Parks and Recreation Department and the City Attorney’s office.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance 24-3

2. Location Map

3. Findings and Analysis

4. Technical Memorandum

5. Notice of Determination
328
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE 24-3

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO APPROVING

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND
BLACKPINE 440 WEST, LLC PERTAINING TO
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALURA FOUR 40 WEST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to development agreement law, Government Code section 65864 et seq., the City is authorized to enter into a development agreement with any person having legal or equitable interest in certain real property in order to establish certain use and development rights in the property; and
WHEREAS, Blackpine 440 West, LLC ("Developer") is the fee title owner of certain property in the City and holds a ground lease to other certain property in the City (collectively, "Property"), and Developer wishes to develop the Property; and
WHEREAS, Developer and staff have negotiated and prepared a development agreement setting out terms and conditions for the development of the Property to the benefit of Developer and City, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full ("Development Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2023, the City of West Sacramento Planning Commission, serving as the City's planning agency for the purposes of development agreement review pursuant to Government Code section 65867, conducted a public hearing, considered the Development Agreement, and adopted Resolution 23-5PC, recommending that the City Council find the Development Agreement exempt from further environmental review and approve the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2023, the City Council of the City of West Sacramento conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the Development Agreement, during which staff made a presentation on the Development Agreement and members of the public were given the opportunity to speak and comment on the same; and
WHEREAS, all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts from the project contemplated by the Development Agreement are within the scope of the environmental impact report prepared for the West Sacramento 2016 General Plan Update certified by the City Council on November 16, 2016 ("General Plan 2035 EIR") and no new or substantially more adverse impacts that those contemplated in the General Plan EIR would occur through implementation of the project. Therefore, no further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2). .

The City Council of the City of West Sacramento does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above, including definitions and exhibits contained therein, are hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full.

Section 2. Purpose and Authority. The purpose of this Ordinance is to approve the Development Agreement between the City and BlackPine 440 West, LLC pertaining to the Four 40 West Project, a copy of which is attached hereto as EXHIBIT A and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. This Ordinance is authorized pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5 and Resolution No. 88-111 of the City of West Sacramento, which .authorize the City to enter into a development agreement with any person having legal or equitable interest in certain real property in order to establish certain use and development rights in the property.

Section 32. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council makes the following findings:
329
(a) The proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the City's current General Plan and the Washington Specific Plan.; and
(b) That the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5.
(b)(c) That all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts from the project contemplated by the Development Agreement are within the scope of the environmental impact report prepared for the West Sacramento 2016 General Plan Update certified by the City Council on November 16, 2016 ("General Plan 2035 EIR") and no new or substantially more adverse impacts that those contemplated in the General Plan EIR would occur through implementation of the project.

Therefore, no further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2).

Section 43. Severability. If any provision or section of this Ordinance is determined to be unenforceable, invalid, or unlawful, such determination shall not affect the enforceability of the remaining provisions of the Ordinance.

Section 54. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption, and pursuant to Resolution 99-46, shall be published in summary format prior to adoption and a summary shall be published within fifteen (15) days after adoption in a paper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of West Sacramento.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento this _____ day of January, 2024 by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: ___________________________
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________ ___________________________
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney CODIFY __ UNCODIFY___X____
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
FOUR 40 WEST - E STREET FRONTAGE ENHANCEMENTS
DATE: 08.21.2023

STATEMENT OF PROBABLE COST
SITE WORK - LANDSCAPE SF 8,000 SF
01 00 00-GENERAL CONDITIONS
1 PROJECT GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATION $6,275.10 JOB 1 $6,275.10 02 50 00 - FENCING
1 18" DECO METAL FENCE $66.00 LF 755 $49,830.00
02 60 00- SITE PAVING AND SURFACES
1 6" CURB AT 18" DECO METAL FENCE $30.00 LF 580 $17,400.00 2 SPECIALTY FINISH AT CONCRETE WALK $8.00 SF 7,284 $58,272.00 $131,777.10
$13,177.71
$144,954.81
$18.12

SITE LANDSCAPE
# DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE UNIT QTY. COST

COST/SF

SITE LANDSCAPE SUBTOTAL
CONTINGANCY 10%

LANDSCAPE TOTAL
491
492
GARAGE
PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. A
PLAN 1E 1511 ELEV. B GARAGE GARAGE PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. B 414 408 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW C 410 37" OAK 22" OAK 412 413

MODEL MODEL MODEL SALES OFFICE
PB
RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB 1 LC-0
1"=50'0"
SCF
COVER
SHEET
Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call R
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT 12345
JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GER TS ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I TECT STATE OF CAL I FORN AI TS EVEN C . FUHRMAN No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF
PREPARED FOR:

LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR:

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

MIKE PARIS
8880 CAL CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 350
SACRAMENTO, CA 95826
916.825.6180
FOUR 40 WEST
CITY E STREET FRONTA.E
OFFSITE LAN+SCA7E IM7RO=EMENTS
West Sacramento, CA

LANDSCAPE
S
EE DESC
P
N S
EENǿ
LCȒǕ CES
EE Ǖǖ
LCȒǖǽǕ LANDSCAPECNSC
NPLAN ǕǗ
LCȒǖǽǖ LANDSCAPECNSC
NPLAN Ǖǘ
LCȒǗǽǕ LANDSCAPECNSC
NLA
PLAN ǕǙ
LCȒǗǽǖ LANDSCAPECNSC
NDEA
LS Ǖǚ
L
ȒǖǽǕLANDSCAPE


A
NPLAN  ǕǛ
L
ȒǗǽǕLANDSCAPE


A
NNESǔLE
ENDS Ǖǜ
L
ȒǗǽǖLANDSCAPE


A
NDEA
LS Ǖǝ
LPȒǖǽǕLANDSCAPEPLAN
N
PLAN  ǕǞ
LPȒǗǽǕLANDSCAPEPLAN
N
NESǔLE
END ǖǕ
EǕ ELEC
CALCES
EE ǖǖ
Eǖ ELEC
CALS
EPLANǔNES ǖǗ
EǖǕ ELEC
CALDEA
LS ǖǘ
ALS
EES ǖǘ

SHEET INDEX

SITE PLAN
NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS BY

FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP FOR ON

SITE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
NOTE: SEE

LANDSCAPE PLANS

BY FUHRMAN

LEAMY LAND

GROUP FOR PARK
SITE

IMPROVEMENTS
E STREET 6TH STREET

MODEL HOMES

PHASE LINE
PHASE 2 PHASE 1
493
63 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 102 103 104
101 100 99 72 73 74 75 76 77 78
106
105
2 3
5T3
2 2
2 2
2 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB

RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB 1-01
1-01
1-03
1-03
2-01
2-02 FULL PANELS
2-02 FULL PANELS 2-02

SINGLE PANEL
2-02 SINGLE PANEL 2-02
1-10
1-06 TYPICAL SINGLE PANEL
1-06 TYPICAL
2-01
1-04
1-04
1-04
1-04
1-04
2-11
1-05
4 " SLV.
2" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV.
4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV.
4" SLV.
4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV.
4" SLV.
2" SLV.
2" SLV.
2" SLV. 2" SLV. 4" SLV.
4" SLV.
2" SLV.

TYPICAL
2-01
2-13 TYPICAL
1-01 2-04
2-04
2-04
2-04
2-04
2-04
2-04
2-04
2-04 2-04 2-04
2-12 TYPICAL 2-12 TYPICAL
2-04
2-04
2-13 TYPICAL
PMI-9 LOW LOW
LOW LOW LOW 1 GENERAL

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DETAIL
E STREET FRONTAGE CURB, AND GUTTER, PER CITY STD. DETAIL, SEE CIVIL PLANS.

LIMIT OF WORK LINE FOR E STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY STREET LIGHT, SEE CIVIL E STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

EXISTING 8" WATER LINE TO REMAIN. PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION.

SEE PLANTING PLAN SHEET LP-1.0 AND LP1.1 FOR SHRUB PLANTING IN THIS AREA.

TRUNCATED DOMES,
DISTRIBUTED BY: PARK PACIFIC, INC. 888-460-7275, MANUFACTURER: NEENAH FOUNDRY, MODEL: # 4984-36Q. TWO (2) 24" X 36" PANELS SHALL BE USED TO CREATE ONE 48" X 36" AT EACH ACCESSIBLE RAMP ON E ST. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER`S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, & IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAILS.

SEE CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
2 SITE

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DETAIL
PROVIDE 72" WIDE MEANDERING SIDEWALK. B/LC2.1
SPARKLE GRAIN PAVING PRODUCT: EMERCHROME SPARKLECRETE BY LM SCOFIELD.

COLOR: WASHINGTON GREY.

FINISH: DUSTLESS SANDBLAST.

CONCRETE COLOR & FINISH SHALL MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKS BETWEEN 4TH & 5TH STREETS. 1/4" SAWN SCORE JOINTS PER 2` SQUARE, TYP. CONTRACTOR SHALL

FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH EXISTING PAVING & FINISH ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING & CONSTRUCTION. SEE DETAIL SHEET LC2.1 FOR TYPICAL LAYOUT.

CONTACT BOB TORREZ WITH LM SCOFIELD (916) 715-2717 OR [email protected] FOR SPECIFICATIONS AND COORDINATION.

PROVIDE DECORATIVE 18" TUBULAR STEEL FENCE ON 6" CONCRETE CURB, TYPICAL. FENCE A/LC2.1 COLOR AND DESIGN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF 5TH STREET ON E STREET.

PROVIDE IRRIGATION SLEEVES SIZE AS NOTED.

PROVIDE ROOT BARRIER, PANEL TYPE, ADJACENT TO CONCRETE WALK. E/LC2.1 PROVIDE 6" CONCRETE MOW BAND AT LIMIT OF CITY WORK AND FOUR 40 WEST UNIT D/LC2.1 PROPERTY LINE.
42" WIDTH, CONCRETE WALK TO UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH BUILDING PERMIT FOR C/LC2.1 UNIT UNDER CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AS REQ'D BY CITY. WALK TO FRONT OF UNITS

SHALL NOT BE PLACED UNTIL UNIT IS CONSTRUCTED AS IT SHALL BE ALIGNED

PERPENDICULAR TO FRONT DOOR
1-01
1-03
1-04
1-05
1-06
1-10
2-01
2-02
2-04
2-11
2-12
2-13
REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE LC1.0 MATCHLINE-SEE ABOVE LEFT LC-1.0
2 SCF
1"=20'0"

LANDSCAPE

CONSTRUCTION

PLAN - E STREET
Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call
R
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 2+50 TO 7+78)
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 1+91 TO 2+50)
1-03
1-01 MATCHLINE-SEE NEXT SHEET MATCHLINE-SEE BELOW
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
EC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF
MATCHLINE - SEE FOUR 40

WEST ONSITE PLANS BY FLLG
A
B KINGFISHER LANE 494
80 62
63 79
41 59
60 19
9 7
4 21
20 6
1 2
61 3
8 5 6th STREET
BB
2 3
5 2
2 2
GARAGE
PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. A
PLAN 1E 1511 ELEV. B GARAGE GARAGE PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. B 414
408

LOW LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV C 410
37" OAK
22" OAK
412
413 SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV MODEL MODEL MODEL
SALES
OFFICE
PB

RB RB RB RB RB RB
RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB 19.47 FS

19.97 TC

20.35 FS

20.85 TC

20.35FS 21.05 FS 20.47 BS 20.17 FS

21.15 FS

22.65 TC

21.47 X FG 21.89 X FG

19.78 X FG

20.27 FS

20.77 TC

21.75 HP FS

2.5%

4.9%

17.94 FL

18.44 TC

18.41 FL

18.91 TC

18.08 FL

18.58 TC

18.67 FL

19.17 TC

18.65 FS

19.15 TC

20.17 FS

20.67 TC

20.45 FS

20.95 TC

21.25 FS

21.75 TC

21.85 HP FS

22.35 TC

2.5% 2.1%

1.5%

4.9%
(1) 4" SLV
2"SLV
1-01
1-02
1-02
1-03
2-01 2-02

SINGLE PANEL
2-02
2-03
2-03
1-09
2-05
2-06
2-08
2-09
2-10
1-07
1-08
1-08 1-10 2-07

FULL PANELS
(2) 2" SLV
1-04
1-04
4"SLV
2"
2"SLV
2-11
1-05
1-08
1-08
1-08
1-06
4" SLV.
4" SLV.
2" SLV.
2"
SLV
2"
SLV
2"
SLV
2-07
2-01
1-11
1-01
2-04
2-04
2-12 TYPICAL
2-13
2-04
1 GENERAL

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DETAIL
E STREET FRONTAGE CURB, AND GUTTER, PER CITY STD. DETAIL, SEE CIVIL PLANS.

RIGHT OF WAY & PL, SEE CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS BY B2 ENGINEERING.

LIMIT OF WORK LINE FOR E STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CITY STREET LIGHT, SEE CIVIL E STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

EXISTING 8" WATER LINE TO REMAIN. PROTECT DURING CONSTRUCTION.

SEE PLANTING PLAN SHEET LP-1.0 AND LP1.1 FOR SHRUB PLANTING IN THIS AREA.

SLOPE, SEE CIVIL GRADING PLANS BY B2 ENGINEERING.

EXISTING OAK TREE, PROTECT & RETAIN IN PLACE, TYP. SEE PLANTING PLAN.

PROPOSED PARK PLAZA IMPROVEMENTS. SEE PLANS BY FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP.

TRUNCATED DOMES,
DISTRIBUTED BY: PARK PACIFIC, INC. 888-460-7275, MANUFACTURER: NEENAH FOUNDRY, MODEL: # 4984-36Q. TWO (2) 24" X 36" PANELS SHALL BE USED TO CREATE ONE 48" X 36" AT EACH ACCESSIBLE RAMP ON E ST. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER`S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS, & IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY STANDARD DETAILS.

SEE CIVIL IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

MEDIUM BROOM FINISH CONCRETE WALK PER CITY STD. DETAILS. SEE CIVIL ENGINEERS IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
2 SITE

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION DETAIL
PROVIDE 72" WIDE MEANDERING SIDEWALK. B/LC2.1
SPARKLE GRAIN PAVING PRODUCT: EMERCHROME SPARKLECRETE BY LM SCOFIELD.

COLOR: WASHINGTON GREY.

FINISH: DUSTLESS SANDBLAST.

CONCRETE COLOR & FINISH SHALL MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALKS BETWEEN 4TH & 5TH STREETS. 1/4" SAWN SCORE JOINTS PER 2` SQUARE, TYP. CONTRACTOR SHALL

FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH EXISTING PAVING & FINISH ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING & CONSTRUCTION. SEE DETAIL SHEET LC2.1 FOR TYPICAL LAYOUT.

CONTACT BOB TORREZ WITH LM SCOFIELD (916) 715-2717 OR [email protected] FOR SPECIFICATIONS AND COORDINATION.

PROVIDE DECORATIVE 18" TUBULAR STEEL FENCE ON 6" CONCRETE CURB, TYPICAL. FENCE A/LC2.1 COLOR AND DESIGN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS EAST OF 5TH STREET ON E STREET.

PROVIDE HAND TRENCHING OF IRRIGATION WATER WHEN UNDER EXISTING OAK TREE CANOPY.

PROVIDE IRRIGATION SLEEVES SIZE AS NOTED.

PROVIDE ELECTRICAL SERVICE METER, 100AMP TESCO PANEL. SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS. THIS

METER WILL SERVE PARK SITE CONTROLLER
PROVIDE LANDSCAPE CONTROLLER FOR PARK. NOTE: THIS CONTROLLER TO PROVIDE L/LI2.1 CONTROL WIRE TO E STREET FRONTAGE IRRIGATION AS WELL.

PROVIDE 1" ORGANIC RECYCLED COMPOST, (SB1383 APPROVED), AND 2" DEPTH MULCH TOP DRESSING MATERIAL UNDER OAK TREES.

POINT OF CONNECTION FOR LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION. 1" WATER METER FOR E STREET AND PARK SITE. SEE LI SHEETS, AND CIVIL ENGINEERING SUBDIVISION PLANS, AS WELL AS PARK

PLANS BY FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP
PROVIDE (1) 4" PVC SLEEVE, (2) 2" PVC SLEEVES INTO CENTER PLAZA AREA. FOR FUTURE USE BY CITY.

ADA ACCESS RAMP PER CITY DETAILS. SEE CIVIL PLANS. PROVIDE SCORING PATTERN AS SHOWN.

PROVIDE ROOT BARRIER, PANEL TYPE, ADJACENT TO CONCRETE WALK. E/LC2.1 PROVIDE 6" CONCRETE MOW BAND AT LIMIT OF CITY WORK AND FOUR 40 WEST UNIT D/LC2.1 PROPERTY LINE.
42" WIDTH, CONCRETE WALK TO UNIT TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH BUILDING PERMIT FOR C/LC2.1 UNIT UNDER CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AS REQ'D BY CITY. WALK TO FRONT OF UNITS

SHALL NOT BE PLACED UNTIL UNIT IS CONSTRUCTED AS IT SHALL BE ALIGNED

PERPENDICULAR TO FRONT DOOR
1-01
1-02
1-03
1-04
1-05
1-06
1-07
1-08
1-09
1-10
1-11
2-01
2-02
2-03
2-04
2-05
2-06
2-07
2-08
2-09
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
REFERENCE NOTES SCHEDULE LC1.1
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 7+78 TO 12+50)
LC-1.1
3 SCF
1"=20'0"

LANDSCAPE

CONSTRUCTION

PLAN - E STREET
Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call
R
NOTE: SEE PARK IMP. PLANS BY FUHRMAN
LEAMY LAND GROUP FOR PARK. MATCHLINE-SEE PREVIOUS SHEET

NOTE EXTEND CURB AND GUTTER AWAY
FROM BASE OF TREE #412 SHOULD THE

ROOT CROWN BE COMPROMISED WITH
CUT IF APPLYING CURB AS SHOWN.

PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
EC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF

LIMIT OF WORK MATCHLINE - PARK PLANS BY FLLG
A

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG

PHASE LINE
PHASE 2 PHASE 1 495
1 2
414
LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW
LOW

LOW LOW
LOW

LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW

LOW LOW
LOW

LOW LOW
LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV 410
412
413 SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV OFFICE 6'
17'-5"
6'-9"
1' BOC TO

FACE OF
CURB, TYP.

R7'
1'-6"
6'
1' BOC TO

FACE OF
CURB, TYP.
6'
80 81 82 83 79
2 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW 22" OAK

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB

RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB

RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB RB R7' 6'
1'
6'
98'-6"
6' 6' 7'
6'-3"
1' BOC TO

FACE OF
CURB, TYP.
6'
5 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV 47'-6" 5'
5'
47'-3"
6'-4"
7'
84'-6"
6'
6'
102 103 104 105
PMI-9 LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV 1' 6'-2" 55'-6"
6'-6"
6'
LC-2.0
4 SCF

AS SHOWN
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS

LANDSCAPE

CONSTRUCTION

DETAILS - E STREET
DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
EC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF
A

E STREET WALK LAYOUT
1"=10'0"
1 4" SAW CUT CORE JOINTS
24" O.C. EA. WAY
4'
1 4" SAW CUT CORE
JOINTS 24" O.C.

EA. WAY

LANDSCAPED PLANTER AREA
17'-6"
B

E STREET WALK LAYOUT
1"=10'0"
C

E STREET WALK LAYOUT
1"=10'0"
D

E STREET WALK LAYOUT
1"=10'0"
1 4" SAW CUT CORE JOINTS 24" O.C. EA. WAY
1 4" SAW CUT CORE JOINTS 24" O.C. EA. WAY
1 4" SAW CUT CORE JOINTS 24" O.C. EA. WAY

STAIRS AND WALK TO UNIT AS PER ON SITE
PLANS. TYPICAL. PER SEPARATE PLANS.

LANDSCAPED PLANTER AREA MATCHLINE - SEE B-BELOW RIGHT MATCHLINE - SEE A-ABOVE LEFT MATCHLINE - SEE B-ABOVE LEFT MATCHLINE - SEE C-ABOVE LEFT MATCHLINE - SEE C-BELOW RIGHT MATCHLINE - SEE D-BELOW RIGHT

LANDSCAPED AREA LANDSCAPED PLANTER AREA

LANDSCAPED AREA

LANDSCAPED AREA

LANDSCAPED PLANTER AREA

LANDSCAPED PLANTER AREA
6'-2"
4'
4'
NOTE: ALIGN UNIT WALK
PERPENDICULAR TO E STREET WALK.

TYPICAL. PER SEPARATE PLANS

1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING, LAYOUT AND MEASUREMENTS. ALL SURVEYING AND FIELD ENGINEERING NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE LINES AND GRADE STAKES INDICATED IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MARK IN WHITE PAINT ALL AREAS TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO CONTACTING U.S.A. ANY AREAS NOT MARKED WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO U.S.A., AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE RESULTING FROM EXCAVATION.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXPOSE AND VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS CONNECTING TO OR IN THE VICINITY OF THE SAME.

4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING MONUMENTS AND OTHER SURVEY MARKERS ON THE JOB SITE.

5. ANY CONCRETE SURFACE TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE SAW CUT TO A NEAT, STRAIGHT LINE.

6. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, BACK OF WALL, FACE OF WALL, CENTER LINE OF COLUMNS, FACE OF COLUMNS, EDGE OF PAVING, OR FACE OF BUILDING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE AT 90 OR 45 DEGREES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

7. ALL MATERIALS AND FINISHES SHALL BE AS PER DRAWINGS, DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. SOME MATERIALS MAY REQUIRE PROVIDING REQUIRED MATERIALS AT THE PROJECT SITE IN A TIMELY MANNER. NO UNAPPROVED SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED. CONTACT THE PROJECT INSPECTOR IMMEDIATELY IF A SPECIFIED MATERIAL IS NOT AVAILABLE.

8. SLEEVING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH CONCRETE WORK. REFER TO THE LAYOUT PLAN, IRRIGATION PLAN AND CIVIL ENGINEER'S PLANS FOR SLEEVING LOCATIONS.

9. DUST SHOULD BE CONTROLLED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD (OR WHENEVER SOIL IS LEFT EXPOSED) BY REGULAR WATER SPRINKLING OF THE SITE. THE DUST CONTROL MEASURE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING ON DAYS WHEN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE NOT OCCURRING (I.E. WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS).

10. EXPANSION JOINTS AND SCORE LINES SHALL BE PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. DESIRED MODULE IS 5'X 5'. BRING TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION IF ANY DEVIATIONS OCCUR DURING LAYOUT.

11. NEW CONCRETE FLATWORK SHALL MEET GRADE FLUSH WITH EXISTING CONCRETE FLATWORK.

12. CONSTRUCT ALL CURVILINEAR SITE ELEMENTS WITH SMOOTH, CONTINUOUS, UNBROKEN CURVES.

13. MAINTAIN EXISTING GRADE AT THE BASE OF ALL EXISTING TREES WITHIN THE DRIP LINE.

14. REFER TO IRRIGATION PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF SLEEVES PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION.

15. UTILITIES ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ON THESE PLANS. VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. BRING TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S ATTENTION ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DOCUMENTS AND FIELD CONDITION.

SITE LAYOUT NOTES
NOTE: ALIGN UNIT WALK
PERPENDICULAR TO E STREET WALK.

TYPICAL. PER SEPARATE PLANS NOTE: ALIGN UNIT WALK
PERPENDICULAR TO E STREET WALK.

TYPICAL. PER SEPARATE PLANS
NOTE: ALIGN UNIT WALK
PERPENDICULAR TO E STREET WALK.

TYPICAL. PER SEPARATE PLANS

PHASE LINE
PHASE 2 PHASE 1KINGFISHER LANE 496
LC2.1
5 SCF

AS SHOWN
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS

LANDSCAPE

CONSTRUCTION

DETAILS - E STREET
DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
EC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF

CONCRETE FLATWORK-E ST & PARK
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
2 NOTES:

1. PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS MIN. 20'0"
O.C. VERIFY JOINT MATERIAL AND
SPACING WITH SOILS ENGINEER.

2. ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS B AND

PROVIDED PER GEOTECHNICAL SOILS
REPORT .
1 3
1/4" SAW CUT 30 DAYS AFTER
PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE.

PROVIDE IN UNIFORM 24"
GRID, PER PLAN.
1 1/4" RADIUS EDGE TYPICAL. 2

PROVIDE CONCRETE WALKS

ALONG E STREET FRONTAGE

AND WITHIN PARK INTERIOR

TO MATCH SPARKLE GRAIN
OF E STREET WALK.

SPARKLE GRAIN PAVING
PRODUCT: EMERCHROME

SPARKLECRETE BY LM
SCOFIELD. COLOR:

WASHINGTON GREY. SUBMIT

SAMPLE FOR APPROVAL
3 4

THICKNESS AND SUBGRADE
PER CITY STD. AND CIVIL
PLANS.
4 B
PR-22020-50

CONCRETE FLATWORK-PRIVATE
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
4"
2 NOTES:

1. PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS MIN. 20'0"
O.C. VERIFY JOINT MATERIAL AND
SPACING WITH SOILS ENGINEER.
3 1
4 1/2" RAD. DEEP TOOLED
JOINT. 1" DEPTH. SPACE

EQUAL TO WIDTH OF WALK
OR PER CIVIL PLAN.
1 1/4" RADIUS EDGE TYPICAL. 2
6 X 6 "/# 14 X #14 WWM. 3

MEDIUM BROOM FINISH
CONCRETE PAVING. 4"
DEPTH.
4 PR-22020-46
C
NOTES:

A. FENCE AND CURB DESIGN SHALL MATCH 18" TUBULAR STEEL FENCE INSTALLED ON E STREET BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH STREETS. CONTRACTOR SHALL FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH EXISTING FENCING ADJACENT TO THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION.

B. ALL FENCE PARTS TO BE TUBULAR STEEL.

C. GRIND SMOOTH ALL WELDS.

D. PRIME AND APPLY 2 COATS OF PAINT.COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING E STREET FENCING BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH STREETS. CONFIRM COLOR WITH PRIOR TO ORDERING AND APPLICATION.

E. ALL PAINT AND PRIMER SHALL BE APPLIED TO CLEAN SURFACES IN 5 MIL. COATS.

F. FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

G. REFER TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR LOCATIONS.

H. DO NOT INSTALL FENCE DIRECTLY OVER THE TOP OF ANY ELECTRICAL SERVICE BOX. 8 9
10 7
3 1
4 2
11 6 5
1'
1'-6"
6"
8"
6"
2"
6"
WIDTH VARIES, TYP.

STREET ADJACENT SECTION:
18" TUBULAR STEEL FENCE ON 6" CONCRETE CURB
1/2" = 1'-0"
2" SQUARE TUBE STEEL POST WITH

DECORATIVE STEEL TOP AND ROUND
STEEL FINIAL AS SHOWN.
1 1/2" SQUARE STEEL PICKETS, FULLY
WELDED TO BARS.
2 1/2" X 3/4" STEEL BARS, TOP AND
BOTTOM.
3 1/2" STEEL FORMED INTO CIRCLES, 2"
RADIUS; TACK WELT TO PICKETS.
4 2" SQUARE BLOCK OUT DRAIN HOLE.

LOCATED 1" ABOVE BASE OF CURB.

SPACED EVERY 6' CONTINUOUS FRONT
TO BACK OF CURBS.
5 6" AGGREGATE BASE. 6
CONCRETE STEP OUT. 7
1/2" EXPANSION JOINT. 8
CONCRETE WALKWAY. SEE CIVIL PLAN. 9
STREET CURB PER CIVIL PLAN. 10
FINISH GRADE. 11
R-20028-20028.1-08
A
EXCAVATE 12" OF SOIL

BELOW THE ROOT

BARRIER SYSTEM, AND

REPLACE WITH FIRMLY

COMPACTED AMENDED
BACKFILL.

KEEP MULCH 6"-8" FROM THE BASE OF
THE TREE TRUNK.

SET ROOT BALL CROWN 1
1 2" HIGHER THAN THE FINISHED
GRADE. SLOPE BACKFILL AWAY FROM ROOT BALL FOR
POSITIVE DRAINAGE.
3" THICK LAYER OF
MULCH.
4" MIN. BETWEEN

ROOT BALL AND
BARRIER.
4" MIN. GRAVEL
BACKFILL.
3 4" CRUSHED ROCK ALL

AROUND OUTSIDE OF
BARRIER.
6" HIGH WATER

WELL AT
SHRUBS.

RECESS 1" AT TURF

TO ALLOW FOR
MULCH.

KEEP TURF CLEAR FOR A
18" RADIUS MUCLH AREA
AROUND THE TREE.

PLANT TABLETS AS
NOTED.

PLANT PIT DETAIL
24" DEEP ROOT BARRIER
SYSTEM. ROOT GUIDING RIBS

MUST BE FACING THE ROOT
BALL.

AMENDED

BACKFILL AS
NOTED.

ROOT BALL

PLANTING AT
SHRUB AREAS.

PLANTING AT
TURF AREAS.

ENSURE THAT ROOT BARRIER
IS 1
2" TO 1" ABOVE GRADE.

ROOT BARRIER TREE PLANTING
1" = 1'-0"
E
PR-22020-43
6" CONCRETE MOWING STRIP @ PLANTING BEDS
3" = 1'-0"
6"
3"
4"
1"
1 2
3 4
5 6
1/4" RADIUS TOOLED EDGE, TYP. 1
FINISH GRADE 1" BELOW TOP OF BAND FOR TURF. 2
FINISH GRADE 3" BELOW TOP OF BAND FOR SHRUBS AND/OR GROUNDCOVER. 3 4" X 6", 5 SACK, 2500 PSI, CONCRETE MOW STRIP. 4
#4 REBAR CONTINUOUS, CENTERED @ MID-DEPTH. 5
COMPACTED SUB-GRADE TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION.

NOTE:

PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS AT 20 FEET ON CENTER.
6 R-20028-20028.1-22
D 497
80 63
81 62
79 60
59 41
19 9
4 7
21 20
6 1
2 61
3 8
5 BB
2 3
3 2
2 2
GARAGE
PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. A
PLAN 1E 1511 ELEV. B GARAGE GARAGE PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. B 414
408

LOW LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV 410
37" OAK
22" OAK
412
413 SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV

MODEL MODEL MODEL
SALES
OFFICE
M
M
M
M
M M M
M M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
3 4" 3
4" SH L
1" 4.28
P20
972 SF P20
1" 5.53
SH L
P18
1261 SF P18
(1)4" SLV.
(2)2" SLV.
4" SLV.
1 - 2" SLV.

TW TW
M
M
M M
M
M M
T
3 4"

PROVIDE FLOW SENSOR WIRE

FROM CONTROLLER TO FLOW
SENSOR PER MANUF. SPECS.

TW
TW
S
L S
S S
S S
S R
TW
3 4" S L
1" 3.04
P21
530 SF
PLACE LINE SIZED GATE VALVE.

P.O.C. FOR PARK SITE IRRIGATION
WORK. SEE PLANS FOR PARK BY

FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP
P21
3 4" S L
1" 2.63
650
P11 PLACE 3
4" LATERAL LINE FROM VALVE 'P11' 4"
FROM SOUTH EDGE OF WALK . HAND DIG UNDER
CANOPY EXISTING OAK TREE CANOPY.
3 4" S L
1" 2.5
P22
26 TW
WM
BF
1"
BF2
M
M
M
M
660 SF
P23
1" 9.5
S L
PLACE 3
4" LATERAL

LINE FROM VALVE
'P23' 8" FROM
EDGE OF WALK .

HAND DIG UNDER

CANOPY EXISTING
OAK TREE CANOPY.

M
M
M
3 4" 2"
2"
FS
TW
TW
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
3 4" 1"
4" SLV.
4" SLV.
2" SLV.

PROVIDE GATE VALVE ON WATER STUB PROVIDED
BY CIVIL ENGINEER. VERIFY LOCATION IN FIELD.

WATER SUPPLY LINE SIZE:

STATIC PSI:

WATER METER SIZE:

BACKFLOW DEVICE SIZE:

OPERATING PSI:

BOOSTER INCREASE PSI:

MAXIMUM FLOW DEMAND:

SITE ELEV DIFFERENCE:

POINT OF CONNECTION - P
3'
15 GPM
NA
57 PSI
1"
1"
57 PSI

CONTROLLER -

CONTRACTOR TO MOUNT CONTROLLER PER
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE

IRRIGATION LEGEND AND DETAILS FOR MOUNTING
TYPE AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE LOCATION AND
ELECTRICAL SERVICE WITH OTHER TRADES.
1"
P (PARKS AND E ST.)
M
3 4"
P
MV
2"
(1)4" SLV.
(2)2" SLV.
(1)2" SLV.
(1)2" SLV.
(1)2" SLV.
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
102
103
104
105 5T3 LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M M
M M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
L
S
S L
S
R L
S
R
L
L S
L
S S
S R S
L S
S
S S
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
L M M
M M M
M M M
M M
M M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M

M M M M
M M M
M
M
M
M
M
L
S
S
S
S
S R
L
S
S
S
S
S
S
L M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M M M
M M M
M
M
M

M M M M M
M
M

M M M M M
M
M
3 4" 3
4" 3
4" 3
4" 3
4" 3
4" 3
4" 1"
3 4" 3
4" 3
4" 1"
3 4" 1"
SH L

5.53 P18
1261 SF P18
1" 8.35
SH L
P17
664 SF
P17
1"
SH L

6.46 P16
1001 SF P16
1"
SH L

10.8 P15
614 SF P15
1"
SH L

4.37 P14
839 SF P14
1"
SH L

4.98 P13
1159 SF P13
1"
SH L

6.32 P12
865 SF P12
2" MAINLINE
4 " SLV.
2" SLV.
4" SLV.
1 - 2" SLV.

TW TW TW TW TW TW TW
4" SLV.
4" SLV.
4" SLV.
4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV.
4" SLV. 4" SLV. 4" SLV.
2" SLV. 2" SLV. 2" SLV. 2" SLV.
4" SLV. 4" SLV.

WM
BF
MV
FS
BF2
(F)
DRINKING FTN.

CONCRETE

PAD AND CAGE
DRINKING FTN.

CONCRETE

PAD AND CAGE

IRRIGATION

IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
WATER
METER

SEE CIVIL
1"
1"
1"
2"
1"
LI-1.0
6 SCF
1"=20'0"

LANDSCAPE

IRRIGATION

PLAN - E STREET
Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call
R
B
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 7+78 TO 12+50)
C
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 2+00 TO 7+78)

IRRIGATION SYSTEM NOTE

IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON PLANS IS
DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY.

ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING

MAINLINE AND VALVES, SHALL BE PLACED IN
PLANTER AREAS.

WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE:
"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and applied such criteria for the efficient use of water in the irrigation design plan."
Applicant Signature License # Date

3.31.2023 RLA 2956 MATCH LINE: SEE ABOVE LEFT
SEE SHEET LI-2.0 FOR E STREET

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
EC
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023

SCF MATCHLINE-SEE BELOW

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST PARK

SITE PLANS BY FLLG

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG LIMIT OF WORK
A WATER METER MANIFOLD.

NOT TO SCALE

SEE ENLARGEMENT

DETAIL A THIS SHEET
498
S
OL AN ACTEȡODELȡDESC
PT
ON T
PS
DETA
L

NTEPCONE
S
OTATOǾǖǗȇPOPȒP
T
 ACTO


NSTALLED
C
ECALEǾPESSEE
LATEDTOǘǕPS
ǾPOTATO
NO

LEǽTʲTO
SEAD
ACǙǚȒǖǕǚONPSǘǕ
OD
ǽ
NSTALLONA
N
DǖǝǖǗNPCAPȒSAȒPSȒǖǗ ǖ ǘǕ ȡL
Ǘǽǖ

NTEPST
P
S
OTATOǾǖǗȇPOPȒP
T
 ACTO


NSTALLED
C
ECALEǾPESSEE
LATEDTOǘǕPS
ǾPOTATO
NO

LEONPSǘǕOD
ǽLSTʲ
O
LE TST
PǾSSTʲON
S
DEST
PǾSTʲCOPPE

TST
Pǽ
NSTALLONA
N
D
ǖǝǖǗNPCAPȒSAȒPSȒǖǗ
ǚǚ ǘǕ ȡL
Ǘǽǖ

NTEPǖǕǕǕ
S
OTATOǾǖǗȇPOPȒP
T
C
ECALEǾPESSE
E
LATEDTOǘǕPS
ǾPOTATONO

LEONPSǘǕOD
ǽ
ʲAOONAD
ACǞǕTOǗǖǕǾLʲL

TLEǗǖǕTOǗǜǕACǾ
OʲOL
EǘǛǕACǽ
NSTALLONA
N
D
ǖǝǖǗNPCAPȒSAȒPSȒǖǗ
ǜǝ ǘǕ ȡL
Ǘǽǖ

NTEPǝǖǚ
S
OTATOǾǖǗȇPOPȒP
T
C
ECALEǾPESSE
E
LATEDTOǘǕPS
ǾPOTATONO

LEONPSǘǕOD
ǽ
ʲAOONAND
A
AD
ACǞǕTOǗǖǕǾLʲL

TLEAND

A
ǗǖǕTOǗǜǕACǾOʲOL
EAND
A
ǘǛǕACǽ
NSTALLON
A
N
DǖǝǖǗNPCAPȒSAȒPSȒǖǗ
Ǚǚ ǘǕ ȡL
Ǘǽǖ

NTE
SȒǖǕȒCǗǚ
ǖǕȇLON

S
T

NSTALLEDǽǗǚ
POǽǚǕ
P
LEOPT
ONSǾC
ECALEǾANDǖȡǗȇS
N

O
NT O

CONNECT
ONTOǖȡǗȇP
PE
ǚ ǖǚ
ȡL
Ǘǽǖ
S
OL AN ACTEȡODELȡDESC
PT
ON T
DETA
L

NTE
CȒ
Ȓ
ǖ
NǽǾǖȒǖȡǗ
NǽǾǗ
NǽǾANDǘ
NǽPLAST
CELECT
CEOTE
CONTOLALESǾ
LOECON

AT
ONǾ
T
NPT
T
EADED
NLETȡOTLETǾ OCOEC
ALȡN
C
PALSEǽ

T
ECLA
EDATE
DǾPPLE
ANDLEǽ
ǖǗ DȡL
Ǘǽǖ

NTE
ȒǙǙLCȒ

CCOPLEALEǾPPLEELOC
N
COE O
ECLA
EDATESEǾEDASSANDSTA
NLESSSTEELǾ

T
ǖ
NǽNPT
NLETǾǗȒP
ECEOD
ǽ ǚ CȡL
Ǘǽǖ
N
COTȒǖǖǘȒțǗȜ
CLASSǖǗǚON
E
ATES
TO ALE
T
COSS

ANDLEǾSAES

EASA
NL
NEP
PED
AETEATALE
LOCAT
ONǽS

EAN
EȒǖȡǙ
NǽȒǘ
Nǽ ǖ ȡL
Ǘǽǖ
CNEȒSPE
OǘǖǕǕȒǖȇ
NOALL
OPENASSASTEALET
ATPO
DESD
T

ATEPOTECT
ONǽAA
LALE
NǘȡǙ
NǽǾǖ
NǽǾǖȒǖȡǙ
NǽǾ
ǖȒǖȡǗ
NǽǾǗ
NǽǾǗȒǖȡǗ
NǽǾANDǘ
Nǽǽ
T
PPLECOSS
ANDLE
OECLA
EDATESEǽ ǖ ȡL
Ǘǽǖ
ECOǝǗǚ
ǖȇ
EDCEDPESSEAC LOPEENTEȒSEEC

L
SD

SONPLANSǽPO
DE
T
SPLAS
PADAND

NSLATEDCA
EǽPEC
T
STDǽDETA
Lǽ ǖ SEEC

L
ECOǝǗǚ
ǘȡǙȇ
EDCEDPESSEAC LOPEENTEȒSEEC

L
SD

SONPLANSǽPO
DE
T
SPLAS
PADAND

NSLATEDCA
EǽPEC
T
STDǽDETA
Lǽ ǖ SEEC

L
CONTOLLEȒA
NASTED

T
EA
NASTED
SATELL
TEǙǝSTAT
ONSǗȒ
E
CONTOLLE
NSSPEDESTALONTǽ
SAǛȒǛȒǙǝȡD
CAȡ
ȒǽCONTACTNOEȆC
ȯS
TEONEǽ
NC
ȯS
TEONEǽCOOțǞǖǛȜǜǛǚȒǕǞǘǞ ǖ LȡL
Ǘǽǖ
A
NASTETȒDȒǖ
ǗȒ
EDECODE OS
N
LEALECONTOLǽALESCANE
OPEATEDPTOǖǕǕȉAD
S OT
EDECODEǽ
ELECT
CALCONNECT
ONE
EENTS:ATET

T
CONNECTOSțTȒSPL
CEOEALȜ
ǖǙ PE
AN ǽ
ATEETEǖȇ
E
ST
N
ǖ



AT
ONLATEALL
NE:PCSC
EDLEǙǕȒNP ǗǾǘǕǖLǽ ǽ AȡL
Ǘǽǖ



AT
ONA
NL
NE:PCSC
EDLEǙǕȒNP ǖǾǕǛǕLǽ ǽ AȡL
Ǘǽǖ
P
PESLEEE:PCSC
EDLEǙǕ
LATEALSLEEE
ǗǞǽǜLǽ ǽ AȡL
Ǘǽǖ T L S R

LST RSTSST M L O M L O

0.25 0.50
MV

 ǗP
T

Valve Callout
Valve Number
Valve Flow
Valve Size # # #"
XX
Hydrozone Area
Plant Type
Plant Type
SH-Shrub
TR-Tree
TU-Turf
NM-No Mow
BI-Bioremediation
Sod

IRRIGATION SCHEDULE E STREET FRONTAGE
LI-2.0 7
SCF

AS SHOWN

LANDSCAPE

IRRIGATION NOTES &

LEGEND - E STREET
ǖǽ NOTE:ATESE
CE
SDOEST
CǾ
OEEC
T
O ESTSACAENTO
ASEESTEDALLE
PENT
TOEPEO
DED
EEPOSS
LE
T
NONȒPOTALEPPLE
DENT

CAT
ONǽ
Ǘǽ ALLPOPȒPT
PESP
NLE
EADS
NSTALLED
NS
O
ONDCOEAEASS
ALLE
NSTALLEDSO
T
ATT
ETOPO T
ESP
NLE
EAD
SǖȇAOE
N
S

ADEǽ
ǘǽ ALLPOPȒPT
PESP
NLE
EADS
NSTALLED
NT AEASS
ALLE
NSTALLEDSOT
ATT
ETOPO T
E
SP
NLE
EAD
S LS

T
AD
ACENTS
DEALOCǽ
Ǚǽ ALLSP
NLE
EADSS
ALLESETPEPEND
CLATO
N
S

ADEO T
EAEATOE


ATED
NLESSOT
E
SEDES

NATEDONT
EPLANSǽ
ǚǽ ALLSP
NLESS
ALLE
NSTALLED
T
AȆC
ECALEȆTOPEENTDA
NA
E OSP
NLE
EAD

ENT
ESP
NLE
SO ǽDA
NA
EO 


AT
ONATET
O

SP
NLE
EADS
LLNOTE
ALLOEDǽ
Ǜǽ T
ESP
NLES
STEDES

N
SASEDONT
E
N
OPEAT
N
PESSEO ǛǗPS
ANDT
E
A
 LOO ǖǚ
PASS
ONONT
E


AT
ONDA
N
SATT
EETEOPO
NTO

CONNECT
ONǽT
E


AT
ONCONTACTOS
ALLE

ATEPESSEP
OTOCONSTCT
ONǽ
EPOTAN
D
EENCEETEENT
EATEPESSE


AT
ONPO
NTO CONNECT
ONTOT
E
ONEȆSAT
O

EDEPESENTAT
Eǽ
NT
EEENTT
ATPESSED
EENCESAENOTEPOTED
P
OTOT
ESTATO CONSTCT
ONǾT
E


AT
ONCONTACTOS
ALLASSE LLESPONS

L
T

OAN
E
S
ONSNECESSA
ǽ
ǜǽ ǖǗǕOLTELECT
CALPOEOTLETATT
EATOAT
CCONTOLLELOCAT
ONS
ALLEPO
DED

OT
ESǽ
TS
ALLET
EESPONS

L
T
O T
E


AT
ONCONTACTOTOAET
E
NAL
OOȒP
OT
EELECT
CALOTLETTOT
EATOAT
CCONTOLLEǽ
ǝǽ T

SDES

N
SD
A
AAT
CǽALLP
P
N
ǾALESǾETCǽS
ON
T

NPAEDAEAS
S ODES

N
CLA

CAT
ONONL
ANDS
ALLE
NSTALLED
NPLANT
N
AEASǽAO
DAN
CON L
CTSETEENT
E
SP
NLES
STEǾ PLANT
N
ANDAC

TECTAL EATESǽ
Ǟǽ T
E


AT
ONCONTACTOS
ALL LS
ANDAD
STALLSP
NLE
EADS OOPT

PE OANCEANDTOPEENTOEȒSPA
ONTOALSǾOADA
SANDȡO
LD
N
SASC
AS
POSS
LEǽT

SS
ALL
NCLDESELECT
N
T
EESTDE
EEO ACTO
TT
EE
ST
N
S
TECOND
T
ONS
ANDTOT
OTTLET
E LOCONTOLATEAC
ALETOOTA
NT
EOPT
OPEAT
N
PESSE O
EAC
S
STEǽ
ǖǕǽ DONOT
LL LL

NSTALLT
ESP
NLES
STEASS
ONONT
EDA
N
S
EN
T
SO
OS
N
T
E
ELDT
ATOSTCT
ONSǾ
ADED
EENCESOD
EENCES
NT
EAEAD
ENS
ONSE
STT
AT


TNOT
AEEENCONS
DEED
NT
EEN

NEE
N
ǽSC
OSTCT
ONSOD
EENCESS
OLD
EO

TTOT
EATTENT
ONO T
EONEȆSAT
O

EDEPESENTAT
Eǽ
NT
EEENTT
ATT

S
NOT

CAT
ON
SNOT PE OEDǾT
E


AT
ONCONTACTOS
ALLASSE LLESPONS

L
T

OAN
E
S
ONSNECESSA
ǽ
ǖǖǽ
NSTALLALLP
PEATE
ALSANDE
PENTASS
ON
NT
EDETA
LSǽSETE LONTAPEOTE LONP
PE
DOPEONALLPCALEP
PET
EADSONALLSP
NLES
N

O
NTANDALEASSEL
ESǽ
ǖǗǽ
T
ST
EESPONS

L
T
O T
E


AT
ONCONTACTOTO A
L
A

E

SEL 
T
ALL
ADE
D
EENCESǾLOCAT
ONO ALLSǾETA
N
N
ALLSǾETCǽ
ES
ALLCOOD
NATE

SO
T
T
E

ENEALCONTACTOANDOT
ESȒCONTACTOS OT
ELOCAT
ONANDT
E

NSTALLAT
ONO P
PE
SLEEEST
O

ALLSǾNDEOADA
SǾPA
N
ǾSTCTESǾETCǽ
ǖǘǽ
NADD
T
ONTOT
ECONTOL
ESLEEESS
ONONT
EDA
N
SǾT
E


AT
ONCONTACTO
S
ALLEESPONS
LE OT
E

NSTALLAT
ONO CONTOL
ESLEEESO S
C
ENTS

ENDEALL
OT
EPAEDAEASǽ
ǖǘǽ
NADD
T
ONTOT
ECONTOL
ENECESSA
 OT
EEOTECONTOLALESS
ONONT
EDA
N
Ǿ
T
ECONTACTOS
ALLPO
DEA
N
O E

TEENțǖǝȜ
NC
ESO ACOPLETESETO SPAE
CONTOL
ESǾLOOPEDǾ
T

NEAC
ALEOǽ
ǖǙǽ CONTACTOS
ALLPO
A


AT
ONCONTOLLETOOPEATEAS OLLOSPOSTȒCONSTCT
ON:

SPA
ALESS
ALLONL
ETNEDONETEENT
E
OSO ǖǕ:ǕǕPǽǽANDǛ:ǕǕAǽǽLEAND
D
PALESCANOPEATEATAN
T
Eǽ
ǖǚǽ PEELOǾ


AT
ON
EADSSTEPLACEDSOT
AT
ADSCAPEDAEASDA
NTOADLANDSCAPED
AEASǾAND
T
NOOESPA
ǽOT
E
SEASETAC O
ADSCAPEO ǗǙȇ
N

SE
EDǽ
ǖǛǽ ALLLANDSCAPEAD
TSS
ALLECONDCTED
AT

DPAT
CET

EDLANDSCAPE


AT
ONAD
TOǽ
ǖǜǽ T
EPO
ECTAPPL
CANTS
ALLS
TAN


AT
ONAD
TEPOT
T
T
ECET

CATEO
COPLET
ONTOT
EESPONS
LELOCALA
ENC
PEELOE
EENTSǽ

GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT 12345
JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GER TS ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I TECT STATE OF CAL I FORN AI TS EVEN C . FUHRMAN No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF
NOTE: SEE PARK SET IMPROVEMENT PLANS BY FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP FOR COMPLETION OF THE IRRIGATION WORK, BEYOND WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS SET. 499
LI-2.1
8 SCF

AS SHOWN
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS

LANDSCAPE

IRRIGATION

DETAILS - E STREET
DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
E
C
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF



AT
ONTENC

N
:ǗǙȇDEPT
țDOEST
CȜ
NOTTOSCALE
12"
24"
6"
6"
6"
ǖ
NONȒPESSEPC
LATEALL
NEP
P
N
ǽ
OǛȇLANSPA

POPȒPSǽ
ǖ
Ǘ
NONȒPESSEPC
LATEALL
NEP
P
N
 O
ǖǗȇ
Ǘ
ǘ
PCPESSEA
NL
NE
P
P
N
ǽ
ǘ
Ǚ
CONTOL
ESȒTAPE
ANDNDLEEE
ǖǕ
EETǽ
NSTALLAD
ACENT
TOPESSEA
NL
NEǽ
Ǚ
ǚ
PO
DEǗȇDEPT
O
CLEANAC
LLǽ
ǚ
Ǜ
SEE


AT
ONSPECS
OAC
LLAND
COPACT
ON
E
EENTSǽ
Ǜ
ǜ
ȱǖǕAECOPPETACE

Eǽ
ǜ
ǝ

N
S

ADEǽ ǝ
A
PȒǗǗǕǗǕȒǗǕ
ǙǚDONASEǽ
TOLATEALL
NE
P
PEDEPT
ǽ
EOTECONTOLALEǾ
C
T
N
ONSǽOǽǽ
ǖǖȡǗȇʲǖȆȒǕȇ
ONEPEOǽ
ǗǕǖǙ
OPLAST
C
ALEOANDCOEǽ
ATEPOO 
ECONNECTOS
ONǖǝȇLOOPED
ESǽ
SETOǗȇAOE
ADEATS
Sǽ
SETO LS
TO
ADEATT ǽ

TȆȆT
EADED
TEN
ONALLALE

T
SC
EDLEǝǕN
PPLESǽ
SETALEǗȇȒǘȇ
ELOTOPO Oǽ
OTLETP
PESAES

E
ASALEǾǗǙȇ
Nǽ
TO
ST
TT
N
ǽ
SC
EDLEǙǕ
SEǽ
A
NL
NE

T
PCTEEǽ
TSPCǞǕELOǽ
ǖȡǗȇ
ECLOT

OP
ESCEENǾ
APPALLS
DESǽ
ǛǗǖǛCONCǽLOCCAPSǾ
ONEEAǽCONEțǙTOTALȜǽ

NCEASELATEAL
L
NEASPEPLANSǽ 4" MIN 12" BELOW GRADE
D
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǕǚ
LE:OOTATES
STE
ǘȡǙȇʲǖȆȒǕȇ
12" MIN.
ǖ Ǘ
ǘ
Ǚ
ǚ
Ǜ
ǝ
ǖǖ
Ǟ
ǖǕ

ATECAPǽ ǖ
LEȒSEE


AT
ON
PLAN
Ǘ
OOTATE
N
S
STE

T
ASETEAE
CAN
STEǽSEEDETA
LAND



AT
ONLE
END O
AN ACTEAND
ODELǽ
ǘ

N
S

ADEǽ Ǚ
C
ECALE ǚ
ǘȡǝȇPEA
AELǾPLACE
N
OOTATE
N
S
STE
ANDǙȇ
DT

 LL
LEN
T
O OOTATE
N

S
STECAN
STEǽ
Ǜ
ǜ
ǖȡǗȇǞǕDE
ǽELLǽ ǝ
PCSC
ǽǙǕTEEOELLǽ Ǟ
ǖȡǗȇALENPT
NLETǽ ǖǕ
S
N
P
PEǾǖǗȇS
N

ASSEL
ǽ
ǖǖ ǖǗ
LATEALP
PEǾSEELE
ENDǽ ǖǗ
NOTE:
SETE LONTAPEONALLALE
P
PET
EADS
ǜ
ǖȡǗȇPCSC
ǽǝǕN
PPLEǽ
G
ǘǗǝǙǕǘǽǚǘȒǖǜ

POPȒPSP
NLE
NOTTOSCALE
X
ǖ
Ǘ
ǘ
Ǚ
POPȒPSPA

EADǽDONOT
SES
DE
NLET
ǖ
ALOCǽ Ǘ
PCSC
ǽǝǕN
PPLEțǙȇ
Nǽ
LEN
T
Ȝǽ
ǘ
PCT5TǞǕʍELLǽ Ǚ
ǚ
LATEALL
NEP
PEAND

TT
N
ǽ
ǚ
Ǜ
PCSC
ǽǙǕǞǕʍSTEETELLǽ Ǜ
ǜ
PCSC
ǽǝǕN
PPLEțǛȇ
LON
Ȝǽ
ǜ
ǝ

N
S

ADEǽ ǝ
NOTES:
SETE LONTAPEONALLALEP
PET
EADSǽ
ʲ Ǘȇ
NT AEASǽ
ʲ Ǚȇ
NPLANT
N
EDSǽ
PEELOǾ
EADSA
EPLACEDASNOTEDAOEǾPO
DEDT
AT

ADSCAPEDAEASDA
NTOADSLANDSCAPEDAEASǾAND
T
NO
OESPA
ǽOT
E
SESETAC O
ADSCAPEǗǙȇ
SE
EDǽ
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǕǘ
F
LE:OOTATE
N
S
STE OTEES
NOTTOSCALE
ǖ
OOTATE
N
S
STEASETEAE
CAN
STE
T
PEȒ
NSTALLEDLEǽSEE



AT
ONLE
END OAN ACTEAND
ODELǽ
ǖ
Ǘ
S
N
P
PEǾǖǗȇS
N
ASSEL
ǽ Ǘ
ǘ
LATEALL
NEP
PEǽSEELE
ENDǽ ǘ
Ǚ
TEEOOTALL Ǚ
ǚ
COND
T
ONEDAC
LLǽ ǚ
Ǜ
TOPDESS
N
ǽ Ǜ
ǜ

N
S

ADEȡPLANT
N
ESǽ ǜ
NOTE:SETE LONTAPEONALLALET
EADSǽ
H
PȒǗǗǕǗǕȒǖǛ
ALEOLA
OTȒDOEST
C
NǽTǽSǽ
Aǖ
C
AǗ Aǘ
PLANT
N
AEA
ǖ
Ǘ
ǖǕȇONDALEOǽ
EATANDȇCȇ
ONL
D
NǗȇ

C
AACTESǽ
ǖ
ECTAN
LAALEOȡOLTDON
COEǽ
EATANDALESTAT
ONNOǽON
L
D
NǗȇ

C
AACTESǽ
Ǘ
ǘ
ED
EO LANǾALǾ ENCEǾCǾETCǽ ǘ
NOTES:
ǖǽ CENTEOESOEALESǽ
Ǘǽ PLACEOES
N
ONDCOEAEA

EEPOSS
LEǽT
P
CALǽ
ǘǽ PLACEOESPAALLELTOEAC
OT
E
ANDPEPEND
CLATOED
EO

ADSCAPEǽ
12" 12" 12"
12"
I
PȒǗǗǕǗǕȒǖǚ

ATEALEțEC
CLEDȜ
NOTTOSCALE
GV
PLAN
X
2"
SECT
ON
ǖ
ǖ
ǖ
ONDDOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜ
ALEO
T
OLTDONCOEǽ
EAT
ANDȇ
ȇONALEOCOE
NǗȇ

LETTESǽ
Ǘ

N
S

ADEǽ Ǘ
ǘ

ATEALE
T
ON
E
EEL
ANDLEO
COSSȒ
ANDLEǽ
ǘ
Ǚ
ǛȇD
AǽSC
ǽǙǕDOEST
CțPPLE O
EC
CLEȜPCP
PEETENS
ONǽLEN
T
AS
E
EDǽ
Ǚ
ǚ
ǘȡǙȇCS
EDOCǽǝȇDEPT
ǽ ǚ
Ǜ
COON
CțǗE
EDȜǽ Ǜ
ǜ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜPCALE
ADAPTEǽT
P
CALǽ
ǜ
ǝ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜPCA
N
L
NEP
PEǽ
NOTE:
Ȓ ǖȇ
NT AEAS
Ǘȇ
NS
AEAS
ǝ
B
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǖǖ
NOTES:

Ǘǽ SETE LONTAPEONALLALEP
PET
EADSǽ
Ȓ ǖǖȡǗȇAOE
N
S

ADE
NLANAEAS
ǗǖȡǗȇAOE
N
S

ADE
NS
AEASǽ
SECT
ON
PLAN

CCOPLEțEC
CLEDȜ
NOTTOSCALE
C
X
6" MIN - 12" MAX
3"
4"
ǖ
Ǘ
ǘ
Ǚ
ǚ
Ǜ
ǖǕȇONDDOEST
CțPPLE O
EC
CLEȜALEOǽ
EATANDȇCȇ
ONL
D
NǗȇ

C
AACTESǽ
ǖ

N
S

ADEǽ Ǘ
ǘȡǙȇCS
EDOCǽǛȇDEPT
ǽ ǘ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜSC

ǝǕN
PPLEǽLEN
T
ASE
EDǽ
Ǚ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜSC
ǙǕ
ǞǕʍELLǽ
ǚ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜ
A
NL
NEP
P
N
ǽ
Ǜ
ǜ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜ
A
NL
NE
TT
N
ǽ
ǜ
ǝ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜSC

ǙǕǞǕʍSTEETELLǽ
ǝ
Ǟ
DOEST
CțPPLE OEC
CLEȜSC

ǝǕN
PPLEǽǛȇLON
ǽ
Ǟ
ǖǕ

CCOPL
N
ALEǽ ǖǕ
ǖǖ
AD
ACENTCONCETEǽ ǖǖ
ǖǗ
STA
NLESSSTEELCLAPSǽ ǖǗ
ǖǘ
ǖȇǘȡǖǛȇǘǕȇAN
LE
ONǽ ǖǘ
ǖǙ
COON
CțǗE
EDȜǽ ǖǙ
C
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǖǕ

FLOW SENSOR ASSEMBLY
ǖǖȡǗȇʲǖȆȒǕȇ
Ǘ
ǖ
ǘ
Ǚ
ǚ
Ǜ
ǜ
PIPE LENGTH = TO 10X
PIPE DIAMETER.

PIPE LENGTH = TO 5X
PIPE DIAMETER.

LOSENSOASSPECȆDǽSEEPLANǽ ǖ

ECONNECTOS Ǘ
COND
T O
ES
EEEȆDǽSEEPLANǾOT
E
SE ǘ
ALEOǽSETǘȇAOE

NS
EDSǾǖȇ
NT ǽ Ǚ

CONEAǽS
DE OSTA
L
T
ǽ ǚ
A
NL
NE Ǜ
ALEOETENS
ONSǾ
EȆDǽ ǜ
J
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǖǚ
ASTEALEȒDECODES
STE
NǽTǽSǽ
X
6"
2"
ǖ Ǘ ǘ Ǚ ǚ Ǜ
ǜ ǝ Ǟ ǖǕ
ǖǙ
ǖǘ
ǖǗ
ǖǖ
ǖǚ
ASTEALEǽ ǖ
ECTAN
LAALEOȡOLT
DONCOEǽ
EATANDALE
STAT
ONNOǽONL
D
NǗȇ

C
AACTESǽ
Ǘ
C

ST

ǽDǽTA
NEEDTO
ATC
DA
N
Sǽ
ǘ

N
S

ADEǽ Ǚ
N
ON
TT
N
ǽ ǚ
PCP
PETOSP
NLESǽAN
LE
P
PETOSPEC

EDDEPT

T
Ǚǚʍ
ELLSǽ
Ǜ
COON
CțǗE
EDȜǽ ǜ
ȱǖǙ LOSENSO
ESTO
CONTOLLEǽ
ǝ
ǘȡǙȇCS
EDOCǽǝȇDEPT
ǽ Ǟ
ȱǖǙASTEALESOLENO
D

ESTOCONTOLLEǽ
ǖǕ
PCSC
ǽǝǕN
PPLEǽ ǖǖ
PCS5SǞǕʍELLǽ ǖǗ
D

ǘ
ESPL
CE
Tǽ ǖǘ
DECODE ǖǙ
A
NL
NE
TT
N
ȡSOLENT
ELDOTLETǽ
NOTE:
Ȓ ǖȇ
NT AEAS
ǘȇ
NPLANT
N
AEAS
ǖǚ
K
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǖǛ
CONTOLLE
NǽTǽSǽ ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǗǝ
L
PLAN
E

OND
N
ODȒDECODES
STE
ǖȡǗȇʲǖȆȒǕȇ

ONDȯEE
ǖǗT

DECODEOǖǕǕǕȆO

ENț

C
EE

SS
OTEȜ
NT
E
TO
EPAT
ǽ

ONDT
E
NAL
DECODE
NAN

E
Nǽ
ǝȆ5ǚȡǝȇLCOPPECLAD

OND
N
OD
ǖ
ǖǕȆȱǛSO
LDCOPPE

OND
E
Ǘ
CADELDCONNECTO ǘ
ǖǕȇONDPLAST
CALE
O
Ǚ
D
ȒǛCONNECTO ǚ
Ǘ
EDECODE Ǜ
ACCǗ
EPAT
ǜ
EOTECONTOLALE ǝ
ALEO Ǟ
10'0"
10'0"
E
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǚǞ
500
80 63
62 79
60 59
41 19
9 4
7 21
20 6
1 2
61 3
8 5 6th STREET
BB
2 3
5 2
2 2
GARAGE
PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. A
PLAN 1E 1511 ELEV. B GARAGE GARAGE PLAN 2E 1989 ELEV. B 414
408

LOW LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW

LOW LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV C 410
37" OAK
22" OAK
412
413 SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV

MODEL MODEL MODEL
SALES
OFFICE
PROVIDE 3"
DEPTH
MULCH
UNDER EX.

OAK
PROVIDE 3"
DEPTH
MULCH
UNDER EX.

OAK
5T3

LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV

SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV SLV LP-1.0
9 SCF
1"=20'0"

LANDSCAPE

PLANTING

PLAN - E STREET
Know what'sbelow.
before you dig. Call
R
A
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 7+78 TO 12+50)
B
E STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS (STA. 2+00 TO 7+78)
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE:
"I have complied with the criteria of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and applied such criteria for the efficient use of water in the irrigation design plan."
Applicant Signature License # Date

7.11.2023 RLA 2956 MATCHLINE- SEE BELOW
SEES
EETLPȒǗǽǕ OESTEET
PLANT
N
LE

END MATCHLINE- SEE ABOVE
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT
1 2
3 4
5 JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GE
R
TS

ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I T
E
C
T

STATE OF CAL I FORN
AI
TS
EVEN C . FUHRMAN
No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG
SEE LC1.0 FOR ROOT BARRIER
SEE LC1.0 FOR ROOT BARRIER, ADJACENT
TO STREET TREES THIS AREA.

NOT A PART- SEE PARK

SITE PLANS BY BY FLLG

LIMIT OF WORK - SEE
FOUR 40 WEST ONSITE

PLANS BY FLLG
501
TEES OTAN
CALȡCOONNAE S

E ATESE T
DETA
L

N
O
LOAˤATN
OLDˤ ǗǙȇO ED
 Ǜ CȡLPǗǽǕ
ATN
OLDA
DEN
A
TEE
S
S OTAN
CALȡCOONNAE S

E ATESE T
DETA
L
CALL
STEON

NAL
SȆL
TTLE
O
NȆ ǚ
ALǽ LO ǘǚ ȡLPǗǽǕ
L
TTLE
O
NEEP
N
OTTLES

D
ETES
COLO ǖ
ALǽ LO ǗǙ ȡLPǗǽǕ
OTN

TL
L

EON
S
APON
CS ǖ
ALǽ LO ǗǕ ȡLPǗǽǕ

APANESESP
NDLE

N
PESC

NENS
SȆLEPO
NTȆ ǚ
ALǽ LO ǚ ȡLPǗǽǕ
LEPO
NT
N
PE
N
P
O
AȆED
OTPOPS
CLEȆ ǖ
ALǽ LO Ǜ ȡLPǗǽǕ
ED
OTPOPS
CLEDA POE
LOANDALON

OL
AȆEE
EȆT ǖ
ALǽ LO ǖǗǙ ȡLPǗǽǕ
EE
EATS


LENE

A

ENS ǖ
ALǽ LO ǘǜ ȡLPǗǽǕ
DEE
ASS

TSCON
SˤCOPACTAˤ ǖ
ALǽ LO ǖǞǕ ȡLPǗǽǕ
DA COON
TLE
NAND
NADOEST
CA ǖǚ
ALǽ LO ǘ ȡLPǗǽǕ

EAENL
AOO
NE
OLEANDEȆL
TTLEEDȆT ǚ
ALǽ LO Ǟ ȡLPǗǽǕ
L
TTLEEDOLEANDE
P
O
TENAȆ
ADSANȆ ǚ
ALǽ LO ǖǘ ȡLPǗǽǕ
NE
EALAND LA

AP

OLEP
SELLATAȆ
NO
L 
EENȆT ǚ
ALǽ LO ǞǞ ȡLPǗǽǕ

L 
EEN
ND
AN
AT
ON
SAL
A
E

Ȇ
EATAELA
EȆ ǖ
ALǽ LO ǚǕ ȡLPǗǽǕ

EATAELA
EATNSA
E

ONDCOES OTAN
CALȡCOONNAE S

E ATESE SPAC
N
T
DETA
L
C
STSPLELENTSȆSNSETȆ ǖ
ALǽ LO ǘǛȇ,ǽ ǽ Ǚǚ AȡLPǗǽǕ
SNSETOCOSE

N
PES
O

ONTAL
SȆLEC

PȆ ǖ
ALǽ LO Ǚǝȇ,ǽ ǽ ǛǕ AȡLPǗǽǕ
LEC

P
N
PE
LANTANAONTE
DENS
SȆSPEAD
N


TEȆ ǖ
ALǽ LO ǘǛȇ,ǽ ǽ ǜǖ AȡLPǗǽǕ


TETA
L
N
LANTANA
OSA LOECAPET
ELLO Ǘ
ALǽ ED
 ǘǛȇ,ǽ ǽ ǝǛ AȡLPǗǽǕ

ELLOCAPETOSE

PLANT SCHEDULE E STREET FRONTAGE
LP-2.0
10 SCF

AS SHOWN

LANDSCAPE

PLANTING NOTES &

LEGENDS - E STREET
ǖǽ CONTACTOS
ALLE

ALLS
TECOND
T
ONSP
OTO
DD
N
AND
CONSTCT
ONǽ
Ǘǽ ALLTEESS
ALLETA

EDANDȡOAPPOED
ONEǔLANDSCAPE
AC

TECTǽNSE
SOCESS
ALLEATONEȡLANDSCAPEAC

TECTȆS
D
SCET
ONǽ
ǘǽ ALLS
SAND
ONDCOEAEASS
ALLETOPDESSED
T
T
EEțǘȇȜ

NC
LA
EO
AN
CLC
ǾAǖǘǝǘAPPOEDPODCTǾț
ǽEǽA
O
NESȒǗǾ

OȒLC
ȜǾPEPLANSǽ
Ǚǽ ALLTEESțECEPT
NT AEASȜǾS
SAND
ONDCOESț
NCLD
N

T
OSEONSLOPESȜS
ALL
AEATE
N
AS
NS
LTPATLEASTTOțǗȜT
ES
T
ED
AETEO T
EOOTALLǽTEEANDS
AS
NSS
ALLEA
N
O
T
EEțǘȇȜ
NC
ES

ǽ
ONDCOEAS
NSS
ALLEA
N
O TOțǗȇȜ

NC
ES

ǽ
ǚǽ ALLPLANTATE
ALSS
ALLE
ED
ATEL
ȇ
ANDȇATEEDA TEPLANT
N

ANDCONT
NALL
ON
TOEDANDSPPLEENTALL
ȇ
ANDȇATEEDD
N

T
ECONSTCT
ONANDCONTACTA
NTENANCEP
ASESASNEEDEDǽ
Ǜǽ SST
TT
ONO PLANTATE
ALS
LLNOTEACCEPTALENLESSOT
E
SE
APPOED
T
ELANDSCAPEAC

TECTǽ
ǜǽ ALLPLANTATE
ALSDEL
EEDTOT
ES
TEST
AEATLEASTONEO EAC

PLANTT
PETA

ED
T
T
E
ENSANDSPEC
ESCLEAL
AEDǽPLANTSO
T
ESAE
ENST
PE
T
D
EENTSPEC
EST
PE
T
D
EENTCOLOO
SPEC
ESA
AT
ONST
AEALLO EAC
D
EENTSPEC
ESCLEAL
TA

EDǽ
ǝǽ ALLPLANT
OLESS
ALLED
TOA
N
O TOțǗȜT
EST
EPLANT
CONTA
NE
DT
ț
DT
ONL
ǾNOTDEPT
ȜANDALLET
CALS
DES
NT
E
OLES
S
ALLES
OELSCOEDǽ
NNOCASES
ALLSOOT
L
ECAATEDS
DESE
ALLOED OPLANT
N
ǽ
Ǟǽ P
OTOPLANT
N
O AN
ATE
ALSǾCOPACTEDSO
LSS
ALLETANS OED

NTOA 
ALECOND
T
ONǽONEN

NEEEDSLOPESǾONL
AENDEDPLANT
N

OLESNEEDTOEETT

SE
EENTǽȇ 
ALEȇEANSASO
LCOND
T
ONT
AT

SEAS
L
CLEDOLOOSEL
COPACTEDDONTOA
N
PLANT
N

DEPT
PEPLANT
N
ATE
AL
EE
T
EOOTSTCTEONEL

PLANTEDATE
AL
LLEALLOEDTOSPEADN
PEDEDǽ
ǖǕǽ PEPAEALLPLANT
N
AEAS
T
T
EEțǘȜC
C
ADSȡǖǾǕǕǕSǽ ǽO O
AN
C
COPOSTALON

T
ǗǕǕLSǽȡǖǾǕǕǕSǽ ǽO 
OȒPOEǚȒǘȒǖSO
L
COND
T
ONEȡ ET
L

EǽOTOT
LLEENL
TOADEPT
O S
țǛȇȜ
NC
ES
NTO
E
ST
N
SO
Lǽ
ǖǖǽ PO
DESO
LS ET
L
T
TESTǾASPESPEC

CAT
ONSǾTOLANDSCAPEAC

TECT
P
OTOCOENC
N

T
OǽPEPAEALLPLANT
N
AEAS
T
T
E

N
O SO
LCOND
T
ONEAND ET
L

EASSTATED
NNOTEȱǖǕAOEǾO
ASPEECOENDAT
ONSO SO
LS ET
L
T
TESTǾ

C
EE
S
EATEǽ
OTOT
LLEENL
TOADEPT
O S
țǛȇȜ
NC
ES
NTOE
ST
N
SO
Lǽ
ǖǗǽ
AN
POT
ONO T
ES
TE
SL
ETEATEDǾT
ELANDSCAPECONTACTOS
ALL

ED
ATEL
NOT

T
EAC

TECT
N
T
N
ǽDONOTPOCEED
T
AN
O

NL
ETEATEDSO
LǽT
P
CALL
ǾL
ETEATEDSO
LSAOEǖʢESLT
NP

ALESANDCOPACT
ONT
ATAEDELETE
OSTOPLANTATE
ALǾEEN
T

A

ESS
EAENDENTSANDCOND
T
ONESǽT
ESEL
ETEATEDSO
LSSTE
EOEDANDEPLACED
T

POTSO
LSO S
TALEC
E
ST
AND
COPAT
LETETEǽT
ELANDSCAPECONTACTOS
ALLNOTPOCEED
T

AN
O
NL
ETEATEDAEASNT
LAESOLT
ON
SPO
DED
N
T
N
ǽ
ǖǘǽ ALLLANDSCAPEESAETOE
ADEDS
țǛȇȜ
NC
ES

ET
ANT
E

ESTCONTOS
ONONPLANSǾT
P
CALǽ
ǖǙǽ ALLLANDSCAPEAEAS
T
ASLOPEO TOANDA
AL TOONEțǗȒǖȡǗ:ǖȜO

EATEST
AE
TENETT
N

NSTALLED OEOS
ONCONTOLǽ
ǖǚǽ S
AND
ONDCOEAEASS
ALLETEATED
T
C

PCOONSTAȆ
Ȇ
PEȒEE
ENT
E
C
DEǽPO
DEPEAN ACTEȆSSPEC

CAT
ONSǽ

GENERAL PLANTING NOTES
PROJECT:

CLIENT:

REVISIONS DATE

ISSUE DATE
DRAWN :

CHECKED :

SCALE: :

SHEET TITLE:

SHEET
OF SHEETS FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP HEREBY EXPRESSLY RESERVES ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT AND OTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS AND DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT.

CONSULTANT 12345
JOB NO. :

FUHRMAN LEAMY

LAND GROUP
DESIGN ¥ SERVICE ¥ SOLUTIONS
2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661
916.783.5263 ȏ FLLANDGROUP.COM
BPH.20028.1
FOUR 40 WEST
City E Street
Frontage
Offsite
Improvements

E STREET

SACRAMENTO, CA

BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES

WEST SACRAMENTO, CA
13 I GER TS ERED LANDSCAPE ARCH I TECT STATE OF CAL I FORN AI TS EVEN C . FUHRMAN No. 2956
10/31/2023
Signature Renewal Date Date 5.19.2023
SCF

SHRUB PLANTING
NOTTOSCALE B
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǗǕ

TREE PLANTING
NOTTOSCALE C
ȒǗǕǕǗǝȒǗǕǕǗǝǽǖȒǖǞ
PLAN
ǽ
ǽ ǽ
ǽ
NOTES:

Aǽ PLANT
ONDCOEATEALSPAC
N

PEPLANTLE
ENDǽ
ǽ PO
DE
ONDCOEPTOT
EED
E
O SO
LESATALLTEESANDS
Sǽ
Cǽ ʲTOSPAC
N
 OSPEC
ESPEPLANT
LE
ENDǽ
ELEAT
ON

GROUND COVER PLANTING
NOTTOSCALE X 12
X
EQUAL
EQUAL 1

ONDCOEPLANTATE
AL O
ǖ
ALLONCONTA
NEǾ LATǾOL
NEȀ
T
AN
LASPAC
N
ǽSEEPLANT
N

PLANANDLE
ENDǽ 1
LE
END: 2
TOPDESS
N
PEPLANT
N
NOTES 2 3

N
ǗȇȒǘȇ

ATEAS
N 3 4
AENDEDSO
LPEPLANT
N
NOTES 4 5 SCA

EDS
ADEǾSEEPLANT
N

NOTES 5 A
PȒǗǗǕǗǕȒǕǗ
502
11 E0 GC NA PROJECT: REVISIONS ELECTRICAL COVER SHEET DATE ISSUE DATE DRAWN : CHECKED : SCALE: : SHEET TITLE: SHEET OF SHEETS CONSULTANT 1 23
4 5 JOB NO. : FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP DESIGN • SERVICE • SOLUTIONS BPH: 22020 FOUR 40 WEST PARK E STREET SACRAMENTO, CA CLIENT: BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 13 © CES Engineering, Inc. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied without the permission of CES Engineering, Inc. This drawing is not final and shall not be used for construction until signed by the Electrical Engineer and approved by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction CES ENGINEERING, INC. 916.905.4477 www.conwayengineering.com 13420 Mesa Drive Grass Valley California 95949 USA 2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115 ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661 916.783.5263 • FLLANDGROUP.COM RR Know what'sbelow. before you dig. Call R ELECTRICAL SPECIFICATIONS: 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, PLUS ALL AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION INCLUDING APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES, STANDARDS, ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS. 2. FURNISH ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, STORAGE, FACILITIES AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE AND OPERATING NEW, MODIFIED SYSTEMS, AND MAINTAIN SERVICES TO EXISTING SYSTEMS. 3. DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND SHOW THE GENERAL EXTENT AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE WORK REQUIRED WHICH SHALL BE FOLLOWED AS CLOSELY AS THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITIONS AND WORK OF THE OTHER TRADES WILL PERMIT. 4. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE AND PAY FOR ALL PERMITS, LICENSES, FEES, PLAN REVIEWS AND INSPECTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS WORK. 5. BEFORE PROCURING ANY MATERIALS OR STARTING ANY WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE COMPLETE SET OF DRAWINGS FOR ALL TRADES, AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND POINTS OF CONNECTION. MAKE ALL ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY TO AVOID CONFLICT WITH THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AND THE WORK OF OTHER TRADES, AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE ARRANGEMENT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. BEFORE PROCURING ANY MATERIALS OR STARTING ANY WORK, CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH SITE CONDITIONS. 6. PROVIDE ELECTRICAL SUBMITTALS AND SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL SYSTEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT. ALL SUBMITTALS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS CONFORMING TO CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. SUBMITTALS THAT ARE NOT APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE GC WILL BE RETURNED WITHOUT REVIEW. SUBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE SWITCHBOARDS, PANELBOARDS, TRANSFORMERS, CONDUITS, CONDUCTORS, FITTINGS, CONNECTORS, PULLBOXES. DEVICES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, POLES AND POLE BASES, LIGHTING CONTROL DEVICES AND EQUIPMENT AND ENCLOSURES. SUBSTITUTIONS TO SPECIFIED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CONFIRMED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL AND CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ASSOCIATED COSTS INCLUDING POSSIBLE IMPACT ON SCHEDULE. 7. IF ANY EQUIPMENT SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT SPECIFIED, OR REQUIRES CHANGES IN MATERIAL OR LABOR FROM THAT REQUIRED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AFFECTING THIS AND/OR OTHER TRADES, SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SHOP DRAWINGS. SUBMITTAL SHALL INDICATE CREDIT DUE TO OWNER, IF ANY, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL CHARGES RESULTING FROM ADDITIONS OR CHANGES IN THE WORK OF OTHER TRADES NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUESTED MODIFICATION. ALL CHANGES SHALL BE SHOWN ON RECORD AND AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. 8. ARRANGE ALL EQUIPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. MAKE DEVIATIONS WHERE NECESSARY TO AVOID INTERFERENCE. REWORK EXISTING WIRING, EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES WHERE REQUIRED. RED-MARK AND MAINTAIN A SET OF DRAWINGS ON SITE TO RECORD CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS AND DEVIATIONS FROM DRAWINGS. PROVIDE PDF SCAN OF CLEARLY MARKED CONSTRUCTION-RECORD DRAWINGS AS PART OF CLOSEOUT DOCUMENTATION. 9. FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUIT CONDUITS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AT LOCATION ABOVE THE PANELBOARD AND AT EACH JUNCTION BOX, DEVICE, RECEPTACLE AND LIGHTING FIXTURE. ADDITIONALLY, WIRE IDENTIFICATION AND CIRCUIT NUMBER SHALL BE MADE AT EACH CONNECTION AND JUNCTION BOX LOCATION. CONDUIT, BOX AND WIRE LABELS SHALL BE SELF-ADHESIVE AS BRADY, 3M OR APPROVED EQUAL. EQUIPMENT LABELS SHALL BE 2-PLY UV STABILIZED ACRYLIC MATERIAL GLOSSY SURFACE CORE WITH 3/16” 1/2” OR 1” LETTERS AS SHOWN ON APPROVED SUBMITTALS. COMPLY WITH ANSI A13.1, ANSI Z535.4, NFPA 70 AND NFPA 70E. 10. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE NEW CURRENT MODELS AND BE LISTED BY A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TESTING LABORATORY. 11. CONDUITS INSTALLED EXPOSED TO DAMAGE UP TO 8-FEET ABOVE FINISHED GRADE OR FLOOR SHALL BE RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL. CONDUIT ELBOWS AND THEIR RISERS INSTALLED IN CONCRETE SHALL BE RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL WITH 2 LAYERS OF 10MIL PVC TAPE. CONDUIT BELOW GRADE SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40. OTHER CONDUITS WHERE PERMITTED SHALL BE ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING WITH COMPRESSION FITTINGS AND 2-HOLE CLAMPS. FLEXIBLE CONDUITS SHALL BE FLEXIBLE METALLIC TUBING WHEN INSTALLED INDOORS IN PROTECTED LOCATIONS OR SHALL BE SEAL-TITE OR APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CONDUIT SIZES ARE ¾” ABOVE GRADE AND 1” BELOW GRADE. CONDUITS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN TRENCHES NOT LESS THAN 24" BELOW TOP OF GRADE PER NEC TABLE 300.5. 12. CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOFT DRAWN ANNEALED COPPER WIRE WITH THWN INSULATION EXCEPT WHEN EXPOSED TO HIGH AMBIENT TEMPERATURES SUCH AS OUTDOORS SHALL BE XHHW2. WIRING FOR VFD LOADS SUCH AS IRRIGATION BOOSTER PUMPS SHALL BE XHHW OR OTHER VFD RATED INSULATION. UNDERGROUND SPLICING OF WIRING IS TO BE AVOIDED WHERE POSSIBLE. UNDERGROUND CONNECTORS SHALL BE WATERTIGHT USING 3M OR APPROVED EQUAL. FEEDER CONDUCTORS MAY BE ALUMINUM WHEN APPROVED IN SUBMITTALS AND/OR SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 13. UNDERGROUND PULL BOXES SHALL BE OF SIZE AND TYPE REQUIRED BY AHJ INCLUDING CONCRETE FILLED. OTHERWISE LID SHALL BE TAMPERPROOF TYPE, AND MINIMUM BOX SIZE IS TO BE AS NOTED, HOWEVER INCREASE DIMENSIONS IF REQUIRED DUE TO INSTALLED CONFIGURATION AND NEC 314.28. PULLBOXES TO BE TRAFFIC RATED IF REQUIRED; AND AS MANUFACTURED BY CHRISTY, JENSEN, OLDCASTLE OR APPROVED EQUAL. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PULLBOXES WHERE ROADWAY AND OTHER OBSTACLE 6” SLEEVING IS PROVIDED FOR ELECTRICAL USE, BUT ALIGNMENT DUE TO EXACT SLEEVE LOCATION AND/OR DEPTH. LOCATE UNDERGROUND PULLBOXES A MINIMUM OF 5'-0" FROM PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND DRIVEWAYS, UNLESS NOTED OR DIRECTED OTHERWISE. 14. METERED AND UNMETERED POWER PEDESTALS SHALL BE PER AHJ REQUIREMENTS AND SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY TESCO CONTROLS OR APPROVED EQUAL. ALL BRANCH CIRCUIT SPACES ARE TO BE PREPARED FOR USE WITHOUT DEADFRONT OR OTHER MODIFICATION, PROVIDE BLANKS FOR UNUSED SPACES. 15. DISCONNECT SWITCHES SHALL BE VISIBLE BLADE TYPE, HEAVY-DUTY SAFETY SWITCHES NEMA 3R AS MANUFACTURED BY SIEMENS, SQUARE D, GENERAL ELECTRIC OR APPROVED EQUAL. SWITCHES TO BE FUSED ONLY IF DOWNSTREAM EQUIPMENT WARRANTY REQUIRES FUSES OR CIRCUIT OTHERWISE REQUIRES OVERCURRENT PROTECTION. 16. LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL BE AS NOTED ON DRAWINGS AND LIGHTING VENDER WHO DOES NOT KNOW EXACT DETAILS UNTIL THEIR FINAL MANUFACTURER AND CONTROLS COORDINATION. FIXTURE SELECTION AND PLACEMENT IS OFTEN BASED ON PHOTOMETRICS NOT SHOW ON DRAWINGS. SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED IN ADVANCE OF BEING SUBMITTED. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENGAGING LIGHTING VENDOR TO ENSURE THAT A LIGHTING FIXTURE PACKAGE(S) INCLUDES ALL NECESSARY OPTIONS, CONTROLS AND PARTS. LIGHTING ENERGY COMPLIANCE FREQUENTLY HAS PUBLIC WORKS EXEMPTIONS THAT RESULT IN LIGHTING ENERGY DOCUMENTATION ON DRAWINGS NOT BEING REQUIRED BY THE AHJ. THIS DOES NOT PRECLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMPLE ASTRONOMIC TIMECLOCKS AND PHOTOCELLS. 17. FOR EQUIPMENT THAT IS LIKELY TO REQUIRE EXAMINATION, ADJUSTMENT, SERVICING, OR MAINTENANCE WHILE ENERGIZED PROVIDE FAULT CURRENT AND COORDINATION POWER STUDY CALCULATIONS AND REPORTS WITH ARC FLASH LABELING. LABELS TO INCLUDE SPECIFIC FAULT CURRENT AND ARC FLASH (NOT BRACED VALUE) PER NFPA 70 & 70E. LABELS TO BE 5-YEAR OUTDOOR RATED 4”X6” SELF-ADHESIVE VINYL DURALABEL OR APPROVED EQUAL. 18. PROVIDE ALL ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP AND DISPOSAL PERFORMED AS A PART OF THIS CONTRACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE RULES, REGULATIONS, LAWS, AND STATUTES OF ALL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 19. SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL CLOSE OUT DOCUMENTS TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION-RECORD RED-MARKED DRAWINGS, TEST & INSPECTION RESULTS, SHOP DRAWINGS, PRODUCT DATA, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS, GUARANTEES, WARRANTEES AND CERTIFICATES. PLUS, AS APPLICABLE INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS PHOTOS, RFIs, CORRESPONDENCE AND MEETING MINUTES. 20. THESE DRAWINGS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. PROVIDE (1) NEW ELECTRIC METERED SERVICE PEDESTAL FOR IRRIGATION SERVICES 2. PROVIDE CONNECTION TO (1) NEW IRRIGATION CONTROLLER 3. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR OVERALL SITE MAP APPLICABLE CODES: 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE - A -

A AMPERE AF AMP FUSE RATING AFF/AFG ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR/GRADE AIC AMPERE INTERRUPTING CAPACITY AL ALUMINUM AWG AMERICAN WIRE GAUGE - B - BLDG BUILDING - C - C CONDUIT °C DEGREE CELSIUS CAB CABINET CB CIRCUIT BREAKER CKT CIRCUIT CL CENTER LINE CO CONDUIT ONLY COM COMMUNICATION CONT CONTINUATION CT CURRENT TRANSFORMER CU COPPER - D - DIA DIAMETER DISC DISCONNECT DN DOWN DP DISTRIBUTION PANELBOARD DWG DRAWING - E - EA EACH ELEV ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRICAL EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT EX. (E) EXISTING EXT EXTERIOR - F - °F DEGREE FAHRENHEIT

F FUSE FDR FEEDER FDS FUSED DISCONNECT SWITCH FLA FULL LOAD AMPS FLEC FLEXIBLE PNL PANEL - G - G GND GROUND GFI GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTING - H - HP HORSEPOWER HV HIGH VOLTAGE- I - IC INTERRUPTING CAPACITY ID INSIDE DIAMETER IG ISOLATED GROUND - J - J JUNCTION BOX - K - KCM THOUSAND CIRCULAR MILS KV KILOVOLT KVA KILOVOLT AMPERE KW KILOWATT KWH KILOWATT HOUR KWHM KILOWATT HOUR METER - L - LCP LIGHTING CONTROL PANEL LYG LIGHTING LRA LOCKED ROTOR AMPS - M - MAX MAXIMUM MCB MAIN CIRCUIT BREAKER MCM THOUSAND CIRCULAR MILS MIN MINIMUM MTD MOUNTED MTG MOUNTING - N - NEUT NEUTRAL NC NORMALLY CLOSED NF NON-FUSED NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NO NORMALLY OPEN NTS NOT TO SCALE - O - OC ON CENTER OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER- P -

P POLE PB PULL BOX PB PUSH BUTTON SWITCH PH PHASE PNL PANEL PT POTENTIAL TRANSFORMER PWR POWER - R - RECEPT RECEPTACLE REQ REQUIRED RLA RATED LOAD AMPS RM ROOM - S - SCHED SCHEDULE SC SEPARATE CIRCUIT SECT SECTION SN SOLID NEUTRAL SOW SCOPE OF WORK SYS SYSTEMS - T - TBC TO BE CONFIRMED TB TERMINAL BOARD

T TELEPHONE TEMP TEMPERATURE TYP TYPICAL - U - UF UNFUSED UNO UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED - V - VA VOLT AMPERE VA VOLT OR VOLTAGE VFD VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVE VM VOLTMETER VP VAPORPROOF - W - W WATT WHM WATT HOUR METER WP WEATHERPROOF WT WATERTIGHT +48" MOUNTING HEIGHT TO CENTER OF DEVICE FROM FINISHED FLOOR OR GRADE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SPECIFIC CONFIGURATION TO BE AS SHOWN ON PANEL SCHEDULE ON SHEET E10, AS REQUIRED BY AHJ, AND AS RECOMMENDED OR CONFIGURED BY MANUFACTURER TESCO CONTROLS NEW SERVICE PEDESTAL EQUIPMENT CUTSHEET 1E0 City E Street
Frontage Offsite Improvements 04.03.2023 06.02.2023 3RD SUBMITTAL 07.11.2023 4TH SUBMITTAL 08.22.2023 503
79 60
59 STREET 6th
2 2
2 2 12 E1 GC 1"=20'-0" PROJECT: REVISIONS ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN & NOTES DATE ISSUE DATE DRAWN : CHECKED : SCALE: : SHEET TITLE: SHEET OF SHEETS CONSULTANT 1 23
4 5 JOB NO. : FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP DESIGN • SERVICE • SOLUTIONS BPH: 22020 FOUR 40 WEST PARK E STREET SACRAMENTO, CA CLIENT: BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 13 © CES Engineering, Inc. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied without the permission of CES Engineering, Inc. This drawing is not final and shall not be used for construction until signed by the Electrical Engineer and approved by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction CES ENGINEERING, INC. 916.905.4477 www.conwayengineering.com 13420 Mesa Drive Grass Valley California 95949 USA 2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115 ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661 916.783.5263 • FLLANDGROUP.COM RR Know what'sbelow. before you dig. Call R 1.2
3 2.1 METERED POWER PEDESTAL EP1E EP-3,5 IRRIGATION CONTROLLER 1"C-4#10 #10G 1.1 SP 4N30 1. ELECTRIC SERVICE PER UTILITY COMPANY REQUIREMENTS. EXACT LOCATIONS OF COMPONENTS AND CONNECTIONS TO BE CONFIRMED AND RECORDED ON CONSTRUCTION RECORD DOCUMENTS. 1.1. ELECTRIC SERVICE SECONDARY BOX POINT OF CONNECTION. SEE 1-LINE DIAGRAM SHEET E10 FOR NEW SERVICE CONDUIT & WIRE. 1.2. NEW METERED POWER PEDESTAL. SEE SHEET E10 FOR DETAILS AND PANEL SCHEDULE WITH CIRCUITING. EXACT LOCATION TO BE CONFIRMED. 2. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. 2.1. PEDESTAL WITH SINGLE CELLULAR 120V 120W IRRIGATION CONTROLLER TORO DXi-48-TW-D-1-DXCCA-GR-K. VERIFY LOCATION. PROVIDE 1"C 4#10 #10G TO POWER PEDESTAL VIA ADJACENT UG PULLBOX - THIS INCLUDES SPARE CIRCUIT FOR OPTIONAL SEPARATE IRRIGATION PEDESTAL 120V RECEPTACLE, IF EVER PROVIDED. INSTALL INCLUDED DEDICATED GROUND ROD (EST.5/8" x 8ft COPPER CLAD STEEL) WITH INCLUDED 15FT #6 TO PEDESTAL - STUB ROD DIRECTLY INTO IRRIGATION CONCRETE BASE, OR PROVIDE GROUND WELL BOX PER DETAIL SHEET E10. (NOTE: THIS IS A MANUFACTURER REQUIREMENT, NOT AN ELECTRICAL CODE OR AHJ REQUIREMENT, BUT INSTALLATION MUST MEET ELECTRIC CODE ETC. REQUIREMENTS) . 3. PROVIDE (3) 1.5"C & WIRE AS NOTED. 3.1. STUB OUT (2) 1.5"C FOR FUTURE SITE LIGHTING. 4. UNDERGROUND PULLBOX WITH TAMPER RESISTANT LID (PENTABOLT) . CHRISTY 'N9' (#3.5) 10"x15" OR EQUIVALENT BY JENSEN OR OLDCASTLE; EXCEPT LARGER WHERE INDICATED BY N## / INSIDE DIMENSIONS: N16 11"x21" N20 (#5) 12"x22" N30 13"x24" N36 17"x30" LABEL LID "ELECTRIC" OR AS REQUIRED BY AHJ. SEE DETAIL E10. -IF ANGLE PULL DIMENSIONS EXCEED NEC 314.28 PROVIDE LARGER PULLBOX. -DASHED LINES TO PULLBOXES REPRESENT UNDERGROUND PVC SCHEDULE 40 CONDUIT - MINIMUM 1" EXCEPT PROVIDE MINIMUM 1.5" BETWEEN PULLBOXES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SEE DETAIL E10. 5. WHERE AND IF INDICATED PROVIDE UNDERGROUND SLEEVE 6" DIA. GRAY PVC FOR INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL CONDUITS ACROSS ROADWAY OR OTHER HARDSCAPE. SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR REQUIRED DEPTHS TO COORDINATE WITH OTHER UTILITIES. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PULLBOXES AT EACH END OF SLEEVE UNLESS ALIGNMENT ALLOWS OTHERWISE - EXCEPT DO NOT PROVIDE PULLBOXES IN ELECTRIC SERVICE FEEDERS UNLESS APPROVED BY UTILITY COMPANY. SLEEVES MAY BE REDUCED TO 4" PVC, WITH PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL. REFERENCE NOTES: 3.1 NOTE: PARK SITE LINE WORK SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. ALL ELECTRICAL WORK TO BE PROVIDED WITH E
STREET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

City E Street Frontage Offsite Improvements 04.03.2023 06.02.2023 3RD SUBMITTAL 07.11.2023 4TH SUBMITTAL 08.22.2023 504
13 E10GC NA PROJECT: REVISIONS ELECTRICAL DETAILS DATE ISSUE DATE DRAWN : CHECKED : SCALE: : SHEET TITLE: SHEET OF SHEETS CONSULTANT 1 23
4 5 JOB NO. : FUHRMAN LEAMY LAND GROUP DESIGN • SERVICE • SOLUTIONS BPH: 22020 FOUR 40 WEST PARK E STREET SACRAMENTO, CA CLIENT: BLACK PINE COMMUNITIES WEST SACCRAMENTO, CA 13 © CES Engineering, Inc. These plans are not to be reproduced, changed or copied without the permission of CES Engineering, Inc. This drawing is not final and shall not be used for construction until signed by the Electrical Engineer and approved by the Authorities Having Jurisdiction CES ENGINEERING, INC. 916.905.4477 www.conwayengineering.com 13420 Mesa Drive Grass Valley California 95949 USA 2140 PROFESSIONAL DRIVE, SUITE 115 ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661 916.783.5263 • FLLANDGROUP.COM RR PULL BOX UNDERGROUND CONDUIT ONE LINE DIAGRAM - TYPICAL NEW SERVICE PEDESTAL # 4 BARE (CU) PROVIDE SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTOR LANDING LUGS PER UTILITY COMPANY REQUIREMENTS UTILITY SERVICE SECTION NEUTRAL GROUND 100A 2P -FOR LOADS SEE PANEL SCHEDULE SHEET E10 PROVIDE 100A-1Ø METER SOCKET WITH TEST BYPASS PER UTILITY COMPANY REQUIREMENTS 120/240V-1Ø-3W 100 AMP BUS 22,000 A.I.C. SYM. * LIGHTNING ARRESTER PROVIDE MINIMUM 3" C. PER UTILITY COMPANY PGE REQUIREMENTS (VERIFY). UTILITY SECONDARY SERVICE POINT PULLBOX. SERVICE PEDESTAL MOUNTING DETAIL 2E10 DIMENSIONS ARE GENERIC FOR REFERENCE ONLY, SEE TESCO CONTROLS, INC. SUBMITTAL FOR 27-100M OR SIMILAR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS AND DETAILS.1E10 4E10
3E10 1-3/4" TAMPERPROOF PENTABOLT LID FASTENERS NOT SHOWN PULLBOX LID SHALL BE INSCRIBED WITH "ELECTRIC" OR AS REQUIRED BY AHJ PROVIDE MINIMUM 18" OF GRAVEL INSIDE/BENEATH HANDHOLE FOR DRAINAGE ALL SPLICES SHALL BE WATERPROOF WITH 3M SCOTCHKOTE ELECTRICAL COATING EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE BOXES SHALL BE CHRISTY OR JENSEN MODEL N9 (OR LARGER WHERE NOTED OR REQUIRED) OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT HIGH DENSITY REINFORCED CONCRETE PULL AND JUNCTION BOX WITH END AND SIDE KNOCKOUTS; WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE NOTES: 1. MINIMUM BURIAL DEPTH SHALL BE 24" OF COVER OR NOT LESS THAN NEC TABLE 300-5. 2. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL MARKER TAPE FOR DUCTBANKS GREATER THAN 24" WIDE. 3. MAINTAIN 1.5" SEPARATION BETWEEN UNDERGROUND POWER CONDUITS FOR CONDUIT DUCTBANK COOLING & COMPACTION. 4. MAINTAIN 12" SEPARATION BETWEEN PARALLEL (NOT CROSSING) POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS CONDUITS. NOT REQUIRED BETWEEN POWER AND CONTROLS CONDUITS UNLESS NOTER OTHERWISE. 5. BACKFILL & BEDDING TO BE TO 95% COMPACTION VARIES 3" 3" 1.5" 3" 12" NOTE 1 3" 6-8" WARNING MARKER TAPE(S) EXCAVATED MATERIAL NO ROCKS LARGER THAN 3" COMMS CONDUIT (<50V) 2" PVC UNO POWER CONDUITS 2" PVC UNO NATIVE SOIL WITH NO ROCKS GREATER THAN 3/4" PANEL SCHEDULE 6E10 2'' CONDUIT KNOCK- OUT w/REMOVABLE COVER PLATE. PROVIDE BUSHING HANDLE LATCH (2 REQUIRED) TIMECLOCK LIGHTING CONTACTORS REMOVABLE METER SECTION INCLUDING METER SOCKET w/ MANUAL CLOSING DEVICE PER SMUD REQUIREMENTS SERVICE SECTION WITH HINGED DEAD FRONT DOOR & HINGED OUTSIDE DOOR EQUIPPED WITH PAD-LOCKABLE DRAW LATCH. NEMA 3R CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO BE MOUNTED ON PAN IN REAR HINGED FRONT DOOR (NEOPRENE GASKET REQUIRED) PHOTOCELL BEHIND VANDAL GUARD PAD-LOCKABLE DRAW LATCH REMOVABLE SECTION OF BARRIER GFCI RECEPTACLE STAINLESS STEEL ENCLOSURE APPROVED GROUND CLAMP 3/8'' x 18'' GALVANIZED ANCHOR ROD (4 REQUIRED) CONCRETE BASE 2500PSI ' FEEDER CONDUIT GROUNDING ELECTRODE SEE ONE LINE DIAGRAM THIS DRAWING FOR SECOND ELECTRODE OR REQUIREMENT FOR 25 OHM TEST. GROUND BOX SEE DETAIL 5/E10 CONCRETE BASE 2500 PSI 3/4" CHAMFER FINISH GRADE 20" 60" 2" 24" 24" 6'-0" MINIMUM PER CEC 250 PROVIDE ONE 5/8" Ø GROUND ROD TO BE MINIMUM 8FT OF LENGTH IN CONTACT WITH SOIL. PROVIDE TEST REPORT TO SHOW RESISTANCE TO EARTH OF 25 OHMS OR LESS, OR ALTERNATIVELY INSTALL A SECOND 5/8" Ø GROUND ROD TO BE MINIMUM 8FT OF LENGTH IN CONTACT WITH SOIL AND LOCATED MINIMUM 6'-0" FROM THE FIRST. IRRIGATION PEDESTAL GROUND 5E10 CONDUIT PER PLAN, TYP. City E Street
Frontage Offsite Improvements 04.03.2023 06.02.2023 3RD SUBMITTAL 07.11.2023 4TH SUBMITTAL 08.22.2023 505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
(Legal Description of Property)
Lots 4-106 inclusive, A-J inclusive, and L-O Inclusive, Final Map of Subdivision No. 5211 and Subdivision No. 4936, Four40 West, filed for record IJOV, l?, , 2023, in Book 2023 of Maps, at Pages n.JB I Official Records of Yolo County.

END OF DOCUMENT 541
542
543
544
545
(Legal Description of Property)
The land described herein is situated in the State of California, County of Yolo, City of West Sacramento, described as follows:

Lots 1, 2, and 3, Final Map of Subdivision No. 5211 and Subdivision No. 4936, Four40 West, filed for record Wo{ql.ty I� , 2023, in Book 2023, of Maps, at Pages �1-'{3 , Official Records of Yolo County.

END OF DOCUMENT 3
546
Attachment 2
Location Map
North
547
Attachment 3
Findings and Analysis
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS:

To approve the Development Agreement, the City Council must make the following findings. The specific Finding (in italics) is followed by the Staff analysis of whether or not the Finding can be made.

1. That the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and the Washington Specific Plan.

Analysis: The project has previously been found to be in compliance with the West Sacramento General Plan and Washington Specific Plan.

Finding 1 appears to be met for this Development Agreement.

2. That the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the provisions of Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5.

Analysis: Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5 include State codes for regulating DAs. The codes include procedures for executing and modifying DAs. The proposed DA and the process by which it is being considered by the City and the applicant is consistent with the applicable State requirements.

Finding 2 appears to be met for this Development Agreement.

3. That all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts from the project contemplated by the Development Agreement are within the scope of the environmental impact report prepared for the West Sacramento 2016 General Plan Update certified by the City Council on November 16, 2016 ("General Plan 2035 EIR") and no new or substantially more adverse impacts that those contemplated in the General Plan EIR would occur through implementation of the project. Therefore, no further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15168(c)(2).

Analysis: Staff prepared a technical memorandum analyzing the project contemplated by the Development Agreement and analyzing the General Plan 2035 EIR. That technical memorandum supports and concludes that no further CEQA review is required because the project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c)(2) as it was completely considered in the prior EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15162 goes hand-in-hand with Section 15168(c)(2) – both provide if a project was considered in a prior EIR no further review is required. Thus, the project contemplated by the Development Agreement is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to both sections.

Finding 3 appears to be met for this Development Agreement. 548
Attachment 4
BLACKPINE 440 WEST LLC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

SUPPORTING FINDINGS THAT PLANS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WEST SACRAMENTO

GENERAL PLAN
The City of West Sacramento has evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the Blackpine 440 West LLC’s Development Agreement (Project) and assessed whether the potential impacts are within the scope of analysis of the certified West Sacramento General Plan 2035 (GP 2035) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH #201404287). The EIR was certified in November 2016 by the West Sacramento City Council following all required Native American consultations (Senate Bill [SB] 18 and Assembly Bill [AB] 52), a 45-day public comment period, and workshops and hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. This analysis was prepared to determine whether potential impacts of the proposed project, which qualify as “later activities” covered by the GP 2035 EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, are within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR.

Project Location
The Project is located on nine parcels totaling ±7.4 acres located at 412-430 6th Street and 425, 640-702 E Street, (APNs 010-191-004-000 to -006-000, -011-000 to -013-000, -017-000 and -018-000 and 010- 192-003-00).

Project Background
2016 General Plan Update
Following its incorporation in 1987, the City adopted its first General Plan in 1990 and then its first comprehensive General Plan Update in 2000. Subsequently, incremental updates to individual elements were approved until the City initiated a second comprehensive update in 2006. GP 2035 was approved and its EIR certified in November 2016 by the City Council. Since 1990, the City has grown steadily, due largely to new development within the Southport area of the City. In 1990, the city’s population was 28,898 residents (West Sacramento 2016a). The city’s current population is estimated to be approximately 53,082 (West Sacramento 2016a), and is projected to reach 81,840 by 2035 (West Sacramento 2016a). Much of the anticipated growth would continue to occur in the Southport area, although other areas, such as the Bridge District and Broderick and Bryte Neighborhoods, are expected to redevelop over time.

As noted above, GP 2035 emphasizes community sustainability and consistency with regional planning efforts, including the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). SACOG further found that GP 2035 is consistent with the SCS. Consistent with CEQA requirements, an EIR was prepared that evaluated the potential physical environmental impacts of plan implementation and was certified by the City Council in November 2016. The project is identified as part of GP 2035 through adopted goals and policies (LU-1.5, M-2.4, M-2.6, PFS-2.8, PFS-3.5, PFS-4.4, and PFS5.8) (West Sacramento 2016b).

Project Description
The proposed project is a 106-lot townhome project, a ± 0.43 public neighborhood park, a private dog park, and a private garden and common area, as well as related infrastructure improvements on the site. The site is ±7.4 acres located at 412-430 6th Street and 425, 640-702 E Street, (APNs 010-191-004-000 to - 006-000, -011-000 to -013-000, -017-000 and -018-000 and 010-192-003-00). The project also includes a ±0.43 acre park, resident common area, dog park, and garden site. The property is zoned R-3 (multifamily residential) and WF (Waterfront) and has a General Plan designation of HR (High Density Residential) and RMU (Riverfronto Mixed-Use).
549
Attachment 4
Use of a Program EIR with Later Activities
CEQA statute and implementing regulations allow for use of a Program EIR when considering potential impacts for subsequent activities, provided new or substantially more severe environmental impacts do not occur, including impacts associated with a changed condition. Pending such a determination, the agency, in this case the City of West Sacramento, “can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(2).

As noted above, on November 16, 2016, the City of West Sacramento certified a Program EIR that evaluated a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan. After certification of the Program EIR and approval of GP 2035, the City received an application for the Four 40 West Tentative Subdivision Map 5211 and a map modificatioin the the Alura at Washington Square Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 4936. The GP 2035 EIR is both recently prepared and comprehensive, and based on the analysis presented below, the impacts of the proposed project are determined to be addressed programmatically by the GP 2035 EIR.

Environmental Analysis
Using Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the State CEQA Guidelines as an analytical tool, the following discussion evaluates the potential environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed River Oaks TSM in the context of the GP 2035 EIR to determine if those impacts are sufficiently covered, or if additional analysis is necessary.

Aesthetics
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.1 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Aesthetics,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of visual character and quality, light and glare, and views of and from the planning area (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The planning area is composed mostly of suburban and rural development and agricultural open space with some light commercial and industrial development, educational facilities, and riparian corridors. The natural landscape of the planning area is mostly flat with raised levees and is composed of vegetation in the form of residential landscaping, agricultural crops and hedgerows, and riparian vegetation along the river and in swales and drainages throughout rural residential lands.

Residential landscaping and riparian vegetation, when combined with development in the planning area, act to restrict views largely to the foreground. The southern portion of the city, Southport, is predominantly new suburban development, while the northern and central portions of the city are characterized by older suburban development with pockets of modern redevelopment. There are no federal, state, or locally designated scenic roadways within the planning area.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 could result in substantial adverse modifications of existing topography, vegetation, or land uses such that existing visual character and views would be affected. This potential adverse change would occur predominantly within open space, agricultural, and undeveloped areas that may be altered over time. Impacts to existing visual character were determined to be significant and unavoidable with GP 2035 implementation. Additionally, development anticipated under GP 2035 could also result in an increase in light and glare within the planning area, and impacts were also determined to be significant and unavoidable with implementation of feasible mitigation related to glare reduction and lighting type and efficiency requirements.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially 550
Attachment 4
affect existing visual resources upon construction of the project. The project would not affect a scenic vista or damage any scenic resources. The project would be located within an exsiting urban environment and is not expected to impede the visual character of the existing neighborhood not creat any sources of light other than those which are typical in a residential neighborhood. The proposed project would not result in any adverse impacts beyond those which were analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to aesthetics and associated with the proposed project are within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.2 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Agricultural and Forestry Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of Important Farmland, land under Williamson Act contracts, and land used for agricultural uses (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The planning area is composed of mostly suburban and rural development, with agricultural activities taking place in the southern portion of the planning area.

Agricultural land within the planning area includes both Prime Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. The principal crops include wheat, alfalfa, vegetables, and fruits. There are no Williamson Act contract lands within West Sacramento.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that land currently being farmed is planned for urbanization. As such, the GP 2035 EIR concluded that the urbanization resulting from buildout of GP 2035 would remove existing farmland from agricultural production. No feasible mitigation was available, and this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Because GP 2035 supports agricultural uses and preserves existing farmland, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that its implementation would not result in other changes that would result in indirect conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect any existing agricultural operations. The project site is located on vacant land classified as “Urban and Built Up Land” on the Calfironia Important Farmland Map. Because of this, none of the actions identified as part of the proposed project would result in conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use beyond what was analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to agricultural resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.
551
Attachment 4
Air Quality
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.3 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Air Quality,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of ambient air quality, regional climate, and air quality regulation attainment status (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

The planning area is located in Yolo County within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The SVAB is bounded on the north by the Cascade Range, on the south by the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the west by the Coast Ranges. The SVAB contains all of Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Sacramento, and Shasta Counties, as well as a portion of Solano and Placer Counties.

The GP 2035 EIR notes occasional violations of the ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national and state standards, but no violations of the large particulate matter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), or nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standards were reported during the monitoring period for the GP 2035 EIR (West Sacramento 2016a:3.3-7). The GP 2035 EIR concludes that while implementation of the General Plan would not be expected to conflict with applicable air quality plans and regulations, buildout would result in pollutant emissions that could be significant and unavoidable. While adherence to measures required by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) would help reduce construction and operational emissions, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that the lack of project-specific information made it infeasible to calculate construction and operational emissions such that it could be determined whether mitigation measures would reduce emission levels to below the thresholds of significance. Hence, construction and operational emissions were determined to be significant and unavoidable, despite mitigation.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not include substantially increased operational air emissions. However, construction activities to implement the project would result in air pollutant emissions. These activities would be subject to the YSAQMD requirements and City rules regarding best management practices and processes required to reduce air quality impacts. Mitigation measures included in the GP 2035 EIR would apply to all actions undertaken as part of the proposed project. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 and applicable YSAQMD requirements identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce impacts associated with the project but would not preclude potentially significant, site-specific impacts, consistent with determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

As such, the potential environmental impacts related to air quality and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Biological Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.4 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Biological Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of land cover types, wetlands and jurisdictional waters, special-status species, critical habitat, and wildlife corridors (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. 552
Attachment 4
The planning area includes the following landcover types: agriculture, annual grassland, fresh emergent wetland, lacustrine, oak woodland, orchard, riverine, urban, and Valley foothill riparian. The GP 2035 EIR noted that 24 special-status plant species, 16 special-status wildlife species, and 9 special-status fish species occur in or near the area. The GP 2035 EIR also noted that the planning area includes critical habitat for multiple special-status fish species.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources. The analysis concluded that compliance with GP 2035 policies, including policy revisions required by Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO- 7, and BIO-12, would reduce all impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Yolo County Natural Heritage Program, a countywide multi-species habitat conservation plan and natural communities conservation plan, was adopted by the County in 2018.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect biological resources because the site has been previously disturbed, However, certain activities/improvements identified within the proposed project could result in impacts to biological resources due to land disturbance from construction of new residential units. Mitigation measure BIO-2 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would reduce impacts associated with the project but would not preclude potentially significant, site-specific impacts, consistent with determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to biological resources and associated the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Cultural Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.5 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Cultural Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic contexts (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The studies conducted or reviewed during preparation of the GP 2035 EIR indicate that there are 71 historic era resources and 10 prehistoric resources within West Sacramento (West Sacramento 2016a:3.5-10).

The GP 2035 EIR notes that project-level review would be required for all future projects, and that future projects would be consistent with the General Plan and would comply with all state and local laws regarding historical resources. However, because the impacts of individual future projects cannot guarantee that historical resources would not be adversely effected, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that impacts on historic resources would be significant and unavoidable. The GP 2035 EIR notes that future construction activities could result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 dictate procedures to be implemented, including the treatment of resources, in the event of discovery, but would not reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. Thus, all impacts related to cultural resources were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area the creation of which would not substantially affect historic resources. However, certain activities/improvements identified within the proposed project, especially those that may involve the disturbance of previously undisturbed soils, could result in the 553
Attachment 4
construction activities that could result in discovery of previously unknown resources. Should any resources be discovered, Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be implemented, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce impacts associated with implementation of the project but would not preclude potentially significant site-specific impacts, consistent with impact determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to cultural resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.6 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of seismicity, geologic formations, and soil characteristics (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Although the planning area is located in a region of California characterized by relatively low seismic activity, seismic hazards are present. The nearest active fault is the Cordelia fault approximately 30 miles west of the planning area (West Sacramento 2016a:3.6- 5). The GP 2035 EIR noted that 24 soil series occur within the planning area, most of which are disturbed as a result of agricultural cultivation or construction of suburban and urban development. The GP 2035 EIR also noted that most of the planning area is immediately underlain by Holocene dune sands, which are unlikely to contain fossils (West Sacramento 2016a:3.6-9).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would not result in significant impacts related to geology, soils, or paleontological resources. GP 2035 policies and California Building Code (CBC) require that new structures be designed to withstand seismic activity. Furthermore, preparation of project-specific geotechnical reports and implementation of their recommendations, as required by GP 2035 policy, would minimize impacts related to unsuitable soils. Because GP 2035 does not include policies or practices to specifically protect paleontological resources, Mitigation Measure GEO-7 requires the City to determine whether discretionary projects would be located in an area of paleontological sensitivity.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect seismic hazards in the area. However, earth-moving activities could result in impacts related to soil erosion, unsuitable soils, or paleontological resources. While the extent and location of future ground disturbance are not known at this time, all activities would be carried out in compliance with GP 2035 EIR policies. Further, the CBC requires specific design and soil compaction measures be implemented on a case-by-case basis such that impacts related to geology and soils would be less-than-significant, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR. Mitigation Measure CUL-7 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce potential impacts related to paleontological resources.

The potential environmental impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new 554
Attachment 4
information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.7 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

The specific chemical properties of GHGs enable them to become well mixed within the atmosphere and transported over long distances. Consequently, unlike other resource areas that are primarily concerned with localized (e.g., within 1,000 feet of a project site) project impacts, the global nature of climate change requires a broader analytical approach. Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. The principle anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorinated carbons (PFCs). The global warming potential (GWP) of various GHG emissions is expressed on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 by definition). West Sacramento prepared an inventory in 2011 that indicated that West Sacramento residents and businesses generated approximately 447,387 metric tons CO2e. The transportation sector represents the largest source of community emissions (48 percent), followed by building energy consumption (36 percent) (West Sacramento 2016a:3.7-8).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would result in substantial GHG emissions and therefore significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions, as well as potential inconsistencies with policies and regulations that seek to reduce GHG emissions. The analysis noted that while the City’s climate action plan (CAP) is still in draft form, it is anticipated to focus on reducing community emissions consistent with statewide GHG targets. The analysis also noted that while GP 2035 did not propose any specific development projects, construction would occur as buildout of the planning area proceeds under GP 2035. The level of construction activities that would take place with implementation of GP 2035 was reported as unknown. While compliance with measures that would reduce GHG emissions (e.g., limits on truck idling), the GP 2035 EIR concludes that it may not be feasible in all cases to ensure that emissions would be below applicable thresholds, and the impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area the creation of which would not result in substantial GHG emissions. However, construction activities would result in GHG emissions, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. Such activities would be subject to City requirements regarding GHG emissions reduction. Because the project constitutes a project associated with implementation of GP 2035, policies identified in the GP 2035 EIR would apply to all actions undertaken as part of the project.

The potential environmental impacts related to GHG emissions and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial 555
Attachment 4
importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.8 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of hazards to the public’s health and safety (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

West Sacramento has a substantial number of industries and activities that transport, store, and use toxic or hazardous chemicals, posing significant potential safety hazards. There are 50 facilities and activities in the planning area that store and/or use toxic materials. Additionally, there are 32 active open cleanup sites listed in the Geotracker database, and one active site listed in the Envirostor database. One site within the planning area is listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese List. The Capitol Plating site is a former metal-plating facility located at 319 Third Street. Site assessment has been underway since 1999 and the status has been listed as Open-Inactive since 1999. The facility was demolished in 2005. (West Sacramento 2016a:3.8-8)
West Sacramento is within the flight path of several airports. The closest public airport is the Sacramento Executive Airport, approximately 1.60 miles west of the southern portion of the city. Mather Airport is located approximately 15 miles east, Sacramento International Airport is approximately 5 miles north, and McClellan Airfield, formerly an Air Force base, is approximately 10 miles northeast of the city.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that, with implementation of federal, state, and local regulations regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, development consistent with GP 2035 would not result in significant effects related to hazards. While multiple airports are within two miles of the planning area, no part of the planning area is within the safety zone of any airport. The GP 2035 EIR notes that while future construction activities could cause temporary changes in emergency access, existing City requirements for construction projects require signage and an access plan to ensure accessibility during construction.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not involve any new use of hazardous materials or create new hazards. Compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous materials would minimize potential impacts, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.9 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” describes the planning area and vicinity in terms of surface water flow, groundwater, potential for flooding, and water quality (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.
556
Attachment 4
The Sacramento River is the largest river in California, flowing along the east and northeast boundaries of the city. According to the 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), all areas within the planning area but outside the main waterways are mapped as Zone X—area protected from the 1 percent chance (100-year) flood by levee, dike, or other structures subject to possible failure of overtopping during longer floods. FEMA’s flood risk maps are being revised and based on the results of these studies, new draft revised FEMA maps are expected to show that all or parts of West Sacramento may neither meet 100-year flood standards nor 200-year level of flood protection required by the Central Valley Flood Protection Program (CVFPP) for urban areas (West Sacramento 2016a:3.9-23). West Sacramento is within the natural floodplain of the Sacramento River at the confluence with the American River and is surrounded on all four sides by a series of levees designed to provide flood protection. The river levees channelize the river into a fixed alignment by preventing future channel meandering and separating the channel from its historic floodplain. In light of the flood risk to West Sacramento, the West Sacramento Levee Improvement Program (WSLIP) is undertaking extensive measures to reduce risk and achieve a minimum of 200-year flood protection for the entire city within the existing levee system by improving the approximately 50 miles of levees protecting West Sacramento (City of West Sacramento 2016a:3.9-29).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality, with the exception of placing housing units within the 100- year floodplain. Impact WQ-8 noted that while new development would occur within the existing levee system surrounding the city, some of these areas may not meet the 100-year and 200-year flood protection requirements. Policies in GP 2035, as well as requirements of other state and local programs, require all new development to demonstrate 200-year flood protection or to contribute in-lieu fees toward making physical improvements to the existing levee system. However, it will be many years until the flood protection goal is achieved, meaning that new development may not have 100-year flood protection.

Thus, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that adherence to state and local regulations and GP 2035 policies would generally preclude significant hydrology and water quality impacts. In particular, construction activities pursuant to GP 2035 would be required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as part of compliance with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not place housing within the 100-year floodplain. However, construction activities associated with activities/improvements identified by the project description could result in temporary construction impacts related to hydrology and water quality, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. As discussed above relative to the project background, the proposed project is consistent with the approved GP 2035.

Policies identified in the GP 2035 EIR would reduce but not prevent impacts associated with their implementation, consistent with impact determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to hydrology and water quality and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.
557
Attachment 4
Land Use and Planning
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.10 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Land Use and Planning,” describes the planning area in terms of physical division of established communities, existing and proposed changes to land use and land use designations, conflicts with City land use policies and regulation, and conflicts with any applicable conservation plans (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Existing land uses in the city range from small single-family residences to industrial complexes and the Port of West Sacramento. The northwestern quadrant is largely industrial and commercial. The northeastern quadrant includes commercial and office uses as well as existing and developing residential neighborhoods. The area immediately south of the Ship Channel is largely industrial. Farther south, the Southport area contains residential areas and associated commercial uses that are still largely undeveloped.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that although no change in the distribution of land use types are proposed, revisions to some land use designations would provide for more intensive development. Because GP 2035 includes numerous policies to avoid dividing established communities and ensure that new development remains interconnected, the EIR concluded that GP 2035 would not result in physical division of existing communities.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that GP 2035 would not reduce the effectiveness of any plans or regulations that protect the environment and that GP 2035 additional policies also provide for environmental protection. Therefore, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that impacts related to GP 2035 conflicts with applicable policies and regulations intended to protect the environment would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect existing land use and planning upon completion of the project. Creation of the 65-lot subdivision, would not result in the physical division of established communities, nor conflict with City land use policies and regulations that protect the environment. None of the actions resulting from the project would result in land use changes beyond what was analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to land use and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Mineral Resources
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.11 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Mineral Resources,” describes the planning area in terms of known mineral resources of value and natural gas resources (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. Most of the planning area is designated as MRZ-1 (no significant mineral deposits), with a band of MRZ-3 (unknown) along the river. None of the planning area is designated as MRZ-2 (likelihood of significant mineral deposits).

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that because there are no mines regulated under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) or MRZ-2 areas of value to the region that occur in the planning area, no impact to known mineral resources would occur. Further, GP 2035 does not delineate any land uses 558
Attachment 4
within the planning area for mineral resource extraction; therefore, no impact related to development of land delineated for mining on a local general plan would occur with implementation of GP 2035.

Impact Analysis
The planning area is not located in an area associated with mineral resources or mineral extraction.

Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources or extraction. As such, the potential environmental impacts related to mineral resources and associated with implementation of the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Noise and Vibration
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.12 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Noise,” describes the planning area in terms of City noise level standards, groundbourne vibration and groundbourne noise levels, ambient noise levels, and noise-sensitive land uses (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

Existing noise sources in the planning area include motor vehicle traffic, rail operations, aircraft overflights, motorized watercraft on the Sacramento River, industrial facilities, and events at Raley Field.

Sensitive noise receptors typically include residences, religious facilities, schools, child care centers, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. All of these land use types, except hospitals, occur within the planning area. No airports or private airfields are within 2 miles of the planning area and the planning area is not included in any airport land use plan; therefore, employees and residents within the planning area would not be exposed to adverse levels of noise from aircraft overflight.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that policies outlined in GP 2035 would help to reduce the potential impacts of construction- and traffic-related noise on noise-sensitive land uses as well as potential increases in ambient noise levels. However, mitigation of these potential future noise impacts may not be feasible in all cases. These impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that future projects that can comply with City Municipal Code Section 17.32 would result in less than significant impacts related to construction vibration. However, GP 2035 notes that it may not be feasible in all cases to mitigate vibration to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable. Development of new noise- and vibrationsensitive land uses located adjacent or close to railroad tracks could be exposed to vibration levels in excess of FTA vibration standards. The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of a vibration standards policy added to the General Plan (Mitigation Measure NOI-2) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area. Construction of new residences would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and would not result in substantial noise impacts. The primary noise associated with construction of the residences would be from motorized construction equipment. Further, none of the that would result from the project would result in noise or groundbourne vibration changes beyond what was analyzed in the GP 2035 EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would apply to the proposed project and reduce any potential vibration impacts of 559
Attachment 4
the proposed project to less-than-significant levels, consistent with determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to noise and vibration associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Population and Housing
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.13 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Population and Housing,” describes the planning area in terms of population growth trends and housing trends and projections (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

The planning area encompasses 21.4 square miles and had approximately 51,272 residents in 2015.

According to 2000 and 2010 census data, West Sacramento’s population increased by 54 percent between 2000 and 2010; however, between 2010 and 2015, this trend slowed to 5.2 percent citywide.

As noted above, SACOG projects the population of West Sacramento will reach 81,480 by 2035, an increase of approximately 30,208 residents or 59 percent from the 2015 population (West Sacramento 2016a:3.13-4).

Citywide, the California Department of Finance estimates indicate that there were 18,048 occupied housing units in 2015, and a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent. In 2015, there were a total of 19,268 housing units, of which 12,144 were single-family detached units, 1,015 were single-family attached units, 1,257 were multifamily structures with two to four units, 3,344 were multifamily structures with five or more units, and 1,508 were mobile homes. In 2015, the average household size countywide was approximately 2.82 people and SACOG projections indicate the average household size in West Sacramento is expected to decrease to 2.57 by 2035.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that the purpose of GP 2035 is to accommodate future population growth and development by responding to regional growth forecasts, and concluded that although GP 2035 would not directly result in new homes or businesses that would substantially increase population growth in the planning area, it would indirectly result in population growth through individual developments and the extension of roads and other infrastructure improvements as the city becomes more completely developed. The EIR concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable, and no mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

The EIR notes that land use and zoning changes in GP 2035 do not propose specific development that would result in the displacement of existing housing units or residents and necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that any impact on existing housing units would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect population and housing growth due to the overall small size of the project. None of the details regarding the project as discussed in the project description would result in population growth beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to population and housing and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. 560
Attachment 4
Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Public Services
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.14 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Public Services,” describes the planning area in terms of available fire protection and emergency services, police protection services, and schools, parks, and libraries (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The West Sacramento Fire Department (WSFD) provides fire administration, emergency operations, and fire prevention/hazardous materials services within the city.

The average response time for the WSFD overall is 4:42 minutes from time of dispatch to arrival on scene. The West Sacramento Police Department (WSPD) is responsible for enforcing the laws of the State of California and local ordinances,
The planning area is served by the Washington Unified School District (WUSD), which provides primary, secondary, and high school education services to residents. As of 2014, WUSD had a total capacity of 10,393 students and enrollment of 7,444. WUSD is projected to continue growing, with a projected enrollment of 8,434 students in the 2023/24 school year. West Sacramento Parks and Recreation oversees the maintenance of 145+ acres of developed city parks. There are currently 33 parks, plazas, and playfields within the city, totaling 152.6 acres. The 2003 Parks MP sets a standard of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents—2 acres in neighborhood parks and 3 acres in community parks. With a projected population in 2035 of 81,480 residents, 407.4 acres of parks would be required to meet the City’s standard of 5 acres of parks per 1,000 residents—254.8 acres more than currently exist. The Yolo County Library offers library service to the entire planning area and the Arthur F. Turner Community Library is an 18,000- square-foot facility that provides library services to residents in the planning area.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that GP 2035 integrates population projections adopted by SACOG that extend the planning horizon to 2035. SACOG’s regional growth forecast predicts a population for the city of 81,480 by 2035, an increase of approximately 30,208 residents from the current 2015 population (West Sacramento 2016a:3.13-4). Consequently, the GP 2035 EIR points out that it is a reasonable expectation that population and housing within the planning area would increase the demands on all public services within the planning area, resulting in a reasonably foreseeable need for new or expanded facilities. GP 2035 sets forth goals and polices to ensure adequate levels of service and funding for public services as development occurs. Potential environmental impacts associated with construction or expansion of future public service facilities are typical of other land development impacts, including construction noise and potential temporary disruption of access, as well as potential impacts related to site-specific conditions, such as biological or cultural resources, depending on the site location. The GP 2035 EIR concludes that mitigation measures for impacts of implementation of the General Plan as updated (Mitigation Measure CUL-2 [require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources], CUL-3 [implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains], and WQ-3 [Implement a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Permit) would ensure that impacts of construction or expansion of future police facilities would be less than significant.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect public services upon completion of the project. As described above, the project would facilitate minor population growth with the addition of 65 new residences. However, none of the actions or demand 561
Attachment 4
increases that would result from implementation of the project would drive population growth beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to public services and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Recreation
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.15 of the 2016 GP 2035 EIR, “Recreation,” describes the planning area in terms of existing recreational facilities and applicable plans and policies (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The GP 2035 EIR notes that there were 33 parks, plazas, and playfields in the city: 77.1 acres of community parks and 75.6 neighborhood parks and mini parks, totaling 152.7 acres. Based on a population of 51,272, the GP 2035 EIR notes that West Sacramento needed an additional 103.7 acres of parks to meet the 2003 Parks Master Plan standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. (West Sacramento 2016a:3.15-7) The GP 2035 EIR concludes that development consistent with GP 2035 would not result in population increases such that a substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur. Because the 2003 Parks Master Plan requires the City to provide 5 acres of parks for every 1,000 residents, sufficient parkland would be provided so that deterioration of existing facilities would not be accelerated. The GP 2035 EIR notes that new recreational facilities would be constructed as part of the implementation of GP 2035. Construction of new facilities could result in environmental effects, but implementation of mitigation measures discussed throughout the GP 2035 EIR would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Applicable mitigation measures include Mitigation Measures BIO-6, CUL-2, CUL-3, and WQ-3.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect, existing or future recreational facilities. Further, no recreational facilities would be directly affected as a result of implementation of the proposed project. However, construction activities could temporarily impede access to recreational uses if construction would take place near recreational facilities. However, GP 2035 policies and mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to recreational facilities and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Transportation and Traffic
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.6 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Transportation/Traffic,” describes the planning area in terms of the street and road system, traffic conditions, the bicycle and pedestrian system, and public transit (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. West Sacramento includes a variety of roadway types, including local, collector, and arterial roads as well as freeways. The GP 2035 EIR identifies road segments and 562
Attachment 4
intersections that were operating at unacceptable level of service (LOS) at the time of preparation of the GP 2035 EIR (see Table 3.16-5 of the GP 2035 EIR). West Sacramento streets serve as the connection for bicycle traffic between the cities of Sacramento and Davis. West Capitol Avenue provides the direct connection from the bicycle path across the Yolo Causeway to the Tower Bridge. West Sacramento is served by a combination of local and regional bus, rail, and air transportation providers, including YOLOBUS, Sacramento Regional Transit bus and light rail, Amtrak, and the Sacramento International Airport.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to deterioration of LOS on freeway ramps and segments because projects can pay into the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program (SCMP). Caltrans agrees that payment of the SCMP fee would adequately mitigation a project’s impact on the state highway system. Additionally, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would not have significant effects related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities, public transit, or air traffic.

The GP 2035 EIR concludes that implementation of GP 2035 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to deterioration of LOS at intersections and arterial and collector roads due to traffic volumes. The analysis noted that construction of additional lanes could provide adequate capacity, but that such expansion would not be appropriate for residential streets. The analysis also noted that while some roadways may exceed maximum desirable volume, it does not necessarily also mean an exceedance of acceptable LOS standards.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a 0.44 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect, existing or future traffic patterns or volumes. However, certain activities identified within the proposed project could result in construction activities that could temporarily interfere with roadway operations (i.e., temporary road/lane closures). GP 2035 policies and City requirements would reduce impacts associated with these project-related activities/improvements, consistent with the conclusions of the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to transportation/traffic and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required.

Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Setting
Consistent with requirements established by the passage of AB 52, which establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American Tribes for certain projects subject to CEQA, the GP 2035 EIR included an evaluation of potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, including consultation with interested tribes, as part of its analysis. That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below. The GP 2035 EIR notes that project-level review would be required for all future projects, and that future projects would be consistent with GP 2035 and would comply with all state and local laws regarding cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. However, because the impacts of individual future projects cannot guarantee that tribal cultural resources would not be adversely affected, the GP 2035 EIR concludes that impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Impacts CUL2 and CUL-3). Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 dictate procedures to be implemented, including the treatment of resources, in the event of discovery, but would not reduce the impact to less-than-significant 563
Attachment 4
levels. Thus, all impacts from the 2035 GP EIR that addressed tribal cultural resources were concluded to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact Analysis
Certain activities identified within the proposed project, especially those that may involve the disturbance of previously undisturbed soils, could result in the construction activities that could result in discovery of previously unknown tribal cultural resources. Should any such resources be discovered, Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 would be implemented, consistent with the impact discussions provided in the GP 2035 EIR. Mitigation Measures CU-2 and CU-3 identified in the GP 2035 EIR would similarly reduce impacts associated with implementation of the MPs but would not preclude potentially significant sitespecific impacts, consistent with impact determinations made in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to tribal cultural resources and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Utilities and Service Systems
Setting
The “Existing Conditions” discussion in Section 3.17 of the GP 2035 EIR, “Utilities and Service Systems,” describes the planning area in terms of wastewater, water, stormwater, and solid waste, and levels of service to meet the needs of existing and future development (West Sacramento 2016a). That discussion is hereby incorporated by reference and summarized below.

Wastewater Treatment
The City is responsible for collection and conveyance of wastewater in the planning area, and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) is responsible for its treatment and disposal.

The connection of the City’s wastewater collection system to the SRSCD system is via the 19-mile Lower Northwest Interceptor (LNWI) at the West Sacramento Transition Structure next to the Parlin Ranch subdivision in Southport. Wastewater is conveyed through a 120-inch-diameter gravity pipe to the South River Pump Station and then pumped under the Sacramento River in a force main to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP), north of Elk Grove. The GP 2035 EIR concludes that the potential for exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board was unlikely because: (1) the City’s wastewater collection system is connected to the SCRSD via the LNWI and all wastewater is treated at the SCRSD facility in Elk Grove; (2) GP 2035 includes policies to maintain, upgrade, and expand its wastewater collection system (Policies PFS-3.3, -

3.4, and -3.5) and would establish an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) under GP 2035 to provide financing for public capital facilities and other projects that provide significant benefits to the City; and (3) the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board would set the specific waste discharge requirements for any new or expanded wastewater treatment facility as part of its permit for that facility because future wastewater treatment facilities would be required by law to operate in compliance with any and all requirements of the Central Valley Water Board permits. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that the projected population increase in the planning area would increase wastewater treatment demand on the SRWTP. However, SRSCD would not need to increase the capacity of the SRWTP before 2035 because the 2003 Wastewater Master Plan and 2003 Southport Sanitary Sewer Master Plan projections were based on a population exceeding the current 2035 population projection of 81,480. And with the installation of water meters and adoption of water 564
Attachment 4
conservation mandates, SRCSD projects that per capita consumption will fall by approximately 25 percent over the next 20+ years, and that the existing capacity of the SRWTP will be sufficient for the next 40+ years. GP 2035 also contains goals and policies that would reduce the amount of wastewater generated and mitigate impacts on existing service (Goal PFS-1 and Policy PFS-1.1; Goal PFS-3 and Policies PFS-3.1 and -3.2). For these reasons, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

Water
The planning area is served by diversions from the Sacramento River in accordance with the City’s appropriative right with the state as well as water available under contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The combined maximum available water supply from these sources is 23,600 af per year (AFY) in an average year. Most of the planning area is served by North Delta Water Agency (NDWA). The City intends to provide groundwater as a backup supply with sufficient capacity to meet the demands of the northern portion West Sacramento outside the NDWA’s boundary.

The GP 2035 EIR notes that the existing water treatment plant has adequate treatment capacity and would not require expansion because the plant has an existing treatment capacity of 58 mgd. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projected an increase in potable water demands based on buildout condition to 52 mgd, and the 2015 UWMP, which was finalized just prior to certification of the GP 2035 EIR, projected a maximum demand of 54.3 mgd. The GP 2035 EIR also concludes that the Water System MP update, would establish the infrastructure necessary to provide the storage and transmission facilities to serve future development within the City. GP 2035 goals and policies (Goal PFS2 and Policies PFS-2.3, -2.4, -2.6, and -2.8) would ensure an adequate level of service in the City's water system is maintained to meet the needs of existing and future development while improving water system efficiency. Therefore, this impact was determined to be less than significant.

As noted in the GP 2035 EIR, water demand in the planning area would increase as a result of population growth through implementation of GP 2035. The 2010 UWMP identifies a water demand of 13,107 AFY in 2010 and estimates 2035 demand to increase to 23,920 AFY. However, due to uncertainties about the reliability of the water supply from the NDWA under all conditions, it is possible that water supplies would not be sufficient to meet the increased demand. Accordingly, this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable in the GP 2035 EIR.

For the area outside the NDWA (i.e., that area served by the City’s appropriative right and Reclamation), water demand is estimated to reach 2.9 mgd, or 3,248 AFY. Historic water supply in this area, even during the Single Dry Year, has been more than 5,900 AFY. Accordingly, the increased demand would not exceed the available water supply. In addition, the City’s existing groundwater well and the planned new well in the Southport area would supply additional water in an emergency. Consequently, the water supply outside of the NDWA service area would be sufficient to meet the increased demand and the impact was determined to be less than significant,
Stormwater
Stormwater is managed in West Sacramento primarily by Reclamation District (RD) 900 and the City and to a smaller extent by RD 537. Stormwater facilities have typically been constructed and paid for in association with new development and, with a few exceptions, are generally in good condition. The City’s storm water system discharge is permitted under a state-approved Stormwater Management Plan, which includes measures to control and reduce the potential for pollutants to enter the storm drain system and addresses stormwater from new development and redevelopment projects. For the purpose of addressing planned development in the Southport area, the Southport Drainage Master Plan was adopted in 1995. This document was updated in 2001 to address changes in the Southport Framework Land Use Plan and develop drainage impact fees on new development. Currently, the City does not have a drainage master plan for the rest of the planning area. The GP 2035 EIR notes that new or expanded 565
Attachment 4
stormwater drainage facilities would be necessary for buildout of development under GP 2035. The City would be required to comply with the requirements of its state-approved Stormwater Management Plan and GP 2035 goals and policies (Goal PFS-4 and Policy PFS-4.1 through PFS-4.11) to maintain an adequate level of service and prepare a citywide Stormwater MP. In addition, the City has developed Post-Construction Standards Plans that include volumetric and flow criteria that must be met by site design and hydromodification measures using the California Stormwater Quality Association guidelines and would be applicable to all significant redevelopments and new developments. With these measures in place, new facilities that must be built to accommodate redevelopment and new development are not expected to significantly affect existing drainage facilities. Nonetheless due to uncertainties about facility location and sizing, this impact was considered significant and unavoidable.

Solid Waste
For solid waste disposal, the planning area is served by Yolo County Central Landfill. The GP 2035 EIR notes that the Yolo County Central Landfill is expected to have adequate capacity until at least 2045. In addition, AB 341 requires the waste stream going to landfills to be reduced by 75 percent statewide and CalRecycle would implement strategies to meet this statutory goal through state-level measures and requirements. The County operates the Yolo County Central Landfill and is required by the conditions of its permit from CalRecycle to operate in accordance with state laws and regulations. In addition, GP 2035 includes goal and policies (Goal PFS-5 and Policy PFS-5.3 through PFS-5.15) to minimize the generation of waste, increase recycling, and provide for the collection and disposal of solid waste. The impact was considered less than significant.

Impact Analysis
The proposed project would primarily involve the creation of 106 single family lots, a ±0.43 acre park site, resident comment area, private dog park, and garden area, the creation of which would not substantially affect, utilities and service systems beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR. None of the actions or capacity increases that would result from the project would result in population growth or development beyond what was projected in the GP 2035 EIR.

The potential environmental impacts related to utilities and service systems and associated with the proposed project is within the scope of the GP 2035 EIR, and no additional CEQA documentation is required. Further, pursuant to Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would otherwise necessitate subsequent/supplemental environmental analysis.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis presented above, the proposed Blackpine 440 West LLC’s development Agreement is within the scope of the EIR prepared for the West Sacramento 2016 General Plan Update, and no new or substantially more adverse impacts would occur through implementation of the proposed project. As a result, no new environmental document is required, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (c)(2).
566
Attachment 4
References
West Sacramento, City of. 2016a. General Plan Update – Draft Environmental Impact Report. August.

West Sacramento, City of. 2016b. General Plan 2035 Policy Document. November.

Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2015. Yolo Habitat Conservancy, About. Available:
http://www.yolohabitatconservancy.org/#!about/cjg9. Accessed April 3, 2017. 567

were not]
was not]

2. _______________________________________
_________________________________________ _______________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Print Form
Notice of Determination Appendix D
To: From:

Office of Planning and Research Public Agency: ___________________________ U.S. Mail: Address: ________________________________
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
Street Address:
1400 Tenth St., Rm 113
Sacramento, CA 95814
_______________________________________
Contact: _________________________________
Phone: __________________________________
County Clerk
Lead Agency (if different from above): County of: _________________________________ Address: __________________________________ Address: ________________________________ Contact: _________________________________
Phone: __________________________________
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.

State Clearinghouse Number (if submitted to State Clearinghouse):______________________________ Project Title: _________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: _____________________________________________________________________ Project Location (include county):_________________________________________________________ Project Description:

This is to advise that the ____________________________________________ has approved the above ( Lead Agency or Responsible Agency)
described project on _______________ and has made the following determinations regarding the above (date)
described project.

1. The project [ will will not] have a significant effect on the environment.

2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. Mitigation measures [ were made a condition of the approval of the project.

4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan [ was was not] adopted for this project.

5. A statement of Overriding Considerations [ was adopted for this project.

6. Findings [ were were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval, or the negative Declaration, is available to the General Public at:

Signature (Public Agency): _____________________________ Title: ____________________________ Date: _______________________________ Date Received for filing at OPR: ____________________ Authority cited: Sections 21083, Public Resources Code.

Reference Section 21000-21174, Public Resources Code. Revised 2011 Attachment 5
568
569

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2023 ITEM # 14
SUBJECT:

WORKSHOP ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS AND CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 24-4 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.18

RELATED TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[X] Council [ ] Staff
[ ] Other
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
City Manager’s Office
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to provide information about changes to campaign contribution limits under Senate Bill (SB) 1439 and to request that the Council consider first reading of Ordinance 24-4, which would amend Chapter 2.18 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code to update the campaign contribution limitations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:

1. Receive staff’s presentation on campaign contribution limits under SB 1439 and amending the City’s campaign contribution limit ordinance; and

2. Waive the first reading of Ordinance 24-4 amending Municipal Code Chapter 2.18 related to campaign contributions.

BACKGROUND
In 1993, the City Council enacted the City’s first local campaign contribution limitation requirements, Chapter

2.18 of the Municipal Code, in an effort to attain equal ground for local elections and to ensure that contributions made by any one donor did not materially influence the outcome of an election. In 2002, the City Council revised these provisions and approved several amendments including the addition of enforcement language, restrictions on contributions to Independent Expenditure Committees and Ballott Measure Committees, and a mechanism to “trigger” an increase to the $250 limit to $500 for candidates under specific circumstances. The campaign contribution limit increases from $250 to $500 when a candidate contributes more than $2,500 to their campaign during an election cycle.

As a result of evolving case law surrounding campaign contribution limits, multiple revisions have been made to the Code since 2002. The limits are no longer applicable to contributions to Independent Expenditure Committees and Ballot Measure Committees, late contributions have been redefined, and asymmetrical limits for candidates are no longer allowed. What has remained, however, is the “trigger” that increases the $250 limit to $500 for all candidates under certain circumstances. This portion of the Code has consistently generated the most confusion and reporting errors on the part of candidates and their treasurers. With the adoption of Council districts, the “trigger” increases the level of confusion and complication.

At the February 19, 2020, City Council meeting, the Council received a presentation regarding campaign contribution limits and miscellaneous additional regulations.

Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, efforts to implementing the staff recommendation was paused.

In 2022, the California Legislature passed SB 1439, amending Section 84308 of the Political Reform Act which broadened the scope of the statute by applying the statute’s restrictions to agencies whose members are elected by voters. The changes took effect on January 1, 2023.

Section 84308 prohibits certain officials from taking part in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use if the official has received a contribution exceeding $250 from a party or participant in the proceeding withing the preceding 12 months. An official is also prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a contribution exceeding $250 from a party or participant in the proceeding for a certain period of time after a final decision is rendered in such a proceeding.
570
Ordinance 24-4
December 6, 2023

ANALYSIS
The City Attorney and City staff have reviewed the current Municipal Code Chapter 2.18 and SB 1439, Section 84308. The action being recommended is outlined below and in the attached Draft Ordinance 24-4.

1. Eliminate the condition triggering an increase of the $250 limit to $500: Staff recommends that the limit should remain constant during an election cycle, regardless of the amount (or whether) a candidate contributes more than $2500 to their own campaign from their personal funds during an election cycle.

There have been ten elections since the trigger was implemented in 2002 and in each one the increased contribution limit has been triggered, with the exception of 2004 and 2008. Additionally, although staff have not kept statistics on the number of questions or errors related to the limit and reporting requirements over time, from an anecdotal standpoint these issues have arisen frequently and eliminating the trigger will help mitigate those issues.

2. Establish a campaign contribution limit. Staff is seeking Council direction regarding limits to campaign contributions and recommends that the campaign contribution limit be set to either $250 or $500. A contribution limit of $250 would eliminate the need for officials to track the parties or participants making contributions to campaigns involved in certain decisions that come before the Council. A contribution limit of $500 would require candidates to abide by the rules set by SB 1439.

Draft Ordinance 24-4 is currently drafted to revise Chapter 2.18 to raise the local contribution limit to $500 and eliminate the initial $250 cap, and therefore, eliminating the trigger to raise the contribution limit when a candidate contributes more than $2500 to their own campaign from their personal funds during an election cycle.

Environmental Considerations
N/A
Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
N/A
Alternatives
Draft Ordinance 24-4 is currently drafted to revise Chapter 2.18 to raise the local contribution limit to $500 and eliminate the initial $250 cap, and therefore, eliminating the trigger to raise the contribution limit when a candidate contributes more than $2500 to their own campaign from their personal funds during an election cycle.

Alternatives to amend Chapter 2.18 include:
1) Status Quo: Retain the existing two-tier campaign contribution limit system with the “trigger.” 2) Make the local contribution limit $250, with no “trigger” to increase the limit.

Coordination and Review
This report was coordinated with the City Attorney.

Budget/Cost Impact
N/A

ATTACHMENT

1. Ordinance 24-4 - redline
571
ORDINANCE 24-4

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS
The City Council of the City of West Sacramento does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Purpose and Authority. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Chapter

2.18 of the Municipal Code related to campaign contribution limitations. The City Council enacts this Ordinance in accordance with the authority granted to cities by state law.

Section 2. Amendment of Chapter.
“Chapter 2.18 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:” Sections:

2.18.010 Title.

2.18.020 Findings.

2.18.030 Purpose and intent.

2.18.040 Definitions.

2.18.050 Contribution limitations.

2.18.070 Making and acceptance of a contribution.

2.18.080 Aggregation of contributions.

2.18.090 Contributions by spouses and children.

2.18.100 Contributions by spouse, children or family members of candidate.

2.18.110 Effective date of contribution limitations.

2.18.120 Application of state laws.

2.18.130 Enforcement.

2.18.010 Title.

This chapter may be cited as the “Campaign Contribution Limits Code” of the city of West Sacramento. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)

2.18.020 Findings.

The city council of the city of West Sacramento finds and declares as follows:

A. The policy of this city is to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Local government should serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.

B. Monetary contributions to political campaigns are a legitimate form of participation in the political process, but the financial strength of certain individuals or organizations should not permit them to exercise a disproportionate or controlling influence on the election of candidates for municipal office.

C. The increasing amounts of expenditures in political campaigns have forced many candidates for elective office to raise larger and larger sums from individuals or interest groups with a specific financial stake in city matters. This can cause a public perception that the decisions of the mayor and city council members are being improperly influenced by monetary contributions. These perceptions can undermine the credibility of the mayor and city council and the elective and governmental processes.
572
Ordinance 23-11